Why use a light meter when you have one in camera?

[DocFrankenstein]

I've seen a pro photog on a movie set. She had 1Ds and a holter with a lightmeter... or a similar device.

She'd use it from time to time before taking a pic. :?

Why bother if you have in camera metering?

[cmM]

well, they're more accurate, and the built in light meters measure ambient light, and that's not very helpful if you have studio lighting (strobes)

[ralee]

Trying to remember photography principles -
you are metering two different ways : reflected vs incident

cameras measure the reflected way - but this is not as accurate because it can be affected by "reflective objects" - how the light bounces back from the subject to the meter in the camera.

light meters can measure both ways - usually use incident which is more accurate - only measures the light at the subject

I hope this helps :roll:

[Jon]

It may well have been a spot meter, too. Makes it much easier to expose for the critical areas.

[phili1]

If you have a hand held meter you can take several readings and put it into memory and decide what area you want to emphisise.

If you learn the meter you can take an incident reading ( Light falling on the subject)and come out with an exact setting.

With your Camera if you know what you want you can do a similar thing, picture your scene in grey tones, because that is what your meter sees meter a tone you want as medium and you will get an average.

Most landscape scenes are lighted beyond the film or Sensors ability to get it all in properly. If you have a bright sky and you meter for it your forground will be under exposed and vise versa. So the photographer will use there meter to tell them what the range is and they can make adjustments for it like grad neutral d filters. Some photograhers take two shot. 1 - tripod mounted exposing the sky properly and the second one of the forground and in Photoshop put them together to make one.
Jope it answered your question.

[Morden]

cameras measure the reflected way - but this is not as accurate because it can be affected by "reflective objects" - how the light bounces back from the subject to the meter in the camera.

Indeed; for example, the camera trying to meter on a shiny car will be fooled by the large amount of light reflected by the mirror-like car body. On the other hand, a light meter held next to the car - and facing away from it - will correctly measure the light actually falling on the subject.

[phili1]

Ed 3 this is not the forum but you have the Canon 2 x extender. I have been told that it gives a coke bottle effect do you find this. I am thinking of buying it for my 70 to 200.

[PhotosGuy]

There are workarounds:

you are metering two different ways : reflected vs incident

cameras measure the reflected way - but this is not as accurate because it can be affected by "reflective objects" - how the light bounces back from the subject to the meter in the camera.
&
Indeed; for example, the camera trying to meter on a shiny car will be fooled by the large amount of light reflected by the mirror-like car body. On the other hand, a light meter held next to the car - and facing away from it - will correctly measure the light actually falling on the subject.


Take a reading from a constant, like a gray card or the palm of your hand (it doesn't tan). If you use your hand, you'll have to figure out an exposure compensation factor.

So the photographer will use there meter to tell them what the range is and they can make adjustments for it like grad neutral d filters. Some photograhers take two shot. 1 - tripod mounted exposing the sky properly and the second one of the forground and in Photoshop put them together to make one.

It's easier to shoot RAW & make two different exposures to work with. See the suggestions in "Post Processing" on contrast control.

[Bootscreen]

Does anyone remember the T90? That camera could take multiple spot readings of a subject and store them, you could then average the reading, bias it etc.

I wonder why this idea was dropped for modern cameras...

David

[WestFalcon]

I find that a proper exposure on my light meters and the camera histogram do not agree. Oftentimes, if I used the Light meter instead of the camera meter, I would have a poorly exposed picture. I don't even take a meter to a wedding anymore.

[dtrayers]

Does anyone remember the T90? That camera could take multiple spot readings of a subject and store them, you could then average the reading, bias it etc.

I wonder why this idea was dropped for modern cameras...

David

Doesn't the 1D MkII do this?

[Bootscreen]

Does anyone remember the T90? That camera could take multiple spot readings of a subject and store them, you could then average the reading, bias it etc.

I wonder why this idea was dropped for modern cameras...

David

Doesn't the 1D MkII do this?

Your right it does indeed! :oops:

It seemed too good an idea to be dropped, but then again I thought that eye-focus was a good idea and it seems to be fading away...

David

[AndrewEllinas]

The Olympus OM4 allows you to take multiple spot readings and has additional settings that enable you to take a true reflected reading of pure white or complete black, instead of returning 18%.

The OM4 came out over 20 years ago. I can't understand why Canon didn't put them into the 10D, I found them extremely useful.

[PhotosGuy]

I find that a proper exposure on my light meters and the camera histogram do not agree. Oftentimes, if I used the kight meter instead of the camera meter, I would have a poorly exposed picture. I don't even take a meter to a wedding anymore.

As a pro, I used to bracket 35mm to be sure that I had the shot. Polaroid was used with 2-1/4 so we could check the contrast range & composition.
We made 8X10 "polaroids" - shot a B&W neg & processed it in print developer to see it in under 2 min. Viewed on a light table, we could see what we needed & the AD could check that the composition was a match for his layout.
The simple reason for this was that we couldn't get an instant color rendition of the film shot as we can do now with digital. The Histogram has changed everything. If you have time to meter with a hand held meter, then you have time to shoot a test shot, too. It's fast AND more accurate, and that's the bottom line.

My hand held meters will stay in my "Museum of Obsolete Gadgets" 'till I load a roll of film again. If ever.

[Adam Hicks]

I own a poor man's light meter... an 18% grey card. If you have really tough exposures, meter off the card in RAW and I find it's always within the realms of minor adjustments making it perfect. I used it for a wedding once (white gown, black tux kind of thing) where the camera didn't want to average right down the center, and it definitely helped my shots.

Adam

[abel]

great information guys...

i too often wondered by people use handheld meters... now i know

[yenoram]

You could also consider using an Expo Disc - not only does it work great for doing a custom white balance but it can also double-up as an incident light meter by measuring light falling on your subject. I've used mine this way and it works great. The Expo Disc is expensive but I have no regrets about my investment.

[Aylwin]

I'd like to modify the original question a bit: Why use a light meter if you're using digital?

In digital, don't we want to expose as much to the right as possible without blowing the highlights? If yes, then the photo could be under or over-exposed and we just correct it later in post processing. :roll:

[Jon]

We still need to get a reliable meter reading so we don't blow the highlights. And using a spotmeter, you can determine the range you're trying to deal with. Using an incident meter, you won't be thrown off by high- or low-key subjects, or monochromatic scenes that a reflected meter may not be able to read correctly.

[Aylwin]

Wouldn't it be faster to just take a photo, check the image display for flashing lights, check the histogram, and then crank the exposure up or down as needed? Unlike with film, I get instant feedback and can adapt accordingly. I don't need to get the exposure right the first time.

[Jon]

That assumes you're photographing something that's going to stay around long enough to shoot, adjust, and re-shoot. If you know how to use a meter, you can pre-visualize where things should land and be ready when that first car/horse/runner/heron/ . . . comes 'round the corner. Besides, the histogram can lie - when you're in Info mode, you don't have that large an image to look at, so you can't tell if the important dark parts of the picture are properly exposed, or maybe receding into the invisible shadows.

[jhankins]

Don't forget Flash Meter capability as well so one can adjust ratios etc for studio flash. My Sekonic L358 has this feature which I use when setting up my lights. It can also trigger via an optional Pocket Wizard radio transmitter add on (I just use the sync cord but plan on adding the pocket wizard capability soon after my wallet recovers from the 1DS Mark II purchase...ouch)

[PhotosGuy]

That assumes you're photographing something that's going to stay around long enough to shoot, adjust, and re-shoot. If you know how to use a meter, you can pre-visualize where things should land and be ready when that first car/horse/runner/heron/ . . . comes 'round the corner.

Seems that you're assuming that we'll wait for something to land before we shoot to check the reading? Some of us might 'pre-visualize where things should land' & take a shot then to check, just like you take a reading to check. I said, "If you have time to meter with a hand held meter, then you have time to shoot a test shot, too."
Test shots come before the real shots. No mention was made that anyone should wait 'till the subject arrives to do that. :wink:

[Ballen Photo]

More possible reasons to use a light meter?
An incident reading from a light meter wont be fooled by reflected light from highly reflective light and dark surfaces, as it reads the actual amount of light falling on the subject.
Also, a light meter(corded flash meter) would be handy for acheiving or checking different ratios in studio lighting.
-Bruce

[Jon]

That assumes you're photographing something that's going to stay around long enough to shoot, adjust, and re-shoot. If you know how to use a meter, you can pre-visualize where things should land and be ready when that first car/horse/runner/heron/ . . . comes 'round the corner.

Seems that you're assuming that we'll wait for something to land before we shoot to check the reading? Some of us might 'pre-visualize where things should land' & take a shot then to check, just like you take a reading to check. I said, "If you have time to meter with a hand held meter, then you have time to shoot a test shot, too."
Test shots come before the real shots. No mention was made that anyone should wait 'till the subject arrives to do that. :wink:

Sorry - where something should "land", or fall, on the exposure scale, not for the subject to physically touch down. Using a spot meter to determine this for the critical areas of the subject will be substantially easier, more reliable, and more controllable than looking for blinkies or blacked-out areas on that tiny little screen.

[Brettpp]

If you have the time to spare and your shooting in the same area (a movie set) It would be good practise to double check everything. I always carry my Auto 4f and I have a 1D.

[Jon, The Elder]

Sounds great - but did you ever try to get an incident reading next to an untethered stallion when he was hot ??

I'll take my chances with reflective "in-camera".

[Jon]

Sounds great - but did you ever try to get an incident reading next to an untethered stallion when he was hot ??

I'll take my chances with reflective "in-camera".

Ah, but with an incident meter you won't have to be standing right next to him - just in the same light.

[nat869]

While I do agree that histograms are great and well worth using all the time, a hand held meter gets you close or dead on faster than exposure experimentation. The admitedly few models I have worked with would not enjoy hanging out while I take multiple pictures attempting to get perfect exposure. With a meter, you take the reading, set your camera and off you go. My last outdoor shoot involved a rock tunnel that led to the ocean. I took my meter reading, set the camera then let the model run around trying to pose and avoid getting soaked. I would have missed some great shots had I not been close to dead on. Also, it just seems more professional to use a meter, especially setting studio light levels. Anyway, just my thoughts on the subject.

[davidwegs]

I use a Sekonic L508 and for some things its great.

1) Flash readings in the studio

2) extremely accurate spot metering and subsequent averaging

3) It read the light hitting your subject not a good guess at it.

While I don't have it out too often, it is a must have at times.

[phili1]

Allot of comments about what is best and the answer is what ever make you feel comfortable.

As far as being near a hot bothered horse you have to assume if you meter the incident light falling next to you is the same and if it is not in shadow then it will be, so much for the horse.

And yes if you use a reflecting meter on a shiny car you will get a bad reading.

Now if you use the Camera in the same manner you will likewise get a bad reading.

So what is the answer, the person doing the photography must have and use judgement in order for the picture to come out right.

From my experience and I use a Sekonic hand meter for landscapes (because I can take and put into memory 6 or 7 different readings and from that I can determine what exposure I want) have found that in 99% of the cases the Camera does a bang up job of exposures. Now that is in the Evaluative metering pattern it can evaluate the scene 99% of the time better then I can.

I tried something the other day and although I got some good shots I had to play with exposure for my bird shooting when I used Partial, evaluative did a better job.

Evaluative setting anytime
Partial back lit area, Sports for individual shots, race cars, tec.
Average, I am not sure because In the last 10 years I have not use it or even tried it because the other two do the rest.

Hand meter. Difficult available light such as window portraits, a hand meter is best. A portrait outside with reflector fill. Studio portrait photography ( and you can say take a test shot but that does not work for large groups, you need the speed of testing with a flash meter) If you want a certain look the meter will give you weither you are 1 or 2 stops less light. you can't tell visually.

So who is right , everyone because it is a personl preference how you do it.

[Ballen Photo]

Sounds great - but did you ever try to get an incident reading next to an untethered stallion when he was hot ??

I'll take my chances with reflective "in-camera".

That's EASY! I can get that reading while standing safely on the other side of the fence. :shock: :shock: :wink:
Having said all that, I generally rely on the cameras built in meter for the bulk of my shots. :wink:
-Bruce

[Aylwin]

Lots of good arguments and explanations on why a hand held light meter is better than the in-camera one. While I don't disagree, I still feel that elaborate or complicated metering isn't usually necessary for digital.

Here's why: http://www.luminous-landscape.com/tutorials/expose-right.shtml

From my understanding of the above article, precise metering isn't that important because ideally you would want to expose as much as possible to the right of the histogram without blowing out the highlights. To me this makes sense because regardless of whether your shot is under, over or perfectly exposed, your limiting factor is your highlights. And the only way to check for blown highlights is your camera's display after you've taken the shot.

[PhotosGuy]

Also, it just seems more professional to use a meter,
I give up!

[Ballen Photo]

Also, it just seems more professional to use a meter,
I give up!

:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:
-Bruce

[GPR1]

It's also possible to use a hand-held color meter, for when color temperature -- and the resulting accuracy of colors -- is critical. Many commercial photogs use them.

Greg

[Longwatcher]

Although using digital for the past 5 years, I just bought a Selkonic 558L light meter.

Why you may ask if I can just take a shot and look at it, check the histogram and the like. I know you think this because it my attitude until recently.

What changed my mind...

Good Studio stobes and the need to travel with them

I discovered that I have much more control over my lighting now then I had before when using hot lights or Work lights. Whereas before I had no control of the light other then placing it in the correct location and distance I could use the camera's meter just fine. Also if I was not ever moving my studio lights about I could also use the Camera's meter and test shots.

However, now that I have more control over my lighting as in very adustable for each of four strobe lights I find that I need more and more to know what each light is doing. Also since I occasionally set them up at remote locations (and eventually some outdoor locations) The distances will change and I may not be able to put the lights in exactly the same place/distance everytime.

Sure I could take some test shots and look at them, but I would not have as much control over it as a lot would depend on the ambient viewing light versus the screen at the viewing location, which may not be the same from place to place. Thus if I want to duplicate the same effect from location to location with very similiar results I felt I needed a light meter to give me the control I needed that the camera meter and test shots would not give me.

Much like my Angle Finder C, Two 550EX flashes, Extenders, Extension tubes, and my 50/1.4 lens; My light meter exists for those occasions when I need that extra something. I could live without it, but it will ocasionally make a difference between a good shot and a great shot (I hope).

Lastly I also figure it will speed up the process of setting up my lights at remote locations.

Just my opinion,

[vfilby]

I recently worked with a pro who shoots film. Posed portraits in different locations, some in front of windows some not. Two studio strobes acting as slaves. The main flash a Metz triggered by the camera by a pc cord.

In a case like this you have no choice but to use a lightmeter. I don't see how you could measure the ratios etc in a reliable way. He took about 4-5 readings then took a half dozen pictures. And all of them dead on. I think there is a lot to be said for that, for not having to click, adjust, click adjust, click adjust, check histogram and ok now we are ready lets go people!

[PhotosGuy]

OK, I didn't quite give up (yet)!
Much like my Angle Finder C, Two 550EX flashes, Extenders, Extension tubes, and my 50/1.4 lens; My light meter exists for those occasions when I need that extra something. I could live without it, but it will ocasionally make a difference between a good shot and a great shot (I hope).

I can agree with that. It will "it will ocasionally make a difference".
Here's a rule of thumb for lighting distances for those who don't have a strobe (or other light) meter:

The difference between a light at 2.8 feet & the same light at 4 feet is 1 stop.
Same for 8 feet & 11 feet.
Same for 16 feet & 22 feet.
Do you see where the difference between those numbers come from?
(This ratio also works with bellows extention factors & sound pressure levels when setting up mics for video - 8 feet to 11 feet = 3dB.)