Old light meters vs. digital cameras readings

Discussion in 'Digital Photography' started by Olin K. McDaniel, Aug 2, 2007.

  1. Nothing spectacular here, just an observation. I happened to run
    across my golden oldie of a light meter, a Norwood Director, which I
    first acquired around 1950 and used for all my film shooting
    thereafter.

    Just for fun, I took it out in my back yard at about 3pm today, and
    stood in the shade of a large tree, with bright sunlight showing and
    set the meter for ASA 200 and took a reading of Incident light. Then
    I took a Nikon CoolPix 995 and aimed it at a shrub bathed in this
    exact light, and repeated the same thing with a Pentax K10D DSLR.
    Both these were set for ISO of 200.

    Much to my surprise, the Norwood Director gave a shutter speed setting
    at f5.6 of exactly twice the speed that both these digital cameras
    chose when set to f5.6. Anyone care to speculate what that means?
    Is there a difference of the ISO and ASA scales of 2 to 1, or is it
    something else? Somewhere way back, I was told they were essentially
    the same scale, just different names.

    Olin McDaniel
    Olin K. McDaniel, Aug 2, 2007
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. Olin K. McDaniel

    Allen Guest

    Olin K. McDaniel wrote:
    > Nothing spectacular here, just an observation. I happened to run
    > across my golden oldie of a light meter, a Norwood Director, which I
    > first acquired around 1950 and used for all my film shooting
    > thereafter.
    >
    > Just for fun, I took it out in my back yard at about 3pm today, and
    > stood in the shade of a large tree, with bright sunlight showing and
    > set the meter for ASA 200 and took a reading of Incident light. Then
    > I took a Nikon CoolPix 995 and aimed it at a shrub bathed in this
    > exact light, and repeated the same thing with a Pentax K10D DSLR.
    > Both these were set for ISO of 200.
    >
    > Much to my surprise, the Norwood Director gave a shutter speed setting
    > at f5.6 of exactly twice the speed that both these digital cameras
    > chose when set to f5.6. Anyone care to speculate what that means?
    > Is there a difference of the ISO and ASA scales of 2 to 1, or is it
    > something else? Somewhere way back, I was told they were essentially
    > the same scale, just different names.
    >
    > Olin McDaniel
    >

    In the far reaches of my mind, going back more than a half century, I
    seem to recall that the Norwood was an incident light meter (perhaps
    with an option to use in reflected mode, but I'm very hazy on that). If
    you were using it as incident and _can_ select reflected mode, how about
    trying it again on the same subject, same time, etc. I definitely recall
    that theNorwood was a very highly respected meter in its day and carried
    a price commensurate with that regard.
    Allen
    Allen, Aug 2, 2007
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. Allen wrote:
    > Olin K. McDaniel wrote:
    >> Nothing spectacular here, just an observation. I happened to run
    >> across my golden oldie of a light meter, a Norwood Director, which I
    >> first acquired around 1950 and used for all my film shooting
    >> thereafter.


    I seem to recall that the two light meters I had in the middle 50's
    had different calibration scales for B&W film and color film
    (i.e. for negatives versus transparencies). And they differed by exactly
    one stop. The transparency scale gave one stop less exposure, if
    I recall the direction correctly.

    I have a middle aged selenium Sekonic that does both incident
    and reflected readings, and they never agree except with a
    genuine 18% gray card. I found that the incident readings were
    almost never correct, at least for my subjects.

    Doug McDonald
    Doug McDonald, Aug 2, 2007
    #3
  4. Olin K. McDaniel

    Paul Mitchum Guest

    Olin K. McDaniel <> wrote:

    > Nothing spectacular here, just an observation. I happened to run across
    > my golden oldie of a light meter, a Norwood Director, which I first
    > acquired around 1950 and used for all my film shooting thereafter.
    >
    > Just for fun, I took it out in my back yard at about 3pm today, and stood
    > in the shade of a large tree, with bright sunlight showing and set the
    > meter for ASA 200 and took a reading of Incident light. Then I took a
    > Nikon CoolPix 995 and aimed it at a shrub bathed in this exact light, and
    > repeated the same thing with a Pentax K10D DSLR. Both these were set for
    > ISO of 200.
    >
    > Much to my surprise, the Norwood Director gave a shutter speed setting at
    > f5.6 of exactly twice the speed that both these digital cameras chose when
    > set to f5.6. Anyone care to speculate what that means? Is there a
    > difference of the ISO and ASA scales of 2 to 1, or is it something else?
    > Somewhere way back, I was told they were essentially the same scale, just
    > different names.


    If you're outdoors, and you're using an incident light meter, how are
    you taking a reading while under a tree?

    --
    http://www.xoverboard.com/cartoons/2007/070416_argument.html
    Paul Mitchum, Aug 2, 2007
    #4
  5. Olin K. McDaniel

    Jim Guest

    "Paul Mitchum" <0m> wrote in message
    news:1i284bw.4192zm16r9cf6N%0m...
    > Olin K. McDaniel <> wrote:
    >
    >> Nothing spectacular here, just an observation. I happened to run across
    >> my golden oldie of a light meter, a Norwood Director, which I first
    >> acquired around 1950 and used for all my film shooting thereafter.
    >>
    >> Just for fun, I took it out in my back yard at about 3pm today, and stood
    >> in the shade of a large tree, with bright sunlight showing and set the
    >> meter for ASA 200 and took a reading of Incident light. Then I took a
    >> Nikon CoolPix 995 and aimed it at a shrub bathed in this exact light, and
    >> repeated the same thing with a Pentax K10D DSLR. Both these were set for
    >> ISO of 200.
    >>
    >> Much to my surprise, the Norwood Director gave a shutter speed setting at
    >> f5.6 of exactly twice the speed that both these digital cameras chose
    >> when
    >> set to f5.6. Anyone care to speculate what that means? Is there a
    >> difference of the ISO and ASA scales of 2 to 1, or is it something else?
    >> Somewhere way back, I was told they were essentially the same scale, just
    >> different names.

    >
    > If you're outdoors, and you're using an incident light meter, how are
    > you taking a reading while under a tree?
    >
    > --
    > http://www.xoverboard.com/cartoons/2007/070416_argument.html

    Perhaps he doesn't realize that the Norwood Director is an incident light
    meter.
    B&W speeds before the late 50s had a built in 1 stop bias. That is, ANSI
    used
    the same method as now, but they made the film makers cut the speed in half.

    So, it could easily be that Norwood removed the safety factor. My
    recollection of
    this event is that the reason given was "amateurs can't be trusted to get
    the exposure
    right".

    Jim
    Jim, Aug 2, 2007
    #5
  6. Olin K. McDaniel

    Allen Guest

    Jim wrote:
    > "Paul Mitchum" <0m> wrote in message
    > news:1i284bw.4192zm16r9cf6N%0m...
    >> Olin K. McDaniel <> wrote:
    >>
    >>> Nothing spectacular here, just an observation. I happened to run across
    >>> my golden oldie of a light meter, a Norwood Director, which I first
    >>> acquired around 1950 and used for all my film shooting thereafter.
    >>>
    >>> Just for fun, I took it out in my back yard at about 3pm today, and stood
    >>> in the shade of a large tree, with bright sunlight showing and set the
    >>> meter for ASA 200 and took a reading of Incident light. Then I took a
    >>> Nikon CoolPix 995 and aimed it at a shrub bathed in this exact light, and
    >>> repeated the same thing with a Pentax K10D DSLR. Both these were set for
    >>> ISO of 200.
    >>>
    >>> Much to my surprise, the Norwood Director gave a shutter speed setting at
    >>> f5.6 of exactly twice the speed that both these digital cameras chose
    >>> when
    >>> set to f5.6. Anyone care to speculate what that means? Is there a
    >>> difference of the ISO and ASA scales of 2 to 1, or is it something else?
    >>> Somewhere way back, I was told they were essentially the same scale, just
    >>> different names.

