Gracias Manny! Cool; they are good meters. They are a product of their time. That's what, in my opinion, makes them just a bit harder to use today. Not a big deal if you don't mind doing some simple math.
I have had a Sekonic-308 B for 24 years now, I bought it for $250. in my case, there is only 180 degrees for the shutter angle, but I don’t use this function, just for shutter speed, for example, on K-3 at 24 fps I set it to 1/60, but if I use Canon 518, which has 1/40, you have to make an adjustment when setting ISO to 1/3, since shutter speeds are also limited to one step
Yeah, you can use pretty much any meter with movie cameras you just have to think more. If you only shoot with one camera is not a big deal. If you use several cameras or if you need to work in fast paced environments a meter with more options makes more sense..
I'd still like to know how you WOULD meter that mountain (or any landscape)? The reflected (or spot) meter will measure too small a part of the scene, and the incident meter will not be accurate. So how would you figure out the exposure?
I'll try to answer your question without writing an essay, but there are no short answers for this kind of stuff. Having a light meter that can measure one degree is actually very useful. It allows you to put extremely accurate exposures. If we take a landscape as an example, what you have to do is analyze the scene and imagine how you want the picture to look. Let's say you have a green valley with cows, a defined horizon, a mountain with some snow on the top, and the sky in the background with nice clouds on top. If you are facing the scene and the sun is behind you, the light would be flat, so you could use the incident meter (assuming that the light is similar) and you would have correct exposure. But if you want to use the spot meter, you could take a reading of something that looks middle gray to you (brightness not color). You could take a reading of the grass or a cow that is neither white nor black, or you could just take a reading of the mountain and you would get a picture that is going to have "proper" exposure. That would be like taking a picture using the auto mode of a camera or just doing what the internal meter tells you to do. There is nothing wrong with that if you are a beginner or if you just want to have fun and not complicate things, but if you want better results, you should analyze the scene and imagine how you want the image to look. Exposure allows you not only to get a specific look, but to get technically good results. For example, it's common to hear people say that they expose "for the shadows" when they shoot film because it's almost impossible to get detail once the film is exposed or because they want less grain. Some others say they want to protect the highlights when they shoot digital. That's because once you lose detail, you can't recover it, and blown-out highlights look ugly in digital images. In those cases, a reflected meter would allow you to base your exposure on a very specific area (shadows or highlights). You are not limited to available light. You can use a flash, a light or a reflector to manipulate the image. The meter is very useful when you need to know how much light you can add or remove. Back to the mountain... Time has elapsed, and now the sun is setting behind the mountain. There is much more contrast between the green grass (now darker) and the bright sky behind the mountain. Now you have to decide what you want to do. Let's say you want detail in those beautiful clouds and you want to silhouette the mountain. You take a reading of the clouds, and in my case I would compensate by 2 f-stops (based on the media and experience). That would allow me to have detail in the sunset and the clouds, but the mountain would be just a silhouette. Now let's say you want to have detail in the foreground. There is a lot of contrast in the scene. You may decide to expose "for the shadows" and get detail in the grass and the cows, but you would lose detail in the sky. You decide that you don't care about the sky because the house in the foreground is what is important. You find something that looks gray (tone, not color), meaning not as bright as white and not as dark as black. Take a reading with your reflected meter, and you have detail in the shadows, but you lost the sky... But the reflected meter is a great and precise measuring tool, remember? So you take a reading of the sky, see what's the difference in exposure, put a graded ND filter, in front of the lens and now you have detail in the entire picture. You didn't just use any filter; you used the one that you needed to have "proper" exposure in the sky based on the info that you got from the meter. Another solution could be to "average" the exposure. I see this as a mediocre solution, but that's what cameras do. That means you can take readings of the dark and bright areas, and you put your exposure in the middle. Now let's say that you have the same scene, but you are going to use a telephoto lens, and you want to make sure you have detail in the snow that is on the peak of the mountain. You take a reading with your reflected meter, open up the lens two stops (my preference), and when you zoom in on the picture, you can see the texture. Or you want to take a picture of a neon sign on top of a building surrounded by nothing but the dark night. If you use a camera to measure that scene, the darkness of the sky would fool the meter. Then the camera would say, "This is way too dark; I need a lot of light! Open up the iris, boost the ISO, or reduce the shutter speed! Do something" and the neon sign would be a mess with no detail at all. But you have your meter with a one-degree area, so you take a measurement of the tubes completely ignoring the sky, compensate by two stops, and get perfect exposure. You zoom in on the image, and you can see the filament inside the bulbs. I don't always look for middle gray. Some times I see something completely white or completely black in the scene. I take a measurement of the white object and open up 2 stops. If the object that I measured is black I compensate by 2 stops to make the image darker since reflected meters want to do everything middle gray. I know from experience that 2 stops give me a bright image with a lot of detail (if I measured something white). Some examples are snow, bright clouds with detail, rice, sand. If I take a piece of white paper as reference I compensate by 3 stops. That gives me a very bright piece of paper in the image. If I want to see something written on the paper I compensate only by 2 stops and I end up with a white piece of paper with detail. The opposite applies for black. You don't just point the meter towards the scene and get proper exposure. You have to decide what you want to do. Then you measure that area and take your decision based on how you want the image to look. Some times you don't have enough light, but you can see (using the meter) that your image is going to be underexposed by one or two stops and you say "I'm fine with that" I used the light meter on this video, and in some cases you can see the picture that I took. You can see how I apply some of the principles that I mentioned here and how the pictures look more interesting because I'm not just averaging the exposure. That's my opinion: th-cam.com/video/x_tDocHQmxs/w-d-xo.html&ab_channel=TheCinematographyLab I used to think cinematographers or professional photographers didn't want to share their knowledge, but now I see how difficult it is to explain these topics not only because they are complex, but also because decisions are our interpretation based on knowledge and experience. If you want to learn more, I recommend studying the zone system. Also read as many articles as you can about light meters and exposure. There is a young guy who has a great TH-cam channel; his name is Robert Machado. I don't know anyone who understands and explains light meters better than him. Watch his videos (2), and my examples will make more sense.
@@TheCinematographyLab Wow, thank you! I really appreciate your taking the time to explain this in depth, and this is what I needed. I’ve struggled to grasp the zone system, but your explanation with examples now makes a lot of sense, and gives a good guideline to start, measuring for a middle tone, highlight, or shadow, depending on what’s most important, and then compensating accordingly on how it’s meant to be presented. Reading your explanation several times, the fundamental concept is sinking in. I’m getting underway shooting with a Bolex, and nailing the exposure is a really important priority on my journey. It’s a complex subject, as you said, and I’m really grateful for your generosity in sharing your knowledge and time!
@billpeet1976 Good to hear the information was useful. I could talk about this for hours, but it's better if you read or learn from people who took the time to do a proper presentation of the info. The zone system is the key. At least you have some information that gives you a place to start. I remember when I was starting it was beyond frustrating. I used to think the meter didn't work or that it needed to be calibrated. I was telling myself stuff (a lot of people do these days) like "I don't need a light meter, we have monitors, histograms, and scopes." The reality is you can put all that information in your brain, then analyze and previsualize a scene just by taking a few readings, and you can tell other people, "The room in the back is going to be properly exposed, the frame of the door in the foreground is going to look dark, but there is going to be enough detail there. The window in the back is going to be bright, 3 stops over the key, but we are going to be able to see the city, and we can bring detail back in post if needed." You can also reverse the process to illuminate a scene: "I want an f4 in the room. The camera is going to be in the hallway, and I want the light 2 stops under so the foreground is darker, but we retain detail. I just took a reading of the window, and it is 4 stops over the key. Let's put a 0.6 ND gel on the glass so we only have a difference of two stops between the key (f4 in this example) and the highlights so we can see the city, or the mountains in the back," or you may say, "We have an ugly alley outside the window and we don't have resources; I'm going to blowout the exposure by 4 stops so we don't see anything through the window." Just some examples of how you can use a meter in a creative way. You can take decisions that change the look of an image from mediocre to interesting. It takes a lot of research and practice. The same principles apply to decent digital cameras, by the way. I use my handheld meter with my Nikon D850 all the time, and I get perfect results. Professional digital cameras are properly adjusted to the ISO standard. I mention that because it's easier and cheaper if you use a digital camera to practice. You can see the results right in the spot, change something, and see what happens. You can apply that info to your Bolex or any other digital or film camera. Also, you can use a digital camera to see how the image is going to look before you take the shot with the Bolex. It's a good idea if you don't feel confident about your exposure. Wasting film is not fun. Just remember that there is a beam splitter in the Bolex. You have to take that into consideration when you are figuring your numbers out.
They work fine and they are accurate. The ones that I have tried gave me measurements pretty close to what the dedicated meter gave me. The problem is you never really know what the meter is doing. How it is gathering light. They are good to a point. When you are ready to run the extra mile and get more precise and consistent measurements and results nothing replaces a good meter.
@@CousinHubertRetrogaming Both incident and reflected are useful and ideal in certain situations. In this video I mentioned that you can use accessories to convert the cheap Sekonic models and the Minolta onto reflected meters. I also mentioned you never know exactly what you area you are measuring. That's the problem I have noticed with apps. They meter reflected light and they tell you what 's the area they are supposedly measuring, but they are not super accurate in that sense. I mean they are apps, they are free in some cases. They work great for what they are. You cannot expect them to do the same as a meter that costs $800. They work fine, especially if you understand how light meters work and you use them properly. I used a light meter app on my old iPhone 6s to shoot a roll of film recently and I got decent results. I talk about that and other things on this video: th-cam.com/video/V2vqzMNgFS0/w-d-xo.html
Awesome video bud! I use a spectra IV A it has served me well for many years.
Gracias Manny! Cool; they are good meters. They are a product of their time. That's what, in my opinion, makes them just a bit harder to use today. Not a big deal if you don't mind doing some simple math.
Minolta flash meter VI from 2002 (sold under the kenko name now) is a great option too, combines a incident and a 1degree spot for around 250$
Thanks for sharing the info. Looks like they have a modern version that sells for $449 now.
I have had a Sekonic-308 B for 24 years now, I bought it for $250.
in my case, there is only 180 degrees for the shutter angle, but I don’t use this function, just for shutter speed, for example, on K-3 at 24 fps I set it to 1/60, but if I use Canon 518, which has 1/40, you have to make an adjustment when setting ISO to 1/3, since shutter speeds are also limited to one step
Yeah, you can use pretty much any meter with movie cameras you just have to think more. If you only shoot with one camera is not a big deal. If you use several cameras or if you need to work in fast paced environments a meter with more options makes more sense..
I'd still like to know how you WOULD meter that mountain (or any landscape)? The reflected (or spot) meter will measure too small a part of the scene, and the incident meter will not be accurate. So how would you figure out the exposure?
I'll try to answer your question without writing an essay, but there are no short answers for this kind of stuff.
Having a light meter that can measure one degree is actually very useful. It allows you to put extremely accurate exposures. If we take a landscape as an example, what you have to do is analyze the scene and imagine how you want the picture to look. Let's say you have a green valley with cows, a defined horizon, a mountain with some snow on the top, and the sky in the background with nice clouds on top.
If you are facing the scene and the sun is behind you, the light would be flat, so you could use the incident meter (assuming that the light is similar) and you would have correct exposure. But if you want to use the spot meter, you could take a reading of something that looks middle gray to you (brightness not color). You could take a reading of the grass or a cow that is neither white nor black, or you could just take a reading of the mountain and you would get a picture that is going to have "proper" exposure. That would be like taking a picture using the auto mode of a camera or just doing what the internal meter tells you to do.
There is nothing wrong with that if you are a beginner or if you just want to have fun and not complicate things, but if you want better results, you should analyze the scene and imagine how you want the image to look.
Exposure allows you not only to get a specific look, but to get technically good results. For example, it's common to hear people say that they expose "for the shadows" when they shoot film because it's almost impossible to get detail once the film is exposed or because they want less grain. Some others say they want to protect the highlights when they shoot digital. That's because once you lose detail, you can't recover it, and blown-out highlights look ugly in digital images. In those cases, a reflected meter would allow you to base your exposure on a very specific area (shadows or highlights). You are not limited to available light. You can use a flash, a light or a reflector to manipulate the image. The meter is very useful when you need to know how much light you can add or remove.
Back to the mountain... Time has elapsed, and now the sun is setting behind the mountain. There is much more contrast between the green grass (now darker) and the bright sky behind the mountain. Now you have to decide what you want to do. Let's say you want detail in those beautiful clouds and you want to silhouette the mountain. You take a reading of the clouds, and in my case I would compensate by 2 f-stops (based on the media and experience). That would allow me to have detail in the sunset and the clouds, but the mountain would be just a silhouette.
Now let's say you want to have detail in the foreground. There is a lot of contrast in the scene. You may decide to expose "for the shadows" and get detail in the grass and the cows, but you would lose detail in the sky. You decide that you don't care about the sky because the house in the foreground is what is important. You find something that looks gray (tone, not color), meaning not as bright as white and not as dark as black. Take a reading with your reflected meter, and you have detail in the shadows, but you lost the sky... But the reflected meter is a great and precise measuring tool, remember? So you take a reading of the sky, see what's the difference in exposure, put a graded ND filter, in front of the lens and now you have detail in the entire picture. You didn't just use any filter; you used the one that you needed to have "proper" exposure in the sky based on the info that you got from the meter.
Another solution could be to "average" the exposure. I see this as a mediocre solution, but that's what cameras do. That means you can take readings of the dark and bright areas, and you put your exposure in the middle.
Now let's say that you have the same scene, but you are going to use a telephoto lens, and you want to make sure you have detail in the snow that is on the peak of the mountain. You take a reading with your reflected meter, open up the lens two stops (my preference), and when you zoom in on the picture, you can see the texture. Or you want to take a picture of a neon sign on top of a building surrounded by nothing but the dark night. If you use a camera to measure that scene, the darkness of the sky would fool the meter. Then the camera would say, "This is way too dark; I need a lot of light! Open up the iris, boost the ISO, or reduce the shutter speed! Do something" and the neon sign would be a mess with no detail at all. But you have your meter with a one-degree area, so you take a measurement of the tubes completely ignoring the sky, compensate by two stops, and get perfect exposure. You zoom in on the image, and you can see the filament inside the bulbs.
I don't always look for middle gray. Some times I see something completely white or completely black in the scene. I take a measurement of the white object and open up 2 stops. If the object that I measured is black I compensate by 2 stops to make the image darker since reflected meters want to do everything middle gray. I know from experience that 2 stops give me a bright image with a lot of detail (if I measured something white). Some examples are snow, bright clouds with detail, rice, sand. If I take a piece of white paper as reference I compensate by 3 stops. That gives me a very bright piece of paper in the image. If I want to see something written on the paper I compensate only by 2 stops and I end up with a white piece of paper with detail. The opposite applies for black.
You don't just point the meter towards the scene and get proper exposure. You have to decide what you want to do. Then you measure that area and take your decision based on how you want the image to look. Some times you don't have enough light, but you can see (using the meter) that your image is going to be underexposed by one or two stops and you say "I'm fine with that"
I used the light meter on this video, and in some cases you can see the picture that I took. You can see how I apply some of the principles that I mentioned here and how the pictures look more interesting because I'm not just averaging the exposure. That's my opinion:
th-cam.com/video/x_tDocHQmxs/w-d-xo.html&ab_channel=TheCinematographyLab
I used to think cinematographers or professional photographers didn't want to share their knowledge, but now I see how difficult it is to explain these topics not only because they are complex, but also because decisions are our interpretation based on knowledge and experience.
If you want to learn more, I recommend studying the zone system. Also read as many articles as you can about light meters and exposure. There is a young guy who has a great TH-cam channel; his name is Robert Machado. I don't know anyone who understands and explains light meters better than him. Watch his videos (2), and my examples will make more sense.
@@TheCinematographyLab Wow, thank you! I really appreciate your taking the time to explain this in depth, and this is what I needed. I’ve struggled to grasp the zone system, but your explanation with examples now makes a lot of sense, and gives a good guideline to start, measuring for a middle tone, highlight, or shadow, depending on what’s most important, and then compensating accordingly on how it’s meant to be presented. Reading your explanation several times, the fundamental concept is sinking in. I’m getting underway shooting with a Bolex, and nailing the exposure is a really important priority on my journey. It’s a complex subject, as you said, and I’m really grateful for your generosity in sharing your knowledge and time!
@billpeet1976 Good to hear the information was useful. I could talk about this for hours, but it's better if you read or learn from people who took the time to do a proper presentation of the info.
The zone system is the key. At least you have some information that gives you a place to start. I remember when I was starting it was beyond frustrating. I used to think the meter didn't work or that it needed to be calibrated. I was telling myself stuff (a lot of people do these days) like "I don't need a light meter, we have monitors, histograms, and scopes." The reality is you can put all that information in your brain, then analyze and previsualize a scene just by taking a few readings, and you can tell other people, "The room in the back is going to be properly exposed, the frame of the door in the foreground is going to look dark, but there is going to be enough detail there. The window in the back is going to be bright, 3 stops over the key, but we are going to be able to see the city, and we can bring detail back in post if needed." You can also reverse the process to illuminate a scene: "I want an f4 in the room. The camera is going to be in the hallway, and I want the light 2 stops under so the foreground is darker, but we retain detail. I just took a reading of the window, and it is 4 stops over the key. Let's put a 0.6 ND gel on the glass so we only have a difference of two stops between the key (f4 in this example) and the highlights so we can see the city, or the mountains in the back," or you may say, "We have an ugly alley outside the window and we don't have resources; I'm going to blowout the exposure by 4 stops so we don't see anything through the window."
Just some examples of how you can use a meter in a creative way. You can take decisions that change the look of an image from mediocre to interesting. It takes a lot of research and practice.
The same principles apply to decent digital cameras, by the way. I use my handheld meter with my Nikon D850 all the time, and I get perfect results. Professional digital cameras are properly adjusted to the ISO standard. I mention that because it's easier and cheaper if you use a digital camera to practice. You can see the results right in the spot, change something, and see what happens. You can apply that info to your Bolex or any other digital or film camera. Also, you can use a digital camera to see how the image is going to look before you take the shot with the Bolex. It's a good idea if you don't feel confident about your exposure. Wasting film is not fun. Just remember that there is a beam splitter in the Bolex. You have to take that into consideration when you are figuring your numbers out.
what about meteric apps on smartphones?
They work fine and they are accurate. The ones that I have tried gave me measurements pretty close to what the dedicated meter gave me. The problem is you never really know what the meter is doing. How it is gathering light. They are good to a point.
When you are ready to run the extra mile and get more precise and consistent measurements and results nothing replaces a good meter.
@@TheCinematographyLab i found one that has spot metering, so maybe it is more useful?
@@CousinHubertRetrogaming Both incident and reflected are useful and ideal in certain situations. In this video I mentioned that you can use accessories to convert the cheap Sekonic models and the Minolta onto reflected meters. I also mentioned you never know exactly what you area you are measuring. That's the problem I have noticed with apps. They meter reflected light and they tell you what 's the area they are supposedly measuring, but they are not super accurate in that sense.
I mean they are apps, they are free in some cases. They work great for what they are. You cannot expect them to do the same as a meter that costs $800. They work fine, especially if you understand how light meters work and you use them properly.
I used a light meter app on my old iPhone 6s to shoot a roll of film recently and I got decent results. I talk about that and other things on this video:
th-cam.com/video/V2vqzMNgFS0/w-d-xo.html
Hahaha what the heck is a 360 degrees shutter angle?
Also known as the invisible shutter, the 360° shutter is a device... Hahaha, I don't know. They just wanted to offer more options, I guess.