Anyone use shoot their ME Super @ 3200?

Vendee · 09-04-2010, 01:58 AM

I've got a couple of film SLRs. A superb, top end Canon with expensive glass and my ME Super with cheaper, older but superb quality glass.

The Canon gets used most of the time but where the ME Super excels is for discrete night time use. With the 50mm f/1.7 Pentax lens fitted, its small enough to slip in your coat pocket when you go out for a meal or to a club. The only thing I can fault it on is the 1600 ISO max setting, which was obviously fine when the ME Super was launched but not so good now with 3200 film or even pushing 400 film to 3200.

Has anyone here got round that by metering in manual mode @ 1600 ISO and then increasing the shutter speed by a stop over the metered shutter speed?

Adam · 09-04-2010, 09:59 AM

I haven't done it myself, but wouldn't it be enough to set the EV compensation to -1?

Vendee · 09-04-2010, 10:12 AM

Originally posted by Adam

I haven't done it myself, but wouldn't it be enough to set the EV compensation to -1?

Hi Adam, unfortunately when the ISO is set to 1600 on the ME Super, the exposure compensation will only give positive adjustment. The adjuster physically won't go negative at 1600.

Marcoz · 09-04-2010, 01:56 PM

i bought a used pentax mx some years ago. some time ago a made some testing because i did not trust the meter. i found out that it underexposed by exactly one stop. apart from having understood what problem i had with exposure, i realized that i could easily use 3200 film confortably by just setting the iso dial to iso 1600. i thought that maybe the previous owner of the camera had let done this on porpouse by a camera service exactly for this matter. i just have to remember to set iso one stop lower (let's say 200 iso for a 400 iso film) but it's not a problem.
maybe you can inquire about this.

Ratmagiclady · 09-07-2010, 07:39 PM

Basically, you can do that manual thing, though: When I'm in very low light I like to be very aware of the light and shadow, anyway, so it's not even very inconvenient just to keep the film speed in mind: often these are prime conditions in which the elementary auto-exposure can be fooled, by dark backgrounds, lights in frame, etc.

tuco · 09-12-2010, 04:16 PM

Originally posted by Vendee

Hi Adam, unfortunately when the ISO is set to 1600 on the ME Super, the exposure compensation will only give positive adjustment. The adjuster physically won't go negative at 1600.

Set it to ISO1600 and like Ratmagiclady said, put it manual and "under expose" it a stop.

Ratmagiclady · 09-13-2010, 10:03 AM

Originally posted by tuco

Set it to ISO1600 and like Ratmagiclady said, put it manual and "under expose" it a stop.

Or a half-stop, or even two-thirds. *Except* with flash or any other light that might wash things out, like a spotlight, when pushing film, you can usually err on the side of 'a little over' (especially compared to what meters and sensor may say) and actually do better.

Usually, when I push, I will, for instance, expose at 2000 and develop for 3200: pretty generous, but I also know I can get niceness that way, and still be pretty good at the rated speed, if I have to press matters. Thinking that way actually works, you just have to watch out for those big differences in brightness. Sometimes those big bright spots are your subject.

Also, learn what I call 'the waggle,' which is a habit I picked up in youth using a similar display to the ME Super: don't take your light readings like you're measuring the 'photo,' ....move the meter (aka, your ME Super) around and read *the light.* The metering pattern is 'center-weighted,' meaning it pays proportionally-more attention to the middle of the frame, and since when you're pushing film, it tends to be near the bottom end of that meter's sensitivity, you want to *know* what it's trying to tell you and where it can't.

(This is simpler than it sounds: just pay attention to what happens when you do this, you should get a feel for what the meter's trying to tell you and how. Low-light photography tends to mean you really want to learn to read the light for yourself: the meter just helps you calibrate your own senses: your brain and eyes can be very good at judging *relative* brightness, (within several stops, anyway) not always so much the absolutes. I'm so used to this even my sci-fi-like K20d rarely comes off old-fashioned centerweighted metering, these days. (Though, admittedly, the matrix metering seems to be great at ignoring light-sources-in-frame.

)

tuco · 09-13-2010, 10:14 AM

Originally posted by Ratmagiclady

Or a half-stop, or even two-thirds. *Except* with flash or any other light that might wash things out, like a spotlight, when pushing film, you can usually err on the side of 'a little over' (especially compared to what meters and sensor may say) and actually do better.

Usually, when I push, I will, for instance, expose at 2000 and develop for 3200: pretty generous, but I also know I can get niceness that way, and still be pretty good at the rated speed, if I have to press matters. Thinking that way actually works, you just have to watch out for those big differences in brightness. Sometimes those big bright spots are your subject.

Also, learn what I call 'the waggle,' which is a habit I picked up in youth using a similar display to the ME Super: don't take your light readings like you're measuring the 'photo,' ....move the meter (aka, your ME Super) around and read *the light.* The metering pattern is 'center-weighted,' meaning it pays proportionally-more attention to the middle of the frame, and since when you're pushing film, it tends to be near the bottom end of that meter's sensitivity, you want to *know* what it's trying to tell you and where it can't.

(This is simpler than it sounds: just pay attention to what happens when you do this, you should get a feel for what the meter's trying to tell you and how. Low-light photography tends to mean you really want to learn to read the light for yourself: the meter just helps you calibrate your own senses: your brain and eyes can be very good at judging *relative* brightness, (within several stops, anyway) not always so much the absolutes. I'm so used to this even my sci-fi-like K20d rarely comes off old-fashioned centerweighted metering, these days. (Though, admittedly, the matrix metering seems to be great at ignoring light-sources-in-frame.

)

The OP said ISO3200 film. No pushing required. Plus, is all that extra stuff intended for me - a person who shoots with a camera that has no meter and consequently uses a one-degree spot meter?

Ratmagiclady · 09-13-2010, 10:40 AM

Originally posted by tuco

The OP said ISO3200 film. No pushing required. Plus, is all that extra stuff intended for me - a person who shoots with a camera that has no meter and consequently uses a one-degree spot meter?

Eh, if you have a true spotmeter, you know what to do.

(Certainly I'd rather be using one in clubs than an ME Super's meter, anyway: the question at hand is using an old camera's built-in.

)

Course, the only actually-3200-labeled film I have much experience is the T-max, (Which I also rate around 2000 and develop for the 3200 when shooting) which is basically on the same scheme: like the original, it's just made to be 'pushed' nicely, if you read the development times. I think the native ISO is nothing so fast with regular development) ...I haven't tried the Fuji, though. The big point is that you *can* be generous with exposure, you've just got to watch for things that might conspire to put you *way* over, like lighter skin under spotlight, or flash errors, cause that extra 'generosity' might be what makes things block up.

tuco · 09-13-2010, 10:42 AM

Pentax Spotmeter V

Ratmagiclady · 09-13-2010, 10:59 AM

Originally posted by tuco

Pentax Spotmeter V

Yeah, *sigh*

I really have always wanted one of those: I've just been working around the lack of one for so long I only think of it in big snow-cover and stage shows.

(I actually did most of my learning on the old Canon 'Partial' metering, like on FT's and FTbs and TL's, (And emulated at least by the F-1's.) which gives you an average of a well-defined portion of the screen: like a spotmeter with a bigger field, ... influenced how I learned to deal with the mushier center-weighting way.

tuco · 09-13-2010, 11:27 AM

Film, scanning and post process is so forgiving anyway that a latitude of a stop really doesn't matter much. Just this weekend I was at a car museum taking some shots. I put on a green filter for a Red car, stopped down to f19 and metered a 60 second exposure. But I forgot to set the camera on bulb. I took the shot at 1 second. The film was Acros 100. That is 6 stops under exposed effectively shooting at EI6400. I scanned it for the heck of it and post processed to salvage this contrasty image.

Ratmagiclady · 09-13-2010, 12:06 PM

Originally posted by tuco

Film, scanning and post process is so forgiving anyway that a latitude of a stop really doesn't matter much. Just this weekend I was at a car museum taking some shots. I put on a green filter for a Red car, stopped down to f19 and metered a 60 second exposure. But I forgot to set the camera on bulb. I took the shot at 1 second. The film was Acros 100. That is 6 stops under exposed effectively shooting at EI6400. I scanned it for the heck of it and post processed to salvage this contrasty image.

Lady! Does look nice, that. Then again, I never could get that Acros to lie down right anywhere near the rated speed. (I gave up, actually: it was a bear to get many chemicals shipped where I was just for that one film, and I actually was getting lovely results from Neopan 400, anyway.) How'd you meter, though? Kind of wondering if some of the difference isn't the lighting and filtration, (and take a couple of stops for the reciprocity failure that didn't happen, possibly) but that's still pretty cool. Doesn't look like you got the sharpness Acros is supposed to be *for,* but the important part is it's pretty.

Most of my notion of a 'good negative' does come from analog darkroom, not trying to make a wonky Epson get through a dense negative, (There's a difference between burning patiently on a dense area and trying to make a computer act like it saw what was there in the first place, at which I'm not that good, anyway, ) but that's pretty nice.

stevebrot · 09-13-2010, 12:20 PM

Originally posted by Ratmagiclady

...and take a couple of stops for the reciprocity failure that didn't happen...

Acros has tremendous resistance to reciprocity failure. It was probably that characteristic along with his semi-stand development that saved Tuco's bacon. (Rodinal 1:100 according to the Flickr image tags) All told, that shot is a tremendous testimony to the capabilities of the film.

Steve

(wishing that Acros spectral sensitivity was shifted more to the red than to the blue..)

tuco · 09-13-2010, 12:42 PM

I think the image is sharp. A slightly wide angle, 60mm lens was used so DOF is not that deep focusing so close to the subject. As sevebrot says, Acros does not exhibit reciprocity failure for up to 120 seconds. And after that, it is just 1/2 stop adjustment which can be ignored for all but the longest exposures. And Acros will develop well in just about any developer. I don't see how you'd have any trouble with it.

09-04-2010, 01:58 AM	#1
Vendee Pentaxian Join Date: Feb 2009 Location: Norfolk, UK Posts: 1,134	Anyone use shoot their ME Super @ 3200? I've got a couple of film SLRs. A superb, top end Canon with expensive glass and my ME Super with cheaper, older but superb quality glass. The Canon gets used most of the time but where the ME Super excels is for discrete night time use. With the 50mm f/1.7 Pentax lens fitted, its small enough to slip in your coat pocket when you go out for a meal or to a club. The only thing I can fault it on is the 1600 ISO max setting, which was obviously fine when the ME Super was launched but not so good now with 3200 film or even pushing 400 film to 3200. Has anyone here got round that by metering in manual mode @ 1600 ISO and then increasing the shutter speed by a stop over the metered shutter speed?

09-04-2010, 09:59 AM	#2
Adam Administrator Site Webmaster Join Date: Sep 2006 Location: Arizona Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 51,594	I haven't done it myself, but wouldn't it be enough to set the EV compensation to -1? Adam PentaxForums.com Webmaster (Site Usage Guide \| Site Help \| My Photography) PentaxForums.com server and development costs are user-supported. You can help cover these costs by donating or purchasing one of our Pentax eBooks. Or, buy your photo gear from our affiliates, Adorama, B&H Photo, KEH, or Topaz Labs, and get FREE Marketplace access - click here to see how! Trusted Pentax retailers:

09-13-2010, 10:40 AM	#9
Ratmagiclady Veteran Member Join Date: Nov 2008 Location: GA Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 13,563	Originally posted by tuco The OP said ISO3200 film. No pushing required. Plus, is all that extra stuff intended for me - a person who shoots with a camera that has no meter and consequently uses a one-degree spot meter? Eh, if you have a true spotmeter, you know what to do. (Certainly I'd rather be using one in clubs than an ME Super's meter, anyway: the question at hand is using an old camera's built-in. ) Course, the only actually-3200-labeled film I have much experience is the T-max, (Which I also rate around 2000 and develop for the 3200 when shooting) which is basically on the same scheme: like the original, it's just made to be 'pushed' nicely, if you read the development times. I think the native ISO is nothing so fast with regular development) ...I haven't tried the Fuji, though. The big point is that you can be generous with exposure, you've just got to watch for things that might conspire to put you way over, like lighter skin under spotlight, or flash errors, cause that extra 'generosity' might be what makes things block up. Last edited by Ratmagiclady; 09-13-2010 at 10:53 AM.

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
Landscape It's OK to shoot at ISO 3200!!!	Eetu	Post Your Photos!	4	07-02-2010 01:50 PM
Black & White This is what ISO 3200 used to look like!	brkl	Post Your Photos!	5	01-10-2010 03:35 PM
K-x vs K7 at iso 3200	artemapei	Pentax DSLR Discussion	21	11-18-2009 08:05 PM
For Sale - Sold: Yashica T4 Super - 135 film point & shoot camera	dave9t5	Sold Items	4	07-20-2009 05:32 PM
K10D, EF-500 Super, Omni...how to shoot a party?	blwnhr	Pentax Camera and Field Accessories	6	08-09-2007 08:53 PM

09-04-2010, 10:12 AM	#3
Vendee Pentaxian Join Date: Feb 2009 Location: Norfolk, UK Posts: 1,134 Original Poster	Originally posted by Adam I haven't done it myself, but wouldn't it be enough to set the EV compensation to -1? Hi Adam, unfortunately when the ISO is set to 1600 on the ME Super, the exposure compensation will only give positive adjustment. The adjuster physically won't go negative at 1600.

09-04-2010, 01:56 PM	#4
Marcoz Junior Member Join Date: Feb 2009 Location: Milan Posts: 39	i bought a used pentax mx some years ago. some time ago a made some testing because i did not trust the meter. i found out that it underexposed by exactly one stop. apart from having understood what problem i had with exposure, i realized that i could easily use 3200 film confortably by just setting the iso dial to iso 1600. i thought that maybe the previous owner of the camera had let done this on porpouse by a camera service exactly for this matter. i just have to remember to set iso one stop lower (let's say 200 iso for a 400 iso film) but it's not a problem. maybe you can inquire about this.

09-07-2010, 07:39 PM	#5
Ratmagiclady Veteran Member Join Date: Nov 2008 Location: GA Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 13,563	Basically, you can do that manual thing, though: When I'm in very low light I like to be very aware of the light and shadow, anyway, so it's not even very inconvenient just to keep the film speed in mind: often these are prime conditions in which the elementary auto-exposure can be fooled, by dark backgrounds, lights in frame, etc.

09-12-2010, 04:16 PM	#6
tuco Pentaxian Join Date: Jul 2009 Location: Pugetopolis Posts: 11,024	Originally posted by Vendee Hi Adam, unfortunately when the ISO is set to 1600 on the ME Super, the exposure compensation will only give positive adjustment. The adjuster physically won't go negative at 1600. Set it to ISO1600 and like Ratmagiclady said, put it manual and "under expose" it a stop.

09-13-2010, 10:03 AM	#7
Ratmagiclady Veteran Member Join Date: Nov 2008 Location: GA Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 13,563	Originally posted by tuco Set it to ISO1600 and like Ratmagiclady said, put it manual and "under expose" it a stop. Or a half-stop, or even two-thirds. Except with flash or any other light that might wash things out, like a spotlight, when pushing film, you can usually err on the side of 'a little over' (especially compared to what meters and sensor may say) and actually do better. Usually, when I push, I will, for instance, expose at 2000 and develop for 3200: pretty generous, but I also know I can get niceness that way, and still be pretty good at the rated speed, if I have to press matters. Thinking that way actually works, you just have to watch out for those big differences in brightness. Sometimes those big bright spots are your subject. Also, learn what I call 'the waggle,' which is a habit I picked up in youth using a similar display to the ME Super: don't take your light readings like you're measuring the 'photo,' ....move the meter (aka, your ME Super) around and read the light. The metering pattern is 'center-weighted,' meaning it pays proportionally-more attention to the middle of the frame, and since when you're pushing film, it tends to be near the bottom end of that meter's sensitivity, you want to know what it's trying to tell you and where it can't. (This is simpler than it sounds: just pay attention to what happens when you do this, you should get a feel for what the meter's trying to tell you and how. Low-light photography tends to mean you really want to learn to read the light for yourself: the meter just helps you calibrate your own senses: your brain and eyes can be very good at judging relative brightness, (within several stops, anyway) not always so much the absolutes. I'm so used to this even my sci-fi-like K20d rarely comes off old-fashioned centerweighted metering, these days. (Though, admittedly, the matrix metering seems to be great at ignoring light-sources-in-frame. )

09-13-2010, 10:14 AM	#8
tuco Pentaxian Join Date: Jul 2009 Location: Pugetopolis Posts: 11,024	Originally posted by Ratmagiclady Or a half-stop, or even two-thirds. Except with flash or any other light that might wash things out, like a spotlight, when pushing film, you can usually err on the side of 'a little over' (especially compared to what meters and sensor may say) and actually do better. Usually, when I push, I will, for instance, expose at 2000 and develop for 3200: pretty generous, but I also know I can get niceness that way, and still be pretty good at the rated speed, if I have to press matters. Thinking that way actually works, you just have to watch out for those big differences in brightness. Sometimes those big bright spots are your subject. Also, learn what I call 'the waggle,' which is a habit I picked up in youth using a similar display to the ME Super: don't take your light readings like you're measuring the 'photo,' ....move the meter (aka, your ME Super) around and read the light. The metering pattern is 'center-weighted,' meaning it pays proportionally-more attention to the middle of the frame, and since when you're pushing film, it tends to be near the bottom end of that meter's sensitivity, you want to know what it's trying to tell you and where it can't. (This is simpler than it sounds: just pay attention to what happens when you do this, you should get a feel for what the meter's trying to tell you and how. Low-light photography tends to mean you really want to learn to read the light for yourself: the meter just helps you calibrate your own senses: your brain and eyes can be very good at judging relative brightness, (within several stops, anyway) not always so much the absolutes. I'm so used to this even my sci-fi-like K20d rarely comes off old-fashioned centerweighted metering, these days. (Though, admittedly, the matrix metering seems to be great at ignoring light-sources-in-frame. ) The OP said ISO3200 film. No pushing required. Plus, is all that extra stuff intended for me - a person who shoots with a camera that has no meter and consequently uses a one-degree spot meter?

