Why I do not use flash meter.. Do you?

[akoloskov]

I found this device useless in the studio and out.. Now, with all digital and instant photo preview, do you really use it?
Have a small post regarding the subject on on my blog (http://www.akelstudio.com/blog/2010/01/why-i-do-not-use-flash-meter-do-you/)


Would be glad to hear your opinion..

[breal101]

I use it a lot less than I did in my film daze, it was a part of me then. I would be driving home from a shoot or walk into a restaurant on the way home and realize that it was still hanging around my neck. I still use it for a basic set up for ratio but since I shoot tethered so much now it isn't as valuable as it once was.

[gonzogolf]

I still use a flashmeter. Using the review screen and histogram as a preview is fine, but I still like to calculate my ratios in case I want to repeat them later.

[hawkeye60]

I always use it for the basic set-up, it saves a lot of time over the trial and error method. But I do make small adjustments after the fact based on the preview.

[sapearl]

Hi Alex - I don't use a modern digital flashmeter - but I do have an old analog light meter that I will use outdoors for incident meter readings. It does a terrific job and has enabled me to produce some very good portraits. