[pure-silver] Re: Metering 135 vs 120

Janet you didn't think of it because it was simple and often the simple things 
are the easiest to overlook.

Reminds me of an old story my dad told me when we crossed a low bridge years 
and years ago.  He was stuck behind this truck that was just a little bit too 
tall to fit under the bridge.  It was less than an inch too high, but an inch 
was as good as a mile.

Thing is there was no where for the truck to turn around. It was stuck and even 
if it could turn around the alternate route would have added many many hours to 
the trip.  People caught in the jam up started coming up with ideas to get the 
truck down just that little bit.  It took a drunk that happened to be passing 
by to come up with the answer.  My dad was laughing when the guy staggered up 
to the truck, looked up at the bridge, swung around to look at the side of the 
truck hanging on to the front fender to keep from falling, then said "Let some 
air out of the tires and it will go right through."

They did, and it worked.  The trucker gave the drunk another half pint of booze 
and everyone was happy. Just a few miles down the road, a stop at a gas station 
and the air was put back in the tires.   It was so simple it was easy to 
overlook.  In photography I have found the best solutions are really often the 
simple ones, but they are often hard to catch.

Now I guess that makes me the drunk in this case, but its too bad you can't 
mail booze.  Oh well.  Let us know if you find some major differences.  You 
have my curiosity up now.


--- On Wed, 8/27/08, Janet Cull <jcull@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