09-13-2010, 10:42 AM	#10
tuco Pentaxian Join Date: Jul 2009 Location: Pugetopolis Posts: 11,024	Pentax Spotmeter V

09-13-2010, 10:59 AM	#11
Ratmagiclady Veteran Member Join Date: Nov 2008 Location: GA Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 13,563	Originally posted by tuco Pentax Spotmeter V Yeah, sigh I really have always wanted one of those: I've just been working around the lack of one for so long I only think of it in big snow-cover and stage shows. (I actually did most of my learning on the old Canon 'Partial' metering, like on FT's and FTbs and TL's, (And emulated at least by the F-1's.) which gives you an average of a well-defined portion of the screen: like a spotmeter with a bigger field, ... influenced how I learned to deal with the mushier center-weighting way.

09-13-2010, 11:27 AM	#12
tuco Pentaxian Join Date: Jul 2009 Location: Pugetopolis Posts: 11,024	Film, scanning and post process is so forgiving anyway that a latitude of a stop really doesn't matter much. Just this weekend I was at a car museum taking some shots. I put on a green filter for a Red car, stopped down to f19 and metered a 60 second exposure. But I forgot to set the camera on bulb. I took the shot at 1 second. The film was Acros 100. That is 6 stops under exposed effectively shooting at EI6400. I scanned it for the heck of it and post processed to salvage this contrasty image.

09-13-2010, 12:06 PM	#13
Ratmagiclady Veteran Member Join Date: Nov 2008 Location: GA Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 13,563	Originally posted by tuco Film, scanning and post process is so forgiving anyway that a latitude of a stop really doesn't matter much. Just this weekend I was at a car museum taking some shots. I put on a green filter for a Red car, stopped down to f19 and metered a 60 second exposure. But I forgot to set the camera on bulb. I took the shot at 1 second. The film was Acros 100. That is 6 stops under exposed effectively shooting at EI6400. I scanned it for the heck of it and post processed to salvage this contrasty image. Lady! Does look nice, that. Then again, I never could get that Acros to lie down right anywhere near the rated speed. (I gave up, actually: it was a bear to get many chemicals shipped where I was just for that one film, and I actually was getting lovely results from Neopan 400, anyway.) How'd you meter, though? Kind of wondering if some of the difference isn't the lighting and filtration, (and take a couple of stops for the reciprocity failure that didn't happen, possibly) but that's still pretty cool. Doesn't look like you got the sharpness Acros is supposed to be for, but the important part is it's pretty. Most of my notion of a 'good negative' does come from analog darkroom, not trying to make a wonky Epson get through a dense negative, (There's a difference between burning patiently on a dense area and trying to make a computer act like it saw what was there in the first place, at which I'm not that good, anyway, ) but that's pretty nice.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

09-13-2010, 12:20 PM	#14
stevebrot Otis Memorial Pentaxian Join Date: Mar 2007 Location: Vancouver (USA) Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 42,007	Originally posted by Ratmagiclady ...and take a couple of stops for the reciprocity failure that didn't happen... Acros has tremendous resistance to reciprocity failure. It was probably that characteristic along with his semi-stand development that saved Tuco's bacon. (Rodinal 1:100 according to the Flickr image tags) All told, that shot is a tremendous testimony to the capabilities of the film. Steve (wishing that Acros spectral sensitivity was shifted more to the red than to the blue..)

09-13-2010, 12:42 PM	#15
tuco Pentaxian Join Date: Jul 2009 Location: Pugetopolis Posts: 11,024	I think the image is sharp. A slightly wide angle, 60mm lens was used so DOF is not that deep focusing so close to the subject. As sevebrot says, Acros does not exhibit reciprocity failure for up to 120 seconds. And after that, it is just 1/2 stop adjustment which can be ignored for all but the longest exposures. And Acros will develop well in just about any developer. I don't see how you'd have any trouble with it.