Two Different Methods of "Proper Metering"

[SYS]

I finally got around to reading Scott Smith's Studio Lighting Made Simple. In the chapter on proper metering, I find with a great interest that he's very critical of people who do meter readings of each light with the rest of lights turned off. Frankly, for a newbie like me to studio lighting, I'm confused. I read plenty of posts in this forum where "proper metering" is indeed taking each light source separately from other light sources. Yet, the master himself is strongly and emphatically against this method. He advocates metering with all the light sources being used turned on -- main, fill, hair, background, etc. -- because that's what you see.

All the more confused I'm because in a recent workshop on studio lighting that I attended, "metering each light" separately is what I was taught.

So, which method is really "proper"?

[PacAce]

My take on this is to use whichever method works best for you as long as the result you're getting is exactly what you want. If you're not getting the results you're looking for using one method, then try the other and see if that works better. Just my two cents, though. :)

[steveathome]

Scott Smith has been an excellent contributer to this forum, I have no doubt of his abilities.

The fact is, no matter what you are taught and whoever by, there will always be another method of doing things. There may not necessarily be a right or wrong way, everyone has their own workflow.

I therefore tend to take in as much as I can from those I consider knowledgeable, and then try different ways for myself and see what suits me best. Call it measurebating or whatever you will, but I at least get the satisfaction of knowing if a method works for me or not, and whether to trust such methods in the future.

Edit: Leo sort of beat me to it.

[SYS]

This is very interesting. Well, as metering once with all light sources turned on is simpler and more convenient than metering each light one at a time, I'll play around with this method first and see how things go.

[Jarrad]

I agree with Mr. Smith's Method.

[Wilt]

The apparent contradiction is, in fact, not! Measure a single light at a time to set its intensity on the subject compared to each of the other lights. After the ratio is set, then all lights are measured all at once to determine the overall exposure, as light is additive in nature (like water!).

Since I have not read Scott's book, I can only speculate the motive for his statement. I believe that Scott's opinion is the result of the fact that each light is not isolated in its effect, but the lighting is a composite of overlapping lights, so Scott is advocating that you read all lights together, even while setting ratios, because the hair light just might well be light from hair light plus light bouncing from the background (particularly if the photographer has not separated the subject from the background enough, as is often the case with lighting and portraiture beginners). So I must read the composite result, to know the effect seen by the lens and gauge its intensity.

[sboerup]

It makes sense for metering Fill / Main, but not necessarily for a hair or kicker light.

If you have your main firing at f/5.6, once you add your fill, it will go up. Adding more light to the subject will increase it, even if your fill will always stay at f/5.6.

If your fill overlaps onto the hairlight area, then it will do the same. This is what I think he meant.

I would meter each light individually to verify the ratios that you want, then make one last reading, from the subject face, to get your main reading.

[cameraman51]

I'm a little unclear about why accurate metering in a portrait setting is critical when you can review the set up in camera and check out the histogram.

[T2000]

"I'm a little unclear about why accurate metering in a portrait setting is critical when you can review the set up in camera and check out the histogram."

Pretend you have 2 minutes and ONE SHOT to shoot Osama Bin Laden before he runs back to his cave. There isn't going to be any chimping and fixing exposure errors. One shot. I think that's how you should approach it. So you need a meter and maybe even a stand-in before he arrives to save even more time.

[cameraman51]

I appreciate your response T2000 but I was talking about a traditional portrait sitting, not a news event. I recently shot six actors head shots, took one incident reading to check the lay of the land and refined the lighting using the camera remote window and histograms. Now back in the day, shooting film, that was another story.

[Shooting]

And you would use sighting and not metering, right?

[datadump]

i meter with them all firing because i'm lazy... i have a bunch of sunpaks and some old sigma flashes.. i dont wanna go around turning hotshoe flashes on/off or removing its optical slaves so it doesnt fire etc...

[PhotosGuy]

You might want to meter each to see what the ratios are. I place mine based on the distance from the subject tempered with experience, meter the combined result & then check that image for flaws. My 1-cent flash "meter" in images 5S & 6S:
Simple 2 Light Portrait Set-up (http://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthread.php?t=128857)

Test. Do what makes you comfortable based on your experience as you go.

[DocFrankenstein]

So, which method is really "proper"?
You meter both ways... depends on situation.

When you want to find out or set the ratio of fill to key, then you meter each light separately.

if you want to arrive for overall metering for your subject, then meter with the dome up all of the lights firing.

in the end, the meter sees the world differently depending on where you turn the dome to. So learn how it sees it and adjust from experience.