> From: Janet Cull <jcull@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> Subject: [pure-silver] Re: Metering 135 vs 120
> To: pure-silver@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Date: Wednesday, August 27, 2008, 12:45 PM
> Mark,  Thanks for taking the time to answer.  I will try the
> two  
> meters, testing one against the other.  I don't know
> why I didn't  
> think of that.  I did have the shutter tested on both my
> Zeiss lenses  
> and they're fine.  Thanks again.
> 
> Janet
> 
> 
> On Aug 26, 2008, at 10:48 PM, Mark Blackwell wrote:
> 
> > I use a Minolta IVF I believe and it has an adjustment
> buried in  
> > the back so a tech could make the adjustments IIRC.
> >
> > Mine can be either a reflective or incident light
> meter, but to be  
> > a reflective meter it requires an additional
> attachment.  Unless  
> > you are using the extra attachment that makes it a
> spot meter, then  
> > its a incident meter and that introduces a number of
> issues.
> >
> > Let me suggest a couple of tests.  Richard please
> chime in here if  
> > you see some things that would help.
> >
> > First is if you can do it on a bright sunny day it
> would be best.   
> > Why?  With that bright sunny day you have the sunny 16
> rule to keep  
> > you close.  If you have a big difference between the
> meters, on a  
> > bright sunny day the most likely one to be reading
> properly is the  
> > one closest to the sunny 16.  Without that all you
> have is two  
> > different meter readings.
> >
> > Second compare the readings with the in external meter
> and the  
> > reading of the in camera with the camera pointed at a
> gray card  
> > with the full frame covered by the card.  If the
> meters readings  
> > are close, it likely isn't the meters unless there
> is a drastic  
> > difference between what they read and the sunny 16. 
> If you find a  
> > problem, Id probably just take them both to the shop. 
> At that  
> > point the tech can tell you not only that they are off
> and by how  
> > much.  If they can't correct the problem with an
> in camera  
> > adjustment, you can compensate for the difference
> yourself.
> >
> > I ran into this a few years ago and found another way
> to foul up. I  
> > had been doing a lot of 35 mm with in camera metering,
> then moved  
> > to one that had an external meter.  I stuck a filter
> on the lens  
> > and forgot to compensate for the filter factor.  Then
> it took me a  
> > while to figure out why I had thin negatives.  Very
> very unlikely  
> > in your particular situation, but something to check
> if others  
> > happen to run into this type of thing somewhere down
> the line.
> >
> > One other possibility is that the problem isn't in
> the metering,  
> > but in the shutter.  A slow shutter is more common, in
> that time  
> > and use tends to make springs less effective and junk
> ect and all  
> > sorts of things that happen via normal use can slow
> the shutter  
> > down, particularly at slow shutter speeds.  I have
> heard of a  
> > shutter getting hung up at a higher speed than the
> dial would  
> > show.  It would let you move the dial to 1/125th of a
> second, but  
> > the mechanics were stuck on 1/250th.  If the shutter
> is electronic  
> > it would be highly unlikely.  I guess it might still
> drag, but the  
> > electronics eliminate a lot of mechanical things that
> can go wrong.
> >
> > My old 4x5 shutter is about a stop slow at slower
> speeds.  As the  
> > speed increase the drag drops off so there really
> isn't much of an  
> > effect the way I play with the camera.  To fix it
> would cost way  
> > more than the camera is worth.  I just adapt.
> >
> > Now if you find that all that checks out, then Id use
> what ever  
> > processing you need to get what you are looking for in
> a negative.
> >
> > --- On Tue, 8/26/08, Richard Knoppow
> <dickburk@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >
> >> From: Richard Knoppow
> <dickburk@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> >> Subject: [pure-silver] Re: Metering 135 vs 120
> >> To: pure-silver@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
> >> Date: Tuesday, August 26, 2008, 5:34 PM
> >> ----- Original Message -----
> >> From: <eroustom@xxxxxxxxxxx>
> >> To: <pure-silver@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> >> Sent: Tuesday, August 26, 2008 3:14 PM
> >> Subject: [pure-silver] Metering 135 vs 120
> >>
> >>
> >>>> There is for me.  I'm assuming
> it's a
> >> difference in
> >>>> metering.  My 35s
> >>>> have built in meters while I use a Minolta
> IVF for
> >> the
> >>>> mf.  The
> >>>> exposures seem to be very different so I
> always
> >> have to
> >>>> add
> >>>> developing time for my 120 film.  I shoot
> TMax
> >> (finishing
> >>>> off some
> >>>> old film) and TriX.
> >>>
> >>> That's an interesting problem. Why not
> chase down
> >> the
> >>> metering issue, and leave a variable out of
> >> processing?
> >>>
> >>> Your minolta is an ambient light meter (I
> think), and
> >> your
> >>> camera's TTL meter is an incident meter?
> >>>
> >>> I've noticed some situations that have
> given me
> >> readings
> >>> two stops off from each other when using my
> handheld
> >> meter
> >>> against the TTL in my Canon bodies. But I
> assume
> >> it's how
> >>> I'm using the meter(s), so I work to find
> the same
> >>
> >>> reading, or try to reason out why that's
> >> happening.
> >>> Sometimes the lens (I use a 24, a 35, a 50, or
> 100)
> >> brings
> >>> in less or more light to the TTL meter at the
> back -
> >> or so
> >>> it seems - or they average differently,
> whereas the
> >>> handheld meter has no lens in front of it.
> >>>
> >>> But an exposure value for Zone V, or 18% gray,
> for a a
> >>
> >>> given ISO should be the same from meter to
> meter, no?
> >>>
> >>> Can anyone more experienced chime in on this?
> >>>
> >>> Elias
> >>>
> >>>
> >>     Some meters seem to be calibrated for 12% mid
> gray. In
> >> general, however, a reflected light meter should
> read the
> >> same from an evenly illuminated 18% gray card that
> fills
> >> its
> >> field of view as an incident light meter reading
> the
> >> illumination. There are some variations on this,
> for
> >> instance, my ancient Weston Master II does not
> agree with
> >> either my Luna Pro or with a Sekonic Studio Deluxe
> (Norwood
> >>
> >> pattern) meter. This is with the correct
> equivalent Weston
> >> speed set. I've come to the conclusion that
> either
> >> Weston
> >> included a fudge factor in its speeds or that the
> >> calculator
> >> is set up for some other reflectance for the
> pointer value
> >> than 18%. In any case, I get the identical
> readings when
> >> the
> >> Weston speed is set for about half of the speed
> translated
> >> from ISO speeds. I have a second Weston meter of a
> >> different
> >> type which shares this characteristic. My old GE
> meter
> >> agrees with the two more modern meters. To be
> clear, the
> >> Luna Pro and Sekonic agree exactly for both
> incident and
> >> reflected light.
> >>
> >> ---
> >> Richard Knoppow
> >> Los Angeles, CA, USA
> >> dickburk@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
> >>
> >>
> =====================================================================
> 
> >> ========================================
> >> To unsubscribe from this list, go to
> www.freelists.org and
> >> logon to your account (the same e-mail address and
> password
> >> you set-up when you subscribed,) and unsubscribe
> from there.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> ======================================================================
> 
> > =======================================
> > To unsubscribe from this list, go to www.freelists.org
> and logon to  
> > your account (the same e-mail address and password you
> set-up when  
> > you subscribed,) and unsubscribe from there.
> 
> =============================================================================================================
> To unsubscribe from this list, go to www.freelists.org and
> logon to your account (the same e-mail address and password
> you set-up when you subscribed,) and unsubscribe from there.


      
=============================================================================================================
To unsubscribe from this list, go to www.freelists.org and logon to your 
account (the same e-mail address and password you set-up when you subscribed,) 
and unsubscribe from there.

Other related posts: