p.1 #1 · Sekonic Exposure Targets, I call BS on this !
Does anyone else besides me feel that charging $600.00 for a (albeit) nice meter... But then ANOTHER whopping $122.00 for target 1, and an astronomical $299.00 for target 2 just to use the ultimate feature for owning this meter... The camera profiling is complete CRAP?
This is on top of the $600 already laid out for the meter gear itself.
I'm calling out Sekonic on this as complete viking style rape and pillage B S to the highest degree !!
I'm just curious if anyone has found a reliable way to fashion their own target, and what others have done to by-pass this crazy corporate greed.
To lay out anything even close to that kind of dosh for a paper target.... There would have to be women, lube, and no time limit involved.
I'm pissed at this. I hate greedy proprietary companies.
p.1 #2 · Sekonic Exposure Targets, I call BS on this !
Wonder how hard they would be to replicate and sell cheap? Might have been an idea for an ebay company but the amount of people laying out that kind of dough for a light meter in this day and age is not a lot.
p.1 #3 · Sekonic Exposure Targets, I call BS on this !
I was pretty taken aback by the prices, too, so I never have done camera-to-meter calibration. I like my meter, but don't use that feature.
I suppose for some commercial photographers doing color- and tone-critical work with multiple bodies it would be an acceptable cost of doing business, but for the majority of us I don't see the need.
p.1 #4 · Sekonic Exposure Targets, I call BS on this !
I have a 358 and so you can't do all this calibration stuff on it anyway but found the results from the meter were very underexposed vs my D700.
I bought the xrite colourchecker grey scale card (£40) shot frames of it tweaking the exposure until the white was on the edge of the camera histogram (be sure to custom WB or use flash in a softbox). Job done.
I ended up with 1.2 stops of compensation, I would never use a meter without calibrating it to the camera after this.
p.1 #5 · Sekonic Exposure Targets, I call BS on this !
Mark_L wrote:
I have a 358 and so you can't do all this calibration stuff on it anyway but found the results from the meter were very underexposed vs my D700.
I bought the xrite colourchecker grey scale card (£40) shot frames of it tweaking the exposure until the white was on the edge of the camera histogram (be sure to custom WB or use flash in a softbox). Job done.
I ended up with 1.2 stops of compensation, I would never use a meter without calibrating it to the camera after this.
If you're talking about RAW photos the problem may be your RAW converter settings. I was getting the same results were until I realized my ACR setting weren't correct for my camera. Now my 358 is dead on.
If it's for all photos (RAW and jpeg) check your 358 settings and make sure you're viewing in 1/3 steps f-stop increments for more accuracy.
p.1 #6 · Sekonic Exposure Targets, I call BS on this !
$600.00 for the meter no problem. The meter is worth every penny. I use my 558-r almost everyday. The charts are way over priced. The target 1 should be free with the meter.
p.1 #8 · Sekonic Exposure Targets, I call BS on this !
John Skinner wrote:
...an astronomical $299.00 for target 2...
I just did a search on the Target II, and while it is indeed listed at $299.00 by one seller on Amazon.com, it shows up at "only" $183.00 at Calumet, and just $132.00 at B&H and Adorama. That's still pretty steep for a piece of colored cardboard, but it's not highway robbery.
p.1 #9 · Sekonic Exposure Targets, I call BS on this !
Diavolo wrote:
If you're talking about RAW photos the problem may be your RAW converter settings. I was getting the same results were until I realized my ACR setting weren't correct for my camera. Now my 358 is dead on.
If it's for all photos (RAW and jpeg) check your 358 settings and make sure you're viewing in 1/3 steps f-stop increments for more accuracy.
I have calibrated it against the camera histogram (which is obviously jpg data), nothing to do with RAW converter settings. All tests were done to 1/10th of a stop. RAW gets me around 2/3 of a stop of headroom on top of that (in ACR) which I use as margin for error, it gets too confusing/scary in the field seeing a clipped histogram that may in fact be ok.
My 358 is also 0.5 of a stop off from my camera meter.
p.1 #10 · Sekonic Exposure Targets, I call BS on this !
BrianO wrote:
I was pretty taken aback by the prices, too, so I never have done camera-to-meter calibration. I like my meter, but don't use that feature.
I suppose for some commercial photographers doing color- and tone-critical work with multiple bodies it would be an acceptable cost of doing business, but for the majority of us I don't see the need.
I'm all over this....
Seriously. If any other 758 users want to take a bite of this apply. I'm in for $25.00 or whatever..
As I said in the first leg of this. To go to the point of getting a meter with the express selling point of sensor/meter calibration, and then not utilize it... It's nuts!
p.1 #11 · Sekonic Exposure Targets, I call BS on this !
Meters are calibrated to render the spot read middle gray regardless of the color it actually is. In the good old days the 18% gray card was the baseline reference. If you metered the card the indicated exposure would render it the same 18% value on the print. Adams based his zone system around 18% reflectance = Zone 5 in both print and scene.
An incident meter works similarly with the dome averaging all the light hitting the subject to render the average a middle gray in the 12-13% reflectance range (the newer ANSI standard). Compensation to the camera body is needed because the ISO indicated on the camera isn't always accurate. Finding the compensation factor is simple. Shoot a white textured object at the indicated exposure, then bracket higher and lower in 1/3 stop increments. Look at the resulting shots and find the one which renders the white object most realistically. The difference between it and indicated reading gets entered on the meter as the indicated compensation factor.
The axiom of metering is the less you measure the more you must interpolate. WIth a spot meter if you took a reading off the same white target the default reading of the meter would do what meters do and render it as a grey with 12-13% reflectance in the photo. To render the the white object accurately you need to know from previous testing or experience how many f/stops it takes on your camera body to move the the exposure from the middle gray calibration point to where it will render the white object as "Zone 9" white - solid below clipping; around 245-250 eye dropper reading. You don't need a fancy target to do this, a piece of white paper or the white side of Kodak Gray Card (which is 98% reflectance) will work just fine. Take a spot reading (gray point baseline) then increase exposure until the card is reproduced on the RAW file with a 250 eye dropper reading.
Let's say you wind up with a factor of 2-2/3 stop needed to render the white card accurately as Zone 9 / 250.
From that point on your could spot read the Zone 9 white value of a scene and mentally add 2-2/3 stops to the indicated reading. Alternately if you add 2-2/3 stops as your meter's compensation factor you could then simply point the meter at the spot you want to be Zone 9 in the reproduction of the scene and the meter reading will indicate the correct exposure settings needed to render it accurately.
It's really that simple. By entering the 2-2/3 stop compensation factor you will have simply moved the meter's exposure baseline from its default 12-13% reflectance to the 98% reflectance of the white card.
What about the shadows? Unlike B&W zone system there is nothing you can do at capture to change the DR of the recording medium so the best you can do is measure the shadows to know which will fall below the range of your sensor. But to do that you need to know the range of your sensor in stops. For that all you need is the gray card.
Fill the viewfinder with the card and set custom WB to start so the RGB channels are in sync. Then with lens wide open find the shutter speed that will render the card at Zone 9 / 250. Note that if you have compensated the spot meter as suggested above, the reading on the card will render it Zone 9 - 250 at the indicated settings.
From the initial Zone 9 / 250 rendering aim point bracket exposure, closing the lens by one stop between exposures. You'll see the histogram spike move left and the card rendered darker to the point of being black. Here's the test I did with my 20D when I got it to determine it's DR:
The Zone 1 - 9 range is about 6 stops of that sensor. If you do a similar test you'll know by scanning shadow values with the spot meter which ones will fall beyond the sensor of your camera.
That said, I think spot metering is a waste of time (and money on the meter) for digital because the same information is provided by the camera feedback.
The camera clipping warning shows when and exactly where overexposure is occurring. Correctly exposed highlights are simply a matter of looking at the playback and adjusting the exposure until "Zone 10" specular highlights are clipping but solid white "Zone 9" objects are not.
Once the exposure is set per the Zone 9 content where all the rest of the scene falls in the Zones in the reproduction is a function of the 6-7 stop DR of the camera. The camera histogram represents the DR of the camera. It is a bar graph with 256 bars from 0 - 255 tonal values. If the histogram is running off the left side it tells you the scene exceeds the sensor and its time to either put the camera on tripod and bracket, or use flash to alter the scene range in the foreground to fit the range of the sensor. If bracketing you would start with the baseline "Zone 9" exposure per the clipping warning then increase until the left side of histogram isn't running off on the left side (+3 to 4 stops).
The axiom for B&W was "Expose for the Shadows / Develop (film) for to fit the highlights to the Paper". The new axiom for digital is "Expose for the Highlights/ Add flash or bracket for the shadows".
Indoors with flash fitting scene to sensor perfectly is trivial. Set desired aperture then raise fill level until detail is seen in the playback in the darkest "Zone 1" areas. Then adjust the overlapping key light until the "Zone 9" solid whites are 1/3 stop below clipping by letting them clip and backing down the key flash until the clipping warning disappears. No meter of any kind required: just your eyes and brain to interpret the camera playback.
Outdoors the difference is that exposure must be pegged to the sunny highlights to keep them below clipping. That's trivial if the clipping warning is utilized. Then its just a matter of lighting the front shaded side with flash to balance the back the same way as indoors: first add fill to the point where the shadows are rendered correctly, then overlap the key flash at the same angle as the natural skylight to recreate the natural modeling the first flash killed.
Using a $600 spot meter will not produce any better net results, it will just take you longer to produce them
p.1 #12 · Sekonic Exposure Targets, I call BS on this !
BrianO wrote:
Maybe a bunch of us should chip in to buy one target and then take turns using it. The postal service could be our accomplice.
John Skinner wrote:
...If any other 758 users want to take a bite of this apply. I'm in for $25.00 or whatever..
Okay then...
Anyone who wants to join the club send me a private message; the more the marrier. If more people join than equals just $132.00 I can get more than one target card, and I'll set up a sort of lending library.
p.1 #13 · Sekonic Exposure Targets, I call BS on this !
cgardner wrote:
the white side of Kodak Gray Card (which is 98% reflectance) will work just fine.
No. The white side of a Kodak Grey Card is 90% reflectance, according to using the product for years and double checking the Kodak web site.
p.1 #15 · Sekonic Exposure Targets, I call BS on this !
FYI: you can rent the Sekonic Exposure Profile Target II from BorrowLenses.com. I have not used them but found them from a Google search for the Target II card.
p.1 #17 · Sekonic Exposure Targets, I call BS on this !
John Skinner wrote:
I'd be interested in that if one rented this chart. How difficult would it be to bring this to a printing shop and have it replicated on matte paper?
50 of these couldn't be more than 2 or 3 bucks a copy, even for color corrected items.
199.00 - 3.00 That's some profit.
Accurately? Speaking from experience running printing plants for a living, quite difficult. We bought our calibration targets commercially. This is a good source for less expensive calibrated targets: http://www.stouffer.net/Reflection.htm Here's a handy table for converting density units into % reflectance: http://www.stouffer.net/R3705spec.htm
The Stouffer targets are created on silver based photo paper from a master. Other targets I've used over the years have been done with silk screen where the tone of each ink swatch can be more precisely controlled. With others dry pre-printed density swatches are pasted onto a backing sheet. The latter method is generally more accurate and has the lowest manufacturing spoilage level because all the component parts are verified correct before assembly and don't need to be verified with a 100% densitometer check after assembly.
That's not to say you couldn't make one or two by trial and error if you have access to a reflection densitometer, but if you made 50 they all probably wouldn't all match within a few thousands like the commercial product.