    >> If you're outdoors, and you're using an incident light meter, how are
    >> you taking a reading while under a tree?
    >>
    >> --
    >> http://www.xoverboard.com/cartoons/2007/070416_argument.html

    > Perhaps he doesn't realize that the Norwood Director is an incident light
    > meter.
    > B&W speeds before the late 50s had a built in 1 stop bias. That is, ANSI
    > used
    > the same method as now, but they made the film makers cut the speed in half.
    >
    > So, it could easily be that Norwood removed the safety factor. My
    > recollection of
    > this event is that the reason given was "amateurs can't be trusted to get
    > the exposure
    > right".
    >
    > Jim
    >
    > I can't remember when ANSI arrived, but before that time there were two

    common film speed indices in use, and most film packages showed both.
    The two were ANSI and GE. As I recall, the old, old Kodachrome was
    Weston 8 and GE 12; the ANSI when it arrived split the difference with
    10. I may have the two backwards, but it is only of interest today to
    historians, unless one drags out old equipment. Waaay back, there was
    even a different aperture marking system, called US for Uniform System
    if my memory is correct; I'm happy to say that I never got involved in
    that quagmire. Incidentally, for the younger crowd, incident light
    meters had (usually) a hemispheric translucent surface in front of the
    light-sensitive cell; they were used to measure the light falling on the
    subject (not reflected from it) and had to be used in the same location
    as the subject. They were mostly used for studio work. Weston brought
    out a device to use on their Master II for measuring incident light; I
    had to (i. e., couldn't refuse) buy one, but I don't recall ever
    actually using it. It was not a hemisphere, but rather an odd shape.
    This concludes the history lesson for the day.
    Allen
    Allen, Aug 3, 2007
    #6
  7. Olin K. McDaniel

    Matt Ion Guest

    Jim wrote:
    > "Paul Mitchum" <0m> wrote in message
    > news:1i284bw.4192zm16r9cf6N%0m...
    >> Olin K. McDaniel <> wrote:
    >>
    >>> Nothing spectacular here, just an observation. I happened to run across
    >>> my golden oldie of a light meter, a Norwood Director, which I first
    >>> acquired around 1950 and used for all my film shooting thereafter.
    >>>
    >>> Just for fun, I took it out in my back yard at about 3pm today, and stood
    >>> in the shade of a large tree, with bright sunlight showing and set the
    >>> meter for ASA 200 and took a reading of Incident light. Then I took a
    >>> Nikon CoolPix 995 and aimed it at a shrub bathed in this exact light, and
    >>> repeated the same thing with a Pentax K10D DSLR. Both these were set for
    >>> ISO of 200.
    >>>
    >>> Much to my surprise, the Norwood Director gave a shutter speed setting at
    >>> f5.6 of exactly twice the speed that both these digital cameras chose
    >>> when
    >>> set to f5.6. Anyone care to speculate what that means? Is there a
    >>> difference of the ISO and ASA scales of 2 to 1, or is it something else?
    >>> Somewhere way back, I was told they were essentially the same scale, just
    >>> different names.

    >> If you're outdoors, and you're using an incident light meter, how are
    >> you taking a reading while under a tree?
    >>
    >> --
    >> http://www.xoverboard.com/cartoons/2007/070416_argument.html

    > Perhaps he doesn't realize that the Norwood Director is an incident light
    > meter.


    Then why did he say, "set meter for ASA 200 and took a reading of
    Incident light."?

    My first thought would be that the shrub likely being a somewhat dark
    green, and probably having a lot of dark areas in it, it would meter as
    being slightly dark.
    Matt Ion, Aug 3, 2007
    #7
  8. Olin K. McDaniel

    Paul Mitchum Guest

    Matt Ion <> wrote:

    > Jim wrote:
    > > "Paul Mitchum" <0m> wrote in message
    > > news:1i284bw.4192zm16r9cf6N%0m...
    > >> Olin K. McDaniel <> wrote:
    > >>
    > >>> Nothing spectacular here, just an observation. I happened to run
    > >>> across my golden oldie of a light meter, a Norwood Director, which I
    > >>> first acquired around 1950 and used for all my film shooting
    > >>> thereafter.
    > >>>
    > >>> Just for fun, I took it out in my back yard at about 3pm today, and
    > >>> stood in the shade of a large tree, with bright sunlight showing and
    > >>> set the meter for ASA 200 and took a reading of Incident light. Then
    > >>> I took a Nikon CoolPix 995 and aimed it at a shrub bathed in this
    > >>> exact light, and repeated the same thing with a Pentax K10D DSLR. Both
    > >>> these were set for ISO of 200.
    > >>>
    > >>> Much to my surprise, the Norwood Director gave a shutter speed setting
    > >>> at f5.6 of exactly twice the speed that both these digital cameras
    > >>> chose when set to f5.6. Anyone care to speculate what that means? Is
    > >>> there a difference of the ISO and ASA scales of 2 to 1, or is it
    > >>> something else? Somewhere way back, I was told they were essentially
    > >>> the same scale, just different names.
    > >>
    > >> If you're outdoors, and you're using an incident light meter, how are
    > >> you taking a reading while under a tree?

    > >
    > > Perhaps he doesn't realize that the Norwood Director is an incident
    > > light meter.

    >
    > Then why did he say, "set meter for ASA 200 and took a reading of Incident
    > light."?
    >
    > My first thought would be that the shrub likely being a somewhat dark
    > green, and probably having a lot of dark areas in it, it would meter as
    > being slightly dark.


    In order to measure incident light, you point the meter at the light
    source. What's the light source when you're under a tree? (There's a
    correct answer to this question, by the way. <g>)

    --
    http://www.xoverboard.com/cartoons/2007/070416_argument.html
    Paul Mitchum, Aug 3, 2007
    #8
  9. Olin K. McDaniel

    Allen Guest

    Paul Mitchum wrote:
    > Matt Ion <> wrote:
    >
    >> Jim wrote:
    >>> "Paul Mitchum" <0m> wrote in message
    >>> news:1i284bw.4192zm16r9cf6N%0m...
    >>>> Olin K. McDaniel <> wrote:
    >>>>
    >>>>> Nothing spectacular here, just an observation. I happened to run
    >>>>> across my golden oldie of a light meter, a Norwood Director, which I
    >>>>> first acquired around 1950 and used for all my film shooting
    >>>>> thereafter.
    >>>>>
    >>>>> Just for fun, I took it out in my back yard at about 3pm today, and
    >>>>> stood in the shade of a large tree, with bright sunlight showing and
    >>>>> set the meter for ASA 200 and took a reading of Incident light. Then
    >>>>> I took a Nikon CoolPix 995 and aimed it at a shrub bathed in this
    >>>>> exact light, and repeated the same thing with a Pentax K10D DSLR. Both
    >>>>> these were set for ISO of 200.
    >>>>>
    >>>>> Much to my surprise, the Norwood Director gave a shutter speed setting
    >>>>> at f5.6 of exactly twice the speed that both these digital cameras
    >>>>> chose when set to f5.6. Anyone care to speculate what that means? Is
    >>>>> there a difference of the ISO and ASA scales of 2 to 1, or is it
    >>>>> something else? Somewhere way back, I was told they were essentially
    >>>>> the same scale, just different names.
    >>>> If you're outdoors, and you're using an incident light meter, how are
    >>>> you taking a reading while under a tree?
    >>> Perhaps he doesn't realize that the Norwood Director is an incident
    >>> light meter.

    >> Then why did he say, "set meter for ASA 200 and took a reading of Incident
    >> light."?
    >>
    >> My first thought would be that the shrub likely being a somewhat dark
    >> green, and probably having a lot of dark areas in it, it would meter as
    >> being slightly dark.

    >
    > In order to measure incident light, you point the meter at the light
    > source. What's the light source when you're under a tree? (There's a
    > correct answer to this question, by the way. <g>)
    >

    I believe that you place the meter right where the subject is, with the
    metering surface pointed at the camera.
    Allen
    Allen, Aug 3, 2007
    #9
  10. On Fri, 03 Aug 2007 00:38:19 GMT, Matt Ion <>
    wrote:

    >Jim wrote:
    >> "Paul Mitchum" <0m> wrote in message
    >> news:1i284bw.4192zm16r9cf6N%0m...
    >>> Olin K. McDaniel <> wrote:
    >>>
    >>>> Nothing spectacular here, just an observation. I happened to run across
    >>>> my golden oldie of a light meter, a Norwood Director, which I first
    >>>> acquired around 1950 and used for all my film shooting thereafter.
    >>>>
    >>>> Just for fun, I took it out in my back yard at about 3pm today, and stood
    >>>> in the shade of a large tree, with bright sunlight showing and set the
    >>>> meter for ASA 200 and took a reading of Incident light. Then I took a
    >>>> Nikon CoolPix 995 and aimed it at a shrub bathed in this exact light, and
    >>>> repeated the same thing with a Pentax K10D DSLR. Both these were set for
    >>>> ISO of 200.
    >>>>
    >>>> Much to my surprise, the Norwood Director gave a shutter speed setting at
    >>>> f5.6 of exactly twice the speed that both these digital cameras chose
    >>>> when
    >>>> set to f5.6. Anyone care to speculate what that means? Is there a
    >>>> difference of the ISO and ASA scales of 2 to 1, or is it something else?
    >>>> Somewhere way back, I was told they were essentially the same scale, just
    >>>> different names.
    >>> If you're outdoors, and you're using an incident light meter, how are
    >>> you taking a reading while under a tree?
    >>>
    >>> --
    >>> http://www.xoverboard.com/cartoons/2007/070416_argument.html

    >> Perhaps he doesn't realize that the Norwood Director is an incident light
    >> meter.

    >


    As stated originally, I took the reading of "INCIDENT light", which
    was the light falling on the subject being photographed, and this was
    the shrub in the shaded area. Anyone who used light meters in the old
    days understands what this means. And to satisfy another comment, yes
    I did use the Hemisphere cover as was normal for this type of
    measurement. This meter does include (for assuring those unfamiliar
    with it) a flat translucent cover as well as the Hemisphere cover, and
    most important - a flat cover with holes in it for measuring
    "REFLECTED" light. That essentially is what all our modern day
    cameras are doing, BTW. But, as stated earlier - I measured the
    "INCIDENT LIGHT", and in the same lighted area as the subject.

    Now all the jazz about the variations in certain standards, etc. flows
    over my head. I used this Norwood Director primarily in the days of
    only B & W photography, for which it was orginally designed. In all
    honesty, it was designed primarily for Studio photography, but found
    acceptance in general photography field as well.

    My original post was sort of musing about how standards might have
    changed over the years, didn't mean to stir up so much irrelevant
    issues.

    Olin McDaniel
    >Then why did he say, "set meter for ASA 200 and took a reading of
    >Incident light."?
    >
    >My first thought would be that the shrub likely being a somewhat dark
    >green, and probably having a lot of dark areas in it, it would meter as
    >being slightly dark.
    Olin K. McDaniel, Aug 3, 2007
    #10
  11. Olin K. McDaniel

    bugbear Guest

    Olin K. McDaniel wrote:
    > Nothing spectacular here, just an observation. I happened to run
    > across my golden oldie of a light meter, a Norwood Director, which I
    > first acquired around 1950 and used for all my film shooting
    > thereafter.
    >
    > Just for fun, I took it out in my back yard at about 3pm today, and
    > stood in the shade of a large tree, with bright sunlight showing and
    > set the meter for ASA 200 and took a reading of Incident light. Then
    > I took a Nikon CoolPix 995 and aimed it at a shrub bathed in this
    > exact light, and repeated the same thing with a Pentax K10D DSLR.
    > Both these were set for ISO of 200.
    >
    > Much to my surprise, the Norwood Director gave a shutter speed setting
    > at f5.6 of exactly twice the speed that both these digital cameras
    > chose when set to f5.6. Anyone care to speculate what that means?
    > Is there a difference of the ISO and ASA scales of 2 to 1, or is it
    > something else? Somewhere way back, I was told they were essentially
    > the same scale, just different names.


    Unless the shrub happened to be 18% gray,
    one wouldn't expect the readings to be the same.

    BugBear
    bugbear, Aug 3, 2007
    #11
  12. "bugbear" <bugbear@trim_papermule.co.uk_trim> wrote:
    >>
    >> Much to my surprise, the Norwood Director gave a shutter speed setting
    >> at f5.6 of exactly twice the speed that both these digital cameras
    >> chose when set to f5.6. Anyone care to speculate what that means?
    >> Is there a difference of the ISO and ASA scales of 2 to 1, or is it
    >> something else? Somewhere way back, I was told they were essentially
    >> the same scale, just different names.

    >
    > Unless the shrub happened to be 18% gray,
    > one wouldn't expect the readings to be the same.


    And someone who understood the zone system and wanted to place the shrub at
    a particular zone (to result, say, in an image that gave the impression of
    actually being in shade while still retaining a desired amount of shadow
    detail) would get yet a third reading with a reflective meter (regardless of
    the actual reflectance of the shrub).

    David J. Littleboy
    Tokyo, Japan
    David J. Littleboy, Aug 3, 2007
    #12
  13. Olin K. McDaniel

    John Bean Guest

    On Fri, 03 Aug 2007 10:29:05 +0100, bugbear
    <bugbear@trim_papermule.co.uk_trim> wrote:

    >Unless the shrub happened to be 18% gray,
    >one wouldn't expect the readings to be the same.


    Thank goodness there's someone else here who understands the
    difference between incident and reflected light metering.
    This thread hs had me shaking my head in disbelief at some
    of the suggested reasons - not to mention one very
    misunderstood description of how an incident meter is
    actually used.

    --
    John Bean
    John Bean, Aug 3, 2007
    #13
  14. Olin K. McDaniel

    Allen Guest

    Olin K. McDaniel wrote:
    > On Fri, 03 Aug 2007 00:38:19 GMT, Matt Ion <>
    > wrote:
    >
    >> Jim wrote:
    >>> "Paul Mitchum" <0m> wrote in message
    >>> news:1i284bw.4192zm16r9cf6N%0m...
    >>>> Olin K. McDaniel <> wrote:
    >>>>
    >>>>> Nothing spectacular here, just an observation. I happened to run across
    >>>>> my golden oldie of a light meter, a Norwood Director, which I first
    >>>>> acquired around 1950 and used for all my film shooting thereafter.
    >>>>>
    >>>>> Just for fun, I took it out in my back yard at about 3pm today, and stood
    >>>>> in the shade of a large tree, with bright sunlight showing and set the
    >>>>> meter for ASA 200 and took a reading of Incident light. Then I took a
    >>>>> Nikon CoolPix 995 and aimed it at a shrub bathed in this exact light, and
    >>>>> repeated the same thing with a Pentax K10D DSLR. Both these were set for
    >>>>> ISO of 200.
    >>>>>
    >>>>> Much to my surprise, the Norwood Director gave a shutter speed setting at
    >>>>> f5.6 of exactly twice the speed that both these digital cameras chose
    >>>>> when
    >>>>> set to f5.6. Anyone care to speculate what that means? Is there a
    >>>>> difference of the ISO and ASA scales of 2 to 1, or is it something else?
    >>>>> Somewhere way back, I was told they were essentially the same scale, just
    >>>>> different names.
    >>>> If you're outdoors, and you're using an incident light meter, how are
    >>>> you taking a reading while under a tree?
    >>>>
    >>>> --
    >>>> http://www.xoverboard.com/cartoons/2007/070416_argument.html
    >>> Perhaps he doesn't realize that the Norwood Director is an incident light
    >>> meter.

    >
    > As stated originally, I took the reading of "INCIDENT light", which
    > was the light falling on the subject being photographed, and this was
    > the shrub in the shaded area. Anyone who used light meters in the old
    > days understands what this means. And to satisfy another comment, yes
    > I did use the Hemisphere cover as was normal for this type of
    > measurement. This meter does include (for assuring those unfamiliar
    > with it) a flat translucent cover as well as the Hemisphere cover, and
    > most important - a flat cover with holes in it for measuring
    > "REFLECTED" light. That essentially is what all our modern day
    > cameras are doing, BTW. But, as stated earlier - I measured the
    > "INCIDENT LIGHT", and in the same lighted area as the subject.
    >
    > Now all the jazz about the variations in certain standards, etc. flows
    > over my head. I used this Norwood Director primarily in the days of
    > only B & W photography, for which it was orginally designed. In all
    > honesty, it was designed primarily for Studio photography, but found
    > acceptance in general photography field as well.
    >
    > My original post was sort of musing about how standards might have
    > changed over the years, didn't mean to stir up so much irrelevant
    > issues.
    >
    > Olin McDaniel
    >> Then why did he say, "set meter for ASA 200 and took a reading of
    >> Incident light."?
    >>
    >> My first thought would be that the shrub likely being a somewhat dark
    >> green, and probably having a lot of dark areas in it, it would meter as
    >> being slightly dark.

    >

    Olin--

    I apologize for not noting that you specified that you were using the
    incident mode before my first post. Also, I must say that at 78 I find
    myself musing about the "good" old days and tend to turn posts into
    history lessons. The Norwood had a great reputation in its day; as far
    as I can remember, it was the first incident meter at an affordable
    price (for many, but not for me). However, I still think that, as the
    foliage was much darker than the "18%" standard, a test in reflection
    mode would be closer to what the two digitals showed. After all, that
    was what the Norwood was intended to do: eliminate the gray card. I do
    hope that sometime, when lighting conditions are the same as that day,
    you will check it again in reflective mode and let us know what you
    find. Again, I apologize for my sloppy reading habits.
    Regards,
    Allen
    Allen, Aug 3, 2007
    #14
  15. "David J. Littleboy" <> wrote:
    >"bugbear" <bugbear@trim_papermule.co.uk_trim> wrote:
    >>>
    >>> Much to my surprise, the Norwood Director gave a shutter speed setting
    >>> at f5.6 of exactly twice the speed that both these digital cameras
    >>> chose when set to f5.6. Anyone care to speculate what that means?
    >>> Is there a difference of the ISO and ASA scales of 2 to 1, or is it
    >>> something else? Somewhere way back, I was told they were essentially
    >>> the same scale, just different names.

    >>
    >> Unless the shrub happened to be 18% gray,
    >> one wouldn't expect the readings to be the same.

    >
    >And someone who understood the zone system and wanted to place the shrub at
    >a particular zone (to result, say, in an image that gave the impression of
    >actually being in shade while still retaining a desired amount of shadow
    >detail) would get yet a third reading with a reflective meter (regardless of
    >the actual reflectance of the shrub).


    The shrub reflects more or less light when measured by a
    photographer using the zone system???? And that has
    nothing to do with the "actual reflectance of the
    shrub"????

    The 1) amount of incident light, the 2) reflectance of the
    object, and the 3) accuracy of the meter (all being the
    same), will necessarily result in the same reading if
    proper technique is used.

    The camera of course will be adjusted differently to
    expose for a different zone, not the light meter reading.

    --
    Floyd L. Davidson <http://www.apaflo.com/floyd_davidson>
    Ukpeagvik (Barrow, Alaska)
    Floyd L. Davidson, Aug 3, 2007
    #15
  16. In article <46b320ee$0$29678$>, Allen
    <> wrote:

    > I apologize for not noting that you specified that you were using the
    > incident mode before my first post. Also, I must say that at 78 I find
    > myself musing about the "good" old days and tend to turn posts into
    > history lessons. The Norwood had a great reputation in its day; as far
    > as I can remember, it was the first incident meter at an affordable
    > price (for many, but not for me). However, I still think that, as the
    > foliage was much darker than the "18%" standard, a test in reflection
    > mode would be closer to what the two digitals showed. After all, that
    > was what the Norwood was intended to do: eliminate the gray card. I do
    > hope that sometime, when lighting conditions are the same as that day,
    > you will check it again in reflective mode and let us know what you
    > find. Again, I apologize for my sloppy reading habits.


    I still use my 1971 vintage Gossen Luna Pro. I can't stand these
    digital meters. I don't need to know that it's f/8.547. There's too
    much slop in the system to get that nit-picky.
    Randall Ainsworth, Aug 3, 2007
    #16
  17. Olin K. McDaniel

    John Bean Guest

    On Fri, 03 Aug 2007 04:53:09 -0800, (Floyd
    L. Davidson) wrote:

    >The shrub reflects more or less light when measured by a
    >photographer using the zone system???? And that has
    >nothing to do with the "actual reflectance of the
    >shrub"????


    Sure - in the Twilight Zone System ;-)

    In any case exposure is only part of the image-making
    process, especially when using the Zone System the way it
    was intended. The "simplified" version adopted by many
    Zonies is more an exercise in pretentiousness than in
    science.

