Using a Canon digital light meter

[Steve20050]

John did a great job of explaining what is necessary to do this. I have been doing this for a number of years. It just requires you to take all the variables into account for the best exposure, regardless of what you can do in photoshop. I use a Mamiya 7 rangefinder that takes 6 X 7 on 120 film. All I get with this is the parallax correction so no thru the lens views. I do check my settings with a 35 mm SLR camera at times just to make sure my math is correct especially when I use filters. As John states the film speed or sensitivity needs to be similar. The view needs to be similar or corrected for exposure. The metering choice of each needs to be considered. It is a lot of math. It is also one reason why I hike alone. It takes a lot of patience and concentration.

I have my film developed at Citizens and have had conversations with them in the past. There are persons like us out there that do still find film has some advantages. One such reason, you can buy a used medium format camera cheaper than equivalent in digital and if you have good optics it can get up around 50 megapixel though I believe my Mamiya 7 does even better. (I don't hand hold this camera though technically it was made to do this if you use the fraction of the lens for shutter speed). Scanned film does have problems if you convert to digtal. It is a second generation image and flatbed scanners most of us are familiar with aren't the best scanners to use(drum scanners are better) though my Epson 4990 does a pretty good job. http://www.kenrockwell.com/mamiya/7.htm. I have to admit digital is here to stay and film is becoming like vinyl records, it is a matter of time before the "art" is gone in this area as digital continues to get better and "modern art" more the normal as many now just use their phone.

[forestkeeper]

Thank you Steve! Prior to getting rid of my Canon EOS Rebel T3i in July, I was fighting myself concerning not ever being able to have a full frame DSLR ($2,000+ is beyond any budget I ever will have unless I win the lottery.) I was primarily using the T3i for wildlife and landscape shots so I was constantly changing between the kit lens and a Canon EFI 75-300 mm lens. What a royale pain! Then one day as I was headed to Olallie Lake for some Forest Service work, a large herd of deer stopped on the road ahead of me, about 150 yards. By the time I was able to change to the 300mm lens, they were gone. That and the fact that whenever I used the zoom lens, nearly all my shots were blurred. How can anyone use a tripod when shooting wildlife.

So I sold the T3i on CL and then bought a Canon SX50 HS. Very good zoom, but the image such as an eagle in flight, was so cropped that it looked bad.

So I returned to 35mm film with the idea that I can have a full frame photo, scan it to digital and end up with the same photo as everyone else. Yet now, SLRs have a light meter but no computer. So I have to know what I'm doing if I want to have professional photos. And now if I need to "doctor" my photos up, there is only so little you can do to a 35mm photo in contrast to a digital one.

I currently use an Epson 2520 scanner/ printer which does ok but not what I was hoping for.

Here's the scanned image of an Awe Shucks dahlia I shot at the Swan Island Dahlia Show a few days ago. It looks pretty blah, nothing like the real photo.

An here is the same photo edited either on GIMP 2.8 or befunky.com.

Again, here's a scanned image of a Bishop of York dahlia. It looks nothing like my actual photo.

I have to edited it to add contrast, a little fill light, add a sharpen filter and adjust colors so that the scanned photo actually looks like the processed negative does.

So, as I am learning very much, I kind of think that I should have stayed with the Canon T3i. I do plan on switching from a color negative to color slide film, which Ken Rockwell says you will get better colors. What do you think? Any insight?

[Steve20050]

I shoot mostly transparency film. I do like the results better, though the negative film is supposed to handle incorrect exposures better with more dynamic range. I think this is more from the days of film when your transparency was your image and the negative could be adjusted when printing. There is an old rule that basically states if exposure is in doubt, it is better to over expose on negative film to open up the shadows and under expose on transparency film to not washout the highlights.

Having said that "fleeing wildlife" I have never been good at either. I'm just too dam slow. There is another rule to follow that should help. Always make sure your shutter speed is set correctly if hand held. With a 300 mm lens you should not use a shutter UNDER 1/300 of a sec. If you only zoom to 125mm, then it would be 1/125 sec. etc. You just need to take the zoom setting and turn it into a fraction, that will give you the correct shutter speed to hand hold without a tripod and get sharp results. If the wildlife is moving as well? I think this is why newer models also have autofocus that follows the image. If you can't get the setting your film is too slow and you need faster film or digital you need higher ISO sensitivity.

Those 1/2 frame sensor cameras have kept me from buying digital too as the full versions are really expensive. I recall getting a pretty good deal on my Mamiya. It was still something like 3000 USD new back in 1997, after a couple 500 USD rebates, but the look of those transparencies keeps me using it. I had a chance recently to shoot some digital for a company and it wasn't my proudest moment. It had the smaller sensor and I really thought some of the stuff was over exposed, but they all liked it, so I suppose it is also how much you know about all this stuff and what your criteria is. Being an anal retentive type I got into photography knowing I could never get to perfect. There was always room for improvement. Everyone, including professionals use all the tricks they can find and the only thing in the end that matters is the image, how ever you got it. I am really happy to have a computer where I can now adjust a lot of my photos more to my liking than I could ever get taking them to someone else to print. So even for someone like me, digital has changed a lot of how I approach a photo opportunity.

Speaking of photo opportunities. Maybe you can give me some insight. I want to go out to Olallie lake mid to late September to shoot a pano. I was on Potato Butte and Double Peak last fall, but the angle and elevation weren't correct. It was clear I need to do this on Ollallie Butte. I understand I can't camp on the reservation lands. What I would like to do is camp in one of the camp grounds in the vicinity and do an early morning climb up the unmaintained trail for this. Is there currently any reason the reservation would object? Also want to see more of the PCT and some of this runs thru the reservation as well. I don't expect any problems with either, do you? It is a very pretty area in the fall.

[forestkeeper]

Thanks for all the info!!! Warm Springs shouldn't object. I would just tent camp at the summit then you can get some good starry night photos then you'd be ready to shoot the early morning light without getting sweaty from the ascent. In the 4 months that I was up there every weekend, I didn't see them once. And every Saturday I even patrolled the Breitenbush Lake Campground which they own.
If you don't want to tent camp on top, you can either camp at the Triangle Equestrian Camp or Lower Lake Campground, which is now free of charge (as of Labor Day.) I hiked up Olallie Butte to the Warm Springs Boundary (before I was dispatched on an emergency) at the 6,000 foot level in July and the trail was ok. A lot of small blowovers and the trail very rocky but it was fun. Park at the spot underneath the powerlines for the Olallie Butte Trail. There's a few small trail markers marking the trail. I was to be the one to maintain this trail but I got a hernia at work July 30th and had surgery on Tuesday, so won't be able to clear trails for another 2 months.Be careful up there!

Will

[jdemott]

By the time I was able to change to the 300mm lens, they were gone. That and the fact that whenever I used the zoom lens, nearly all my shots were blurred. How can anyone use a tripod when shooting wildlife.

Wildlife photography is really hard work, and the folks who do it professionally generally have some very fancy equipment, including tripods equipped with gimbals so that they can pivot their cameras and huge lenses quickly and easily.
E.g., http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/4 ... _Head.html

Basically, the two things you need, equipment-wise, for wildlife photography are magnification (to get a detailed shot of a small animal from a distance) and speed (to get a sharp, unblurred shot of an animal in motion). In the film world, that has traditionally meant big, heavy, ridiculously expensive telephoto lenses that have wide apertures and high magnification. For example, a Nikkor 400mm, f/2.8 lens priced at close to $9,000! You also need to be a body-builder to carry a lens like that. Digital cameras can partially solve those problems. APS sensor cameras, like Canon Rebels, have a 1.5x magnification factor so a 300mm lens has an effective focal length of 450mm. And, the much faster ISO speeds of today's digital cameras (far faster than film) let you use fast shutter speeds even with slow lenses. Also, digital allows various optical defects, like distortion and chromatic aberration, to be corrected with software so you don't have to buy as fancy a lens to get nice looking shots. The result is that a wildlife photographer can use much, much cheaper and lighter equipment and still get nice close up shots without blurring. (Of course the pros are still using expensive lenses, even with digital, to get the best possible results.) I'm not trying to start a film versus digital argument, but I think wildlife photography is an area where digital has a lot to offer.

[forestkeeper]

You're definitely right John. I looked at a Canon 500mm lens on Adorama.com that was going for $16,000. I guess if I were one of the top photographers for National Geographic I'd be able to afford it but I'll just have to settle on shooting waterfalls and flowers.