Have ou got a light.......meter?

[mikewendell]

I'm fairly new to Digital Photography, and to this forum. I read most of that which is posted here; it's a great place to be informed.

But, with all that's posted here the one subject I rarely see discussed is Light Meters. Are they not used much anymore because they're inaffective? Is it too costly to own a good one, or are we getting lazy, and don't want to add one more step in our quest for the shot that everyone talks about.

It seems that camera technology and programs such as Photoshop have almost oliminated the need for a light meter, but wouldn't it be far better to get a correct exposure to start with, rather than depend on such things as Photoshop and various camera gadgetry to fix things after we get a less than desirable shot. From what I read, some of the tools used to turn an average shot into a good one, actually takes away from the results we could have had if our exposure was correct to begin with.

Anyone that knows anything about Light Meters and especially those that use them, please post your comments. I bet that most Forum readers would be interested and take time to read about this old tool, the "Light Meter". I certainly would like to know more.

Kind regards to all,
Mike Wendell

[adas]

Hi Mike. I think the reason there isn't much talk anymore on the light meter, is that the cameras already have a light meter built in. And with the modern metering algorithms and modes, there wouldn't be much room for error. The under/overexposed shots are mainly due to user error.
The standalone light meter is an incidental light meter. It only provide us information about the available light quantity.
In my opinion, the built in one is much powerful, being a reflected light meter, we are able to figure out and mark the limits of our exposure by taking multiple spot samples in the frame and averaging them (spot meter, 30D an above).

[Dante King]

Of course I have a light meter. Anyone serious about photography does. A good meter is very versatile. most can do spot metering, which is important as not all camera have true spot metering. They can also give readings for flash, flash and ambient or ambient alone. most have a built-in adjustable incident dome (lumisphere) that provides full measuring in the standard position or when retracted, provides cosine corrected light readings for individual light source measurements or flat artwork.

I find my light meter readings to be much more accurate than the meter in my 8000$ camera. For studio work it's very valuable.

[Lord_Malone]

Nope. I intended to get one, but never really saw the need for it just yet. According the Dante's logic, I guess I'm not a serious photographer. ;)

[SkipD]

Everything Dante said.

I, too, have a modern handheld light meter - a Sekonic L-358 with their 1° spotmeter attachment. I could not function properly without it.

While the built-in meter in my 20D is certainly handy, it is sometimes lacking a lot in its capability. That's where the handheld meter steps in. The meter in the camera cannot measure light from flash sources. It cannot do incident readings. It cannot measure light in the dimmest situations that the handheld meter can. It cannot do true spot readings (1°).

[pfogle]

Well, for my 2c worth, I worked pro with film for 20 odd years, and used a light meter every day, for flash and daylight.

Now, I'd rather use the histogram... I get more information from it.

The meter is only useful if you know in advance what a correctly exposed shot is going to look like. I still don't know until I see it. With film, photographers often did a 'clip test' where you develop the first few inches of the film, and then adjust the rest to get the best results. Now we use photoshop. I'd never process a film without a test, and I'd never print a photo now without adjusting the levels.

So, the meter for me is pretty much redundant, though I still always use it for flash setups - then decide whether to believe it when I see the histogram!

edit - I did have a spot meter for a while, but as it didn't do flash, I hardly used it. That is one thing the in-camera meter just can't do. If you do need spot metering, you will need to get a hand-held metering. The 'spot metering' that's built into the camera isn't really effective.

[hef]

Light meters are great for still objects like product shoots. I find not using it that often but it sure comes in handy to just double check. It of course used to be a must with film photography. With digital you can always download and check or view the histogram to check if your close, but it's nice to get that exposure from a good meter up close and personal. I have a sekonic L-508 zoom master.

[BDM]

I have a number of meters of different types, in part because I still do a lot of film based work. They include a spot meter, several incident meters, a flash meter and a general purpose reflected meter.

For digital work, I tend not to use a stand alone meter because the built in metering plus the ability to examine the histogram makes stand alone meters unnecessary for the most part. However, my flash meter is very useful when I use studio flash which is not metered by the camera's flash metering system.

Bruce

[hef]

Here's a blast from the past to the future. Sorry shot with 30d and noink 50 1.4 quickly.

[steved110]

I rely on the meter in-camera, I find that evaluative metering rarely lets me down, and if I'm really worried I'll bracket - at least that's what I did before digital, now I can shoot off as many snaps as I want to get a good one.
I do try however to pretend I am using film otherwise i have hours of computer time spent sorting out the crud from the good stuff!

So basically I've never felt the need for a meter, and at the moment have other spending priorities.......

[DocFrankenstein]

But, with all that's posted here the one subject I rarely see discussed is Light Meters. Are they not used much anymore because they're inaffective?
People don't know about them. They care more about the lenses nowadays.
Is it too costly to own a good one
Best 200 bucks I've ever spent for photo equipment. Ever

The second best was the tripod, but that's about 450
or are we getting lazy, and don't want to add one more step in our quest for the shot that everyone talks about.
Not everybody need it. Not everybody knows how much it adds to the experience of photography and understanding... and getting consistent results in portraiture.

It seems that camera technology and programs such as Photoshop have almost oliminated the need for a light meter,
We'll have to agree to disagree.
but wouldn't it be far better to get a correct exposure to start with, rather than depend on such things as Photoshop and various camera gadgetry to fix things after we get a less than desirable shot. From what I read, some of the tools used to turn an average shot into a good one, actually takes away from the results we could have had if our exposure was correct to begin with.
Took the words out of my mouth.
Anyone that knows anything about Light Meters and especially those that use them, please post your comments. I bet that most Forum readers would be interested and take time to read about this old tool, the "Light Meter". I certainly would like to know more.
I think the beginner photographers should own a lightmeter and a tripod before they invest in a second lens.

1) The flashwork is easier.
2) Once you meter your shots, your understanding of exposure improves.
3) The red channel is no longer blown out. You get all the information and the photos look more professional.
4) With portraits it's the only way to figure out the lighting ratios. You can't rely on the LCD. The histogram doesn't tell you that... so you pretty much don't know if the reflector is throwing too much light or too little... and if you never used the meter before, you don't know even know how much light you want it to be putting on the model.
5) it's a help when you're shooting film/slide and don't have the histogram.

As a STUDENT of photography you need:
a meter, a tripod and then to tools to modify the light... the camera and the lens don't matter.

Just an opinion

[Lord_Malone]

Doc, your arguments are always pretty good.

[FlashZebra]

I'm fairly new to Digital Photography, and to this forum. I read most of that which is posted here; it's a great place to be informed.

But, with all that's posted here the one subject I rarely see discussed is Light Meters. Are they not used much anymore because they're inaffective? Is it too costly to own a good one, or are we getting lazy, and don't want to add one more step in our quest for the shot that everyone talks about.

It seems that camera technology and programs such as Photoshop have almost oliminated the need for a light meter, but wouldn't it be far better to get a correct exposure to start with, rather than depend on such things as Photoshop and various camera gadgetry to fix things after we get a less than desirable shot. From what I read, some of the tools used to turn an average shot into a good one, actually takes away from the results we could have had if our exposure was correct to begin with.

Anyone that knows anything about Light Meters and especially those that use them, please post your comments. I bet that most Forum readers would be interested and take time to read about this old tool, the "Light Meter". I certainly would like to know more.

Kind regards to all,
Mike Wendell
I think meters are still very useful for photographic situations were you could affect the light in some manner. Such as in a studio setting, fill flash, or outside using powered lights, flash, or reflectors. The external meter can guide your placement, intensity, light ratios, etc, of the lights and reflectors you can affect directly. Mostly I just use my meter in incident flash mode in the studio. In fact, the meter has been removed from my camera bag and placed with my studio flash gear.

But, for situations were I cannot change the nature of the light, the very convenient test exposure and histogram has negated my need for a meter. In these cases meters are just guiding you to hopefully get a proper exposure. Why settle for guidance when you can look at the histogram and see if you got the right exposure. I will take “results” (the histogram) over direction to possibly get results (all meters, even the most sophisticated ones).

In the cases where I cannot affect the nature of the light for the exposure, I just use the cameras meter to get me close, check the histogram, and make the needed exposure changes. I find this methodology quick, accurate, and costless (no external meter required).

So, for me it is not what I am taking a photograph of that determines if I am going to use an external meter or not, it is if I can personally affect the light (or not). If I can affect the light, I want my meter, if I cannot affect the light I want my test exposure and a histogram (instead of a external meter).

I posted a very similar question a couple of days ago in a very contentious thread.

If the info from the thread interests you, may want to check that thread also.

See:
http://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthread.php?t=180890

Enjoy! Lon

[storeman]

As a STUDENT of photography you need:
a meter, a tripod and then to tools to modify the light... the camera and the lens don't matter.


On the whole your reply was a very educated response but Ime afraid I somewhat disagree with the last part og the quote. The camera and lens do matter. No matter how good you set up the lighting or how good the natural light is, no matter how well you meter to get the correct exposure settings and no matter how sturdy the tripod - you won't get any picture good or bad without a camera and lens :)

Couldn't resist. I know what you really meant.

[303villain]

Ok heres my situation, and after reading this thread, and others ive decided what to do.
i recently took some photographs and i was really unsatisfied with my work, and a large part of it is my problem.

I am no expert here, trust me. i understand the basic principles of exposure and stuff like that, and when i do encounter things that are a challenge, i *usually* overcome it by trial and error. However i have a ton to learn about exposure/metering/white balance(a different story altogether, but im totally white balance retarded).

i was debating on getting a new lens and opted out. school requires that i have a light meter(sekonic 558) in the future, but im going to invest in it now. i think in the long run it will help.

long story short-thanks for the info everybody!

[FIREWALLROB]

It depends on what you shoot I suppose.

I don't use a camera in a studio, but it's of no use when just getting a lens cap off takes too long - things tend to fly / run away (like me when the mother-in-law arrives) :D

With photoshop - remember that the buyer (for those that sell their work) doesn't care where the image came from, but you still need a good image to get a good result before using Photoshop.

[rdenney]

Well, let's see. I have Pentax Spotmeter V, a Minolta Spot F, a Sekonic L-718, a Gossen Luna Pro, a Vivitar Model 43 (from the days when inexpensive and cheap meant different things), a Sekonic L-158 (in an underwater housing), and one or two others that I can't remember.

But I usually don't use them with the 10D. I find I can review the histogram and know more than I would know from any light meter if I have that kind of time.

I do use the ones with flash-reading capability with studio lights, of course. But not with the 550EX--the preflash triggers the flash meter and it won't read the main flash.

Rick "who uses digital only when convenience is critical" Denney