    --
    John Bean
    John Bean, Aug 3, 2007
    #17
  18. > On Fri, 03 Aug 2007 04:53:09 -0800, (Floyd
    > L. Davidson) wrote:
    >
    >>The shrub reflects more or less light when measured by a
    >>photographer using the zone system???? And that has
    >>nothing to do with the "actual reflectance of the
    >>shrub"????


    You don't care about reflectance. Only about appearance (what zone you want
    to place it in (which changes with mood and photographer) and actual
    brightness.

    And the zone system guy uses a spot meter (or moves in closer), and gets a
    different reading than someone using an averaging technique.

    David J. Littleboy
    Tokyo, Japan
    David J. Littleboy, Aug 3, 2007
    #18
  19. "David J. Littleboy" <> wrote:
    >> On Fri, 03 Aug 2007 04:53:09 -0800, (Floyd
    >> L. Davidson) wrote:
    >>
    >>>The shrub reflects more or less light when measured by a
    >>>photographer using the zone system???? And that has
    >>>nothing to do with the "actual reflectance of the
    >>>shrub"????

    >
    >You don't care about reflectance. Only about appearance (what zone you want
    >to place it in (which changes with mood and photographer) and actual
    >brightness.
    >
    >And the zone system guy uses a spot meter (or moves in closer), and gets a
    >different reading than someone using an averaging technique.


    The shrub reflects exactly the same light, whether using
    the zone system or not, whether you get close to it or
    not, and whether you use a spot meter or not.

    The meter should therefore give exactly the same reading
    in all cases.

    --
    Floyd L. Davidson <http://www.apaflo.com/floyd_davidson>
    Ukpeagvik (Barrow, Alaska)
    Floyd L. Davidson, Aug 3, 2007
    #19
  20. "Floyd L. Davidson" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > "David J. Littleboy" <> wrote:
    >>> On Fri, 03 Aug 2007 04:53:09 -0800, (Floyd
    >>> L. Davidson) wrote:
    >>>
    >>>>The shrub reflects more or less light when measured by a
    >>>>photographer using the zone system???? And that has
    >>>>nothing to do with the "actual reflectance of the
    >>>>shrub"????

    >>
    >>You don't care about reflectance. Only about appearance (what zone you
    >>want
    >>to place it in (which changes with mood and photographer) and actual
    >>brightness.
    >>
    >>And the zone system guy uses a spot meter (or moves in closer), and gets a
    >>different reading than someone using an averaging technique.

    >
    > The shrub reflects exactly the same light, whether using
    > the zone system or not, whether you get close to it or
    > not, and whether you use a spot meter or not.


    Assume the bush reflects 9%. Assume incident light and ISO such that the
    incident user gets an exposure of f/5.6 at 1/100. The reflected meter user
    will get an exposure of f/5.6 at 1/50. The zone user will decide that being
    in shadow, the bush looks darker than normal and needs to be at zone III,
    and will read at the zone III point on the zone dial he's taped to his
    meter, and thus read f/5.6 at 1/200 from the meter.

    Three different metering methods, three different "readings".

    > The meter should therefore give exactly the same reading
    > in all cases.


    (OK, I admit it: I should have talked about "final exposure" not "reading"
    in the first place. Oops.)

    David J. Littleboy
    Tokyo, Japan
    David J. Littleboy, Aug 3, 2007
    #20
    1. Advertising

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. andrew lovatt

    new art, digital photos, flash movies, poems, live readings

    andrew lovatt, Nov 25, 2003, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    404
    andrew lovatt
    Nov 25, 2003
  2. ishtarbgl
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    526
    ishtarbgl
    Apr 1, 2004
  3. John

    Incident readings with a digital camera

    John, Oct 30, 2004, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    5
    Views:
    314
  4. Stephen Manaton

    Handheld Light Meters

    Stephen Manaton, May 8, 2005, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    15
    Views:
    664
    Roger
    May 17, 2005
  5. Stephen Manaton

    Light Meters

    Stephen Manaton, Jul 30, 2005, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    16
    Views:
    788
    Gary Eickmeier
    Aug 2, 2005
Loading...

Share This Page