Using a light meter on the job

[Mum2J&M]

I went to an outdoor pool today with a photographer who does head shots and team pics for the swim team. He worked his rear-end off getting all those kids posed and photographed. It looked difficult, but also like something I'd like to learn to do. I am in desperate need of learning how to use a light meter, however. It is second nature to him and they always use one. He can basically read it and know if he needs to over or under expose depending on the given situation. Would you guys suggest I invest in one? I'm not wild about learning on someone else's gear - let alone while on the job. I'm assuming he used the incident reading by pointing the domb thingy toward the camera from in front of the subject. So he entered the ISO at 100, then it provided the shutter and appropriate aperture settings? Is that basically how they work? And, if so, would experience come with practice with your own camera as I'm assuming meters would have varying results on different cameras? God, I feel so lame for asking this. :rolleyes:

[Mark1]

Light meter is a must to me. You dont need a top of the line one. Just make sure it does ambient and flash. Get the best you can afford. It will save buying another one for longer.

[Mum2J&M]

Can you suggest a good one that has what I need without too many bells and whistles?

[tim]

A light meter, to me, is a "nice to have". Camera meters combined with the histogram to check do the same thing, and on the odd occasion I use a light meter for ambient metering I usually have to tweak what the light meter tells me anyway. I guess I use my light meter for ambient light at about 5% of weddings.

Now if you're using flash, or combining ambient light with flash, that's an entirely different matter. In that case a light meter will considerably speed up your work.

If you get one the Sekonic L358 (http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/221078-REG/Sekonic_401358_L_358_Flash_Master_Meter.html/BI/2312/KBID/3114) is what I use, and it's widely recommended on the lighting forum.

[Mum2J&M]

Well, he was using flash for fill and a diffuser panel so the sunlight wasn't so harsh.

[tim]

I guess it's just an old habit, it gets you close to the proper exposure, then tweak it using the histogram. I do that sometimes.

[Mum2J&M]

Thanks. What about this one?

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/368226-REG/Sekonic_401309_L_308S_Flashmate_Light_Meter.html

[tim]

Sure, just less features I think. I don't use any of the fancy features anyway.

[OdiN1701]

I have an L-558 and I hardly ever use the thing...it mostly just sits.

I will use it on occasion with my strobes since it's got the transmitter that can fire off pocket wizards, which is a big help.

But mostly these days I don't need it. I got it years ago and it helped at first, but over the years I just learned how to use my camera's meter and the histogram.

[Zansho]

I like to use my L358 for making sure my light ratios are spot on when in the studio, but when I'm using my normans and quantums on location, I just know the right amount of power to dial in and chimp from there on. It's a pretty nice tool to have for available light though!

[PhotosGuy]

A light meter, to me, is a "nice to have". Camera meters combined with the histogram to check do the same thing, I agree. Mine has been gathering dust since I went digital.
For me, this works as well , can't get lost, & doesn't require batteries: Need an exposure crutch? (http://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthread.php?t=89123)

[a_kraker99]

here is a trick. Find the right exposure for a given scene using a grey card or someone elses light meter. Put your camera in manual mode and enter the correct aperture, shutter speed and ISO that the meter or grey card gave you. Then put the palm of your had in the same spot where you metered the grey card or used the incident meter and fill the frame with your hand. Check your exposure meter in the bottom of your viewfinder and note where the pin is.
Now anywhere you go you can just put your hand in front of the lens and adjust your exposure so that the needle on the bottom is in the same spot.
The palm of your hand doesent get lighter or darker too often so you wont need to recalibrate your hand if you get a tan :-)

[Mum2J&M]

Ok, but what about an incident reading? Is that the same thing?

[a_kraker99]

Incident metering measures the light that falls on a subject, reflective metering measures light reflected off an object. If you use a refelctive meter (in camera meter) on an 18% grey card you would get the same result as a incident meter placed where the grey card is and pointed at the camera.

[Mum2J&M]

I have a grey card. So you're telling me if I use the grey card in place of the light meter, I'd get the same reading? I believe they underexpose a bit to prevent overexposure.

[a_kraker99]

I have a grey card. So you're telling me if I use the grey card in place of the light meter, I'd get the same reading? I believe they underexpose a bit to prevent overexposure.

If you put the grey card where the persons face is and do a spot meter reading off the grey card you should get the same EV reading as an incident meter placed in the same area. Incident meters just make it easier for you so you dont have to look like a monkey holding your hand or grey card out in front of you.

[amfoto1]

I practically never go out to shoot without a light meter on my belt. Actually it's a flash meter, incidence type.

For bigger location jobs I've got two backups in my lighting kit: one is a second incidence flash meter, the other a simple incidence meter.

If you get a flash meter, you can use it more ways. But, if you never have any reason to meter flash or strobes, and have no plans to do so in the future, you could save a bit of money by getting a simpler meter, perhaps even one that doesn't rely on batteries at all.

The digital Sekonic you referenced at the link looks like a good choice, and it's an incidence meter. These are easy to use and are what I'd always recommend. With an incidence meter you just need to be sure you are measuring the same light that's falling onto your subject. You don't want to be metering while standing in the shade, if your subject is in full sun, for example. Step out into the same sun as your subject, then take your reading.

90-95% of the time there's no need for any sort of compensation with an incidence meter that's being used properly. The only reason you might dial in a little + or - is if a particular subject calls for it... e.g. it's a dark colored animal and you want to lighten up 1/3 stop or so to show more fur detail. This is essentially a case where a scene is exceeding the dynamic range of your camera, and you bias the exposure a little one way or the other to increase detail in what you determine is the more important end of the spectrum. In other words, either to preserve a little more highlight detail, or a little more shadow detail. Even then, it's usually not much compensation.

With an incidence meter you don't need a gray card to make accurate readings (but one still might be handy to set a custom white balance) and you do not have to compensate for meter error (due to subject tonality, like you do with a reflective meter.

Your camera has a reflective meter in it, and this is used to determine all your auto exposures. A reflective meter is constantly fooled by variable subject reflectivity. A light colored subject needs + compensation because it reflects more light than "average", which the camera's reflective meter tries to make "average gray" in your image. A dark colored subject reflecting less than "average" light needs - compensation because the meter is, once again, trying to make it "average gray". With a reflective meter, the most accurate way to meter is... you guessed it... by carefully taking a reading off an "average gray" card. That's not needed with an incidence meter.

Want to see a reflective meter in action? Try this... half press the shutter release on your camera and watch through the viewfinder as you pan around a scene. Keep an eye on the exposure settings. See the readings changing wildy and constantly? It's up to you to try to decide, based upon your experience, whether or not the meter is correct, and whether or not any + or - needs to be dialed in.

Or, just use an incidence meter. You take a reading by holding it with that sensor dome pointed toward the light source, instead of the subject. So long as the light source is steady (and they usually are), you will get the same read out over and over again. Set your camera to M, dial in the recommended settings and you can shoot accurately as long as the light source remains steady and consistent.

During a day's shoot, I re-meter every half hour to hour, more often in the morning or evening when light changes faster. I also use the histogram feedback to "tweak" my settings, as light values change during the day.

Obviously, if the sun is occasionally hidden by clouds, and you want to keep shooting, you need to re-meter.

Now, a few things I like about the Sekonic meter you pointed out.

1. It's got a flash sync range up to 1/500 second. Be sure this specification works with your camera, some of which have flash sync speeds higher than some flash meters. One of my flash meters reads out only to 1/200, but four of my five cameras can sync up to 1/250.

A few Canon can sync up to 1/300. And most anything using a leaf shutter (large format and some medium format) can sync at all their available shutter speeds, often 1/500 and in more rare cases even faster. Of course, you can mentally extrapolate from a reading at a lower sync speed... But that introduces an opportunity for error.

On the other hand, if you are working with studio strobes, your max sync is usually lower than the camera's rated capability with portable, electronic flash, anyway. I use 1/160 max with all my Norman monolights and cameras, well within both my meters' capabilities.

2. It's got a wide ISO range: 3 to 8000. A little higher would be nice, because some cameras are starting to have higher ISO capability. However, this covers all existing Canon, and many others. Once again, you can always extrapolate from a reading at a lower ISO setting that's within the meter's range.

3. It reads out in your choice of 1/2, 1/3 or full stops. This is good, since it matches your camera. My two digital flash meters read out in 1/10 stops, which I have to mentally convert to the 1/3 stop settings I use on my camera. So, if the meter tells me to set 2.8 point 9, I need to set f4. Sometimes in a rush I make mistakes. If it read the same as my camera settings, it would be better.

Now 1/10 is nice for extreme precision, when time allows. Plus many studio strobes can be set in very fine increments, often 1/10 stop. But, I wish my older meters had the capability to display in the same increments as my camera, for all other uses. Still, I'm used to it and I manage. The meter you are looking at doesn't appear to have 1/10 stop capability, but that may not matter to you at all.

Fine increments are less of a problem for a meter that reads out with an analog dial, like my old Sekonic 398 Studio Deluxe. It's pretty easy to tell from the pointers, exactly where to set the aperture. Of course, it can't read from flash or studio strobe.

4. All digital meters are going to require a battery. The one you are looking at uses one plain old AA alkaline. That's great. I've had meters that required special, harder to find batteries. The one I use most now also uses a single AA, which I always have plenty of to power my flashes, anyway.

Oh, the old Sekonic 398 is even better... no battery required. It uses a selenium cell that generates it's own power. Now, many selenium cells degrade gradually over time and became inaccurate over time, requiring recalibration and eventually replacement. However, I gotta say the old 398 is pretty amazing. I've had it at least 25 years and it's still deadly accurate. But the same can be said of my dad's old Weston Master meter, which dates from the 1950s. It's also still accurate (but it's a reflective meter).

As to how meters operate.... You are close, but not quite there yet. The photographer has to enter two of the three parameters: ISO, or shutter speed, or aperture. The meter then indicates the third setting. In all cases I can think of, you have to enter ISO (but may be able to change the setting to see how it effects the other factors). Then, depending upon the meter, choose either shutter speed or aperture, and the meter will tell you the third and final setting that is correct, based upon it's reading of the light. Read the instructions that come with the meter (some can average several readings, etc.)

It quickly becomes second nature to use a separate, hand held meter. The fact that you know what one is and are trying to figure out how the works puts you well ahead of probably 75 or 80% of people who are out happily shooting with their SLRs.

[poloman]

I have the L-358 and really like it. I use it for ambient as well as studio flash. This meter will also give you a percentage of flash to ambient light if you are shooting outside. That can be handy in keeping your backgrounds where you want them in terms of exposure.

[Mum2J&M]

Thank you so much for all that info. Alan! You really know your sh*t. Thank heaven for this board. Now I am actually looking forward to using one and no longer dreading it. I truly appreciate all your help.

[SkipD]

I, too, highly recommend the Sekonic L-358 meter. I use mine far more than I do the meter built into my camera.

[DocFrankenstein]

and on the odd occasion I use a light meter for ambient metering I usually have to tweak what the light meter tells me anyway.
If you have to tweak to what it tells you, you probably are not pointing it in the right direction. ;)

I am using an L508 most of the time. It has a spot meter and ambient and flash.

It's awesome. I don't need (or have) a histogram anymore... and most of my cameras don't have meters in them... or I'm too lazy to put the batteries in them.

Of course I'm not shooting weddings like tim, as you've probably guessed.

The main thing to learn with a light meter, is that crappy light is still crappy light, no matter how you meter it.

[tim]

If you have to tweak to what it tells you, you probably are not pointing it in the right direction. ;)

I put it in the spot the people are going to be standing, dome extended, pointed towards the camera. I tweak based on the histogram, then later I tweak again based on what I see in ACR. Maybe I should experiment and try trusting my meter, but it often looks up to a stop out judging by the histogram. It's most likely user error, and i'm happy to be educated :)

[PhotosGuy]

Good post, Alan. Want to see a reflective meter in action? Try this... half press the shutter release on your camera and watch through the viewfinder as you pan around a scene. Keep an eye on the exposure settings. See the readings changing wildy and constantly? It's up to you to try to decide, based upon your experience, whether or not the meter is correct, and whether or not any + or - needs to be dialed in.
I did that for people too lazy to do it themselves. ;)
Post #47 (http://photography-on-the.net/forum/showpost.php?p=5191658&postcount=47)

[Quad]

I put it in the spot the people are going to be standing, dome extended, pointed towards the camera. I tweak based on the histogram, then later I tweak again based on what I see in ACR. Maybe I should experiment and try trusting my meter, but it often looks up to a stop out judging by the histogram. It's most likely user error, and i'm happy to be educated :)

The only thing I could can think of if you are fairly consistently getting a under/over exposure from the meter is the camera (or possibly your meter) does not have a standard ISO. Does a gray card reading from the camera and incident light meter agree? They should if they were set to the same standard. (We all love standards so much that we have lots of them.:rolleyes:)

My camera is manufactured to underexpose and show highlights are clipped a bit early. Canon has very good reasons for doing that but it could keep the camera from getting that last bit of quality it is able to produce.


Then software throws in a few more curves to the whole thing, just as film developers did. Only film curves were characteristic :lol:.

[amfoto1]

Both meters and cameras can be professionally tested and adjusted.

But, you can calibrate them yourself, pretty easily too.

Just do a series of test shots under controlled conditions, and then judge from the images which way, if any, you need to tweak things. Then put a piece of white tape on the meter or camera and write a note, if you need to bias your settings a little.

Today's electronically controlled gear is pretty darned accurate. Factory tolerances are + or - 10%. Back in the days of fully mechanical cameras, it was more commonly + or - 25% unless you paid a repair tech try to adjust them within a closer tolerance.

Occasionally I'll test my meters and cameras, comparing them. Currently there's less than 1/3 stop variance between them, even including the 25-30 year old Sekonic 398 analog meter.

Yes, the Sekonic 358 looks like a pretty good meter. I haven't handled one, but comparing photos and judging from the metering dome and sync plug, it look like it might be quite a bit smaller than the Minolta flash/incidence meters I use most of the time (which were sold as Konica-Minolta for a while and are now sold under the Kenko brand name.)

[Right Cranium Imaging]

I picked up an L-758DR Digital Master for school, and dont have the slightest idea how to use it..........Yet. :)

[mangaloreaviators]

Forget the light meter. Check this link and see Exposure Value Chart.
http://www.fredparker.com/ultexp1.htm#EV

If you still think you need a Light Meter. You can get the Sekonic Meter as suggested by the Forum Members.

[DocFrankenstein]

Forget the light meter. Check this link and see Exposure Value Chart.
http://www.fredparker.com/ultexp1.htm#EV
That thing stopped being useful about 50 years before I was born.

[poloman]

I have enough to think about. I will keep the calculative powers of my light meter at hand.
One of my favorite features is the calculation of percentage of flash to ambient light....

[mangaloreaviators]

That thing stopped being useful about 50 years before I was born.

Ok Doc. Does anybody agree with Doc ?

[SkipD]

Ok Doc. Does anybody agree with Doc ?Yup. Sure do.

The meters I have used over the years have been far simpler to use - far more accurate than guessing and less stuff to mess with.

The only thing the chart might be good for, as far as I am concerned, is determining which of two meters is wrong if there's a significant difference in the readings on them.

[mangaloreaviators]

Ok Skip.

Will test the chart in the next few days as it has worked for me in some situation. Let me do a detailed analysis.

[PhotosGuy]

Let me do a detailed analysis. Analyze this while you're at it: Need an exposure crutch? (http://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthread.php?t=89123)

[poloman]

Analysis will not cure the problem of being crippled as compared to the speed of a good modern meter.
You chart could sure be handy for the right person in the right situation.

[Wilt]

In Tim's defense, his apparent need to 'tweak' the reading from an incident light meter is because he wants simply to exploit his electronic sensor to the fullest, and 'shoot to the right' of the histogram. Shooting to the right means that you are NOT shooting to the inherent brightness of the light falling on the scene, but shooting to the brightness of the light reflected back from the scene. The incident meter reads the inherent light falling on the scene and ignores the brightness of the objects being photographed.

Plain and simple.

[DocFrankenstein]

In Tim's defense, his apparent need to 'tweak' the reading from an incident light meter is because he wants simply to exploit his electronic sensor to the fullest, and 'shoot to the right' of the histogram. Shooting to the right means that you are NOT shooting to the inherent brightness of the light falling on the scene, but shooting to the brightness of the light reflected back from the scene. The incident meter reads the inherent light falling on the scene and ignores the brightness of the objects being photographed.

Plain and simple.
That's not what the ISO standards say.

[Wilt]

That's not what the ISO standards say.

Care to elaborate what the ISO standards do say?

I can take an incident reading and it exactly mimics what a gray card in front of my 40D spot meter tells me to shoot at. The readings are the same because the subject brightness matches the 18% gray which is assumed by an incident meter reading the light intensity. I might decide (or not) to shoot to the right with either reading, ending with the same result after peeking at the histogram as recorded.

[DocFrankenstein]

Care to elaborate what the ISO standards do say?
Right after you support your "it's that simple" statement with primary literature.

[Wilt]

Right after you support your "it's that simple" statement with primary literature.

:confused:

[sapearl]

Wilt, I agree that this is one of the things that I love about an incident meter..... either old fashioned selenium powered analog needle type, or new battery powered digital.

It's all about the OVERALL QUANTITY of light falling on a scene. It's not about how much or how little is being reflected back by a reflected reading off a bride's white dress, or the guy's black tux.

I did a wedding a couple of weeks ago - horrible bright noon sun right out in the open, white dress, canopy shade, black suits.... metering nightmare. I knew I wanted a starting ISO of 200 so that part was easy, along with 1/200 to freeze any action and allow a high flash synch. So I set things to TV. I’d also taken an incident reading at a spot that would match “center stage” just in case I couldn’t get a camera meter reading that I’d be happy with.

Right away the camera's metering system began jumping around as it saw the dress, the suits, the under-canopy shade... it was responding instantly to all the different environments. This was no good. I immediately switched to Manual on the camera.

I could have simply used the Sunny 16 rule, but I'm like the guy who wears suspenders with a belt for added security. For this reason I always have my 1970's Sekonic L-398 hand held meter with the incident dome. No batteries, always reliable.

Once I got the initial SUNLIT reading with the Sekonic, I knew everything would be constant from that point on.

If I zoomed into the shade under the canopy it was just a minor matter to open up a couple of stops. If I wanted to change ISO which I did a couple of times, it was easy enough to recalculate shutter/aperture in my head since I always go in doubling multiples of my ISO. I'm a simple person, and this helps keep my exposures simple.

Here's the shot I was talking about. I was basically metering for the bright sun, but ACR helped me nicely recover the RAW highlights and pump a little exposure back into the shadows. There was bit of PP for this quick 4x6 proof, but it got the print in the ballpark. If she orders an enlargement then I’ll do some finer post processing:

Care to elaborate what the ISO standards do say?

I can take an incident reading and it exactly mimics what a gray card in front of my 40D spot meter tells me to shoot at. The readings are the same because the subject brightness matches the 18% gray which is assumed by an incident meter reading the light intensity. I might decide (or not) to shoot to the right with either reading, ending with the same result after peeking at the histogram as recorded.

[Stinger]

Right after you support your "it's that simple" statement with primary literature.

This is quite interesting, I didn't know that there was disagreement on the shooting to the right concept. As I understand it, because the sensor is logarithmic, but the digital output is linear the last stop holds 50% of the total information, so by shooting to the right you capture the maximum data.

But, I don't know of any actual analysis to show how much this improves the picture after you've essentially re-exposed down in post to get the proper exposure/brightness.

It would be easier to essentially shoot for the middle, which is normal proper exposure is, isn't it?

[DocFrankenstein]

This is quite interesting, I didn't know that there was disagreement on the shooting to the right concept. As I understand it, because the sensor is logarithmic, but the digital output is linear the last stop holds 50% of the total information, so by shooting to the right you capture the maximum data.

But, I don't know of any actual analysis to show how much this improves the picture after you've essentially re-exposed down in post to get the proper exposure/brightness.

It would be easier to essentially shoot for the middle, which is normal proper exposure is, isn't it?I don't push to the right for two reasons:
1) The displays are not big enough to show the histograms accurately
2) The camera shows a JPEG histogram, which is completely different from a RAW histogram
3) There's hardly any room for error with digital, because you lose info in separate channels if you overexpose it.
4) I don't like messing with exposure for more than one shot.

Both the meter and the sensor have been very carefully calibrated. If you know where to point the meter to get the exact effect, you just can't get any more precise than just plucking what the meter tells you right into the camera.

90% of the images I've seen from people who "shoot to the right" end up with blown channels.

[sapearl]

Interesting question Stinger... even though I've used an incident meter for a few decades, I never really went much into the math of it. I just look at the cause and effect for my results and "tweaked" accordingly.

I wonder if an incident reading is essentially "shooting for the middle?"

But in reality I was shooting a bit for the highlights. Even though I did a fairly good job of saving the bride's highlights, I know from experience that some detail was lost. So when I did these actually exposures, I DID use my incident reading, but I also fudged a bit to help save those bright pixels.

Hmmmmm..... I don't know; what do you think Doc?

.....It would be easier to essentially shoot for the middle, which is normal proper exposure is, isn't it?

[tim]

I tend to use the light meter mainly in the church, I take a reading then do a test shot. Often the RGB histogram doesn't reach the right side, so I increase exposure by a stop. Later I sometimes get blown channels, but easily recoverable (especially with the 40D HTP on).

[DocFrankenstein]

Interesting question Stinger... even though I've used an incident meter for a few decades, I never really went much into the math of it. I just look at the cause and effect for my results and "tweaked" accordingly.

I wonder if an incident reading is essentially "shooting for the middle?"

But in reality I was shooting a bit for the highlights. Even though I did a fairly good job of saving the bride's highlights, I know from experience that some detail was lost. So when I did these actually exposures, I DID use my incident reading, but I also fudged a bit to help save those bright pixels.

Hmmmmm..... I don't know; what do you think Doc?
Middle... or 18% or 12% gray is the film term and simply is an anachronism in the digital era. That's what the reflective meters were calibrated for by the german standards of 50 years ago.

With film you have two "shoulders" - the highlights and the shadows. There's a (somewhat) linear portion of the film with the "grey" area in the middle, and that's what most cameras aimed for.

That convention was made simply because you can never tell just how much highlight detail you get with film until you know what film it is and how it was developed.

The incident meters are calibrated differently. There's no "gray" - they work on saturation. Here's the standard:
When you take an incident reading of an object with 100% reflectance, it registers on the film as 90% grey on the linear scale.

But in reality I was shooting a bit for the highlights. Even though I did a fairly good job of saving the bride's highlights, I know from experience that some detail was lost. So when I did these actually exposures, I DID use my incident reading, but I also fudged a bit to help save those bright pixels.
Well, basically to guarantee that the highlights are preserved, you'd have to point the meter at the sun - not at the camera. Then the 100% white bridal dress will register as 90% grey on the linear scale.

Note that the scale is linear, so instead of losing a "whole stop" of data you'd only have abour 401 unused pixels. But not a single pixel would've been blown AND unless you added some fill (20% of ambient minimum) and re-metered, you'd have pretty dark faces.

[DocFrankenstein]

I tend to use the light meter mainly in the church, I take a reading then do a test shot. Often the RGB histogram doesn't reach the right side, so I increase exposure by a stop. Later I sometimes get blown channels, but easily recoverable (especially with the 40D HTP on).
See, this is why I don't trust the histogram. Blown channels are not recoverable.

I believe you're better off shooting what the meter tells you and then leaving the exposure compensation alone in PP. Otherwise you're just throwing information - you're overexposing during the shoot, then throw information out as you post process. So you lose time and information.

That said however, if they light is ugly a creative overexposure might hide something and improve the overall picture. That's where you don't blindly trust a meter and the artist within you has to make a decision. Blown highlights can be an artistic tool as well.

[tim]

See, this is why I don't trust the histogram. Blown channels are not recoverable.

I believe you're better off shooting what the meter tells you and then leaving the exposure compensation alone in PP. Otherwise you're just throwing information - you're overexposing during the shoot, then throw information out as you post process. So you lose time and information.

That said however, if they light is ugly a creative overexposure might hide something and improve the overall picture. That's where you don't blindly trust a meter and the artist within you has to make a decision. Blown highlights can be an artistic tool as well.

I need to do some experimentation, both in a dark church and in full sunlight, with the meter reading but bracketed, judged later on the PC not on the camera.

[DocFrankenstein]

I need to do some experimentation, both in a dark church and in full sunlight, with the meter reading but bracketed, judged later on the PC not on the camera.
Here's two exercises I did:
1) take a bunch of pictures with the dome up and pointing straight at the camera
2) take a bunch of pictures with the dome down and pointing straight toward the light source

You'll find your colors rich and slightly different. Basically, similar to what you'll find in hollywood movies.

[tim]

Here's two exercises I did:
1) take a bunch of pictures with the dome up and pointing straight at the camera
2) take a bunch of pictures with the dome down and pointing straight toward the light source

You'll find your colors rich and slightly different. Basically, similar to what you'll find in hollywood movies.

You mean meter for both situations rather than shoot with the dome up/down? :p

[DocFrankenstein]

You mean meter for both situations rather than shoot with the dome up/down? :p
What?

1) Dome up, meter toward the camera and shoot for the whole day like that
2) Dome down, meter toward the key light and shoot for another day

Compare the results. Over time you'll be able to tell where to point the meter and the highlights will fall exactly where you want them to.

[tim]

What?

1) Dome up, meter toward the camera and shoot for the whole day like that
2) Dome down, meter toward the key light and shoot for another day

Compare the results. Over time you'll be able to tell where to point the meter and the highlights will fall exactly where you want them to.

I knew what you meant, but you said take a picture with the dome up and the dome down. It'd be more precise to say meter with the dome up, and dome down, then take the picture with both settings. I'm just being a pain in the butt :p