Is 12% really the new 18%?

nigpd

nigpd

Suspended / Banned
Messages
5,989
Name
Nigel
Edit My Images
Yes
Just got my new copy of EOS magazine and having a quick flick through the flier that comes with it.

In it there is a new EzyBalance 12% grey/white pop up card from Lastolite. Apparently 12% is the new 18% according to the blurb. Apparently many photographers use this as a mid tone reference.

News to me :shrug: Have I been away too long and lost touch? Does it produce much better/more accurate results?
 
But metering off a 12% card would actually me metering to the left. As a white balance device, the reflectivity is pretty irrelevant, so long as it's pure, neutral grey, but as an exposure device, a lighter card will result in darker exposures if you spot meter off it.

All I know is that every incident light reading I take can be exactly replicated by reflectively spot metering off a 18% card in the same scene. A 12% card always gives me a different reading. As an incident reading is always going to be the most accurate, I'm firmly of the belief that 18% is the right way to do it. If my camera's spot reading off a 18% card matches the incident reading, them my camera assumes 18% grey is correct too, so 12% can go take a running jump :)
 
Last edited:
It's certainly something that's been repeated on forums and the like a fair bit. Apparently the international standard that cameras are supposed to be calibrated to actually specifies 12% though I've never seen a document detailing that standard.
 
I've never seen a camera's spot meter give the same reading as an incident meter when using a 12% card either.
 
As far as I am aware the 18% grey card was designed simply as a reference point, and was never designed to be used with exposure meters. It's one of those myths that seem to have come about over the years.
 
Chappers said:
As far as I am aware the 18% grey card was designed simply as a reference point, and was never designed to be used with exposure meters. It's one of those myths that seem to have come about over the years.
Click to expand...


Myth or not. Reflected readings with the camera's spot meter from a 18% card always seem to match incident readings, and give correct exposures. Right or wrong, I will continue to carry on doing so. If it gave incorrect results I'd have questioned it myself some time ago. I've heard the arguments before, and done the maths before, but for the life of me I can not find any evidence that I'm under exposing a half stop.

This is not a new argument anyway, and for the life of me I can't work out why camera manufacturers don't just give clear information about how they calibrate their meters and just put the whole damned thing to bed. Nikon never disclose anything definitively, Sekonic, last time I read anything about this seem to go for 15%. I've been told in no uncertain terms from a technician from Leaf/Mamyia that they are DEFINITELY 18%.. LOL. I give up. You can't get a straight answer from anyone. All that article linked to above is explaining is the maths behind it all, but unless you know exactly what the camera manufactures are actually calibrating their meters to, it doesn't really help.

In reality... knowing that my Sekonic meters are calibrated to 15%, and assuming my Nikon could be 18% (if you believe Nikon USA) or 13% (if you believe Nikon Japan), then clearly the third stop difference isn't the big deal you all think it is... Which in itself, isn't that surprising either.

Having said all that, I bet if you sneaked into my camera bag and replaced my 18% card with a 12% card, I'd probably not notice unless I was being really critical.

I would do what I did years ago, and stopped worrying about it. I get great results with a 18% card, and have never paid any attention to Kodak's disclaimer. I'd probably get equally great results from a 12% card. The reality is though, I only ever use a grey card as an exposure aid in very difficult lighting conditions where an incident reading on location would not give me a clear indication of contrast ratios, so I spot off a grey card in various points on the scene. Given that I only ever do that in very difficult contrast scenarios I may just be so glad I got a good exposure that I don't examine it too closely. In controlled environments, and in pretty much 90% of location environments I'll be trusting my incident meter rather than ANY reflected reading.
 
Last edited:
I think Pookey's hit the nail on the head with one word - Kodak. IIRC, it was they who introduced the 18% cards and as the market leaders at the time, their words were taken as gospel. Many people still regard that as the standard but 12% isn't a new thing and works just as well. Since it's generally easier to retrieve shadow detail than blown highlights, I would use the 12% if (and I have no intentions to do so!) I were to use a grey card as a metering target. To me, a grey card just needs to be a neutral grey as a WB reference, although a pure white sheet of paper does the job just as well!
 
Surrey Weddings said:
and never will one is measuring the light hitting a subject and the other light reflecting from it...
Click to expand...

I know that :) But if your viewfinder if filled with a grey card of the same reflectivity as your meter is calibrated to, then the grey card reading will be the same as your incident reading... again, assuming the incident reading is calibrated to the same value. There should be no difference. The fact that they don't with a 12% card means that one of the meters is not calibrated to the same value. Which is my point. As there seems to be no clear standard for all camera/meter manufacturers, it's clearly not getting all hot under the collar about. Until there is an agreed standard, there will always be small differences between meters. It would seem that Nikon and Sekonic don't calibrate to the same value anyway. Everything therefore suddenly becomes arbitrary.

If you're happy with your exposures, stop worrying about it.
 
Last edited:
Pookeyhead said:
If you're happy with your exposures, stop worrying about it.
Click to expand...

And that sums it all up nicely :)

My previous cameras always needed 1/3 stop compensation, my two f2.8 lenses don't record the same exposure at f2.8, and my macro needs adjusting too - so long as you get to grips with what's really happening in taking a shot the maths & science doesn't matter one iota

I even bought an Expodisc years ago to ensure I got the WB correct, and it works well - except that I like my images a bit warmer than 'accurate' anyway, so I stopped using it as I always adjusted whatever it said to my 'taste'

Dave
 
On a related theme - is there a preference to using a grey card vs a WB lens cap?
And what's the general rule for using a grey card, as in placement?
A WB cap is easy to see how it works, but not sure if the grey card has to be angled, placed close or held at arms length from the front of the camera.
 
We're discussing a grey card as a metering device here. A card that reflects a measured amount of white light (18% or 12%) on the premise that the camera's meter is calibrated to render any surface it is measuring as either 18% or 12% grey. In theory, if you point a camera at a white wall it will render it 18% (or 12, 15.. whatever the meter is calibrated to) grey.

In practice, with modern cameras that doesn't really happen as the camera's are a little more intelligent these days and they usually assume that a white wall needs to be white.. although they nearly always will under expose it to some degree. A simple spot meter will though. Point a spot meter at a pure white wall, take a reading, then transfer those settings manually to a camera and the camera will render the wall grey.

A WB lens cap is just a neutral grey (no colour) as a white point reference.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top