[kbrede]

I'm making a foray into film and decided I should get a light meter. I bought a used Sekonic L-508 which has both incident and spot metering. Messing around with the K-5 and Sekonic, I found the readings didn't really match up. So I took a picture of the blue sky, the histogram was spiked in the center. I then spot metered the sky. I used the compensation function to dial in 3AV to bring the meter in line with the K-5's shutter, ISO and aperture. I used a gray card in the shade to meter off of with the K-5, and then matched those settings on the Sekonic by dialing in a -1AV for the incident reading.

Does this sound like a decent calibration method?

I went around metering things and taking shots with the K-5. I found that if I spot metered off a shaded green bush, I needed to speed up the shutter 2 stops to bring the histogram near center. When metering off a gray cloud, with silver lining, I sped up the shutter a couple stops to bring the histogram to center. The incident meter seemed to get the K-5 in the ballpark when metering in front of a tan shed, while the meter was facing the direction the sun. In shade, facing away from the sun, I generally had to slow the shutter down a couple stops.

Does this sound like the way an accurate light meter works? I've never used one.

Any thoughts appreciated. I realize all this hinges on the K-5 being accurate, and assuming the film cameras will work with the same meter
readout as the K-5. I probably should have just purchased a new model, but good ones are expensive!
Thanks,

[aleonx3]

I'm making a foray into film and decided I should get a light meter. I bought a used Sekonic L-508 which has both incident and spot metering. Messing around with the K-5 and Sekonic, I found the readings didn't really match up. So I took a picture of the blue sky, the histogram was spiked in the center. I then spot metered the sky. I used the compensation function to dial in 3AV to bring the meter in line with the K-5's shutter, ISO and aperture. I used a gray card in the shade to meter off of with the K-5, and then matched those settings on the Sekonic by dialing in a -1AV for the incident reading.

Does this sound like a decent calibration method?

I went around metering things and taking shots with the K-5. I found that if I spot metered off a shaded green bush, I needed to speed up the shutter 2 stops to bring the histogram near center. When metering off a gray cloud, with silver lining, I sped up the shutter a couple stops to bring the histogram to center. The incident meter seemed to get the K-5 in the ballpark when metering in front of a tan shed, while the meter was facing the direction the sun. In shade, facing away from the sun, I generally had to slow the shutter down a couple stops.

Does this sound like the way an accurate light meter works? I've never used one.

Any thoughts appreciated. I realize all this hinges on the K-5 being accurate, and assuming the film cameras will work with the same meter
readout as the K-5. I probably should have just purchased a new model, but good ones are expensive!
Thanks,

I don't think there is a right or wrong one... each likely metering it off differently. I generally find that k-5 (or k-7 for that matter) which tends to underexpose a bit by .7EV to protect highlight clipping. And even then, I sometimes find the metering on certain lenses (including MF ones) various to some degree. Whether metering is correct or not is subjective in my opinion. Unlike in the film era when you can not chimp, some of the rules did apply ETTR or ETTL depending on what you expect the result to be. Having said that, I always find that results from the Canikon users are usually overexposed IMHO.

[Anvh]

Sekonic uses about 14% grey while most other lightmeters are about 12% so there is a small difference.

About the histogram, the peak should mostly be slightly on the left side actually for a typical correct exposure, however with digital you might want to over expose bit if you can.

[hcarvalhoalves]

(...) however with digital you might want to over expose bit if you can.

Isn't it the opposite - you want to underexpose a bit? Highlights are easily clipped on digital, while shadows still retain enough detail.

Sensors work more like slide film in that regard, they expose towards "full white", differently than negative, which exposes towards "full black". That's a big reason why some people still prefer negatives to digital actually, the latitude is wider on high contrast scenes, so you usually compensate on digital by underexposing and then raising shadows on PP.

[Anvh]

Yes don't clip it but sensors are sort of linear devices, the steps between illumination gets smaller the higher it gets.
Sensor can easily capture 8 times if not more details in the highlights then in the shadows.

It's easier to demonstrate by using relative high iso, under expose a photo and bring that up and over expose a photo and bring it down, the difference will be very obvious

here you can see it
http://schewephoto.com/ETTR/index.html

http://daystarvisions.com/Docs/Tuts/BryanETTR/pg2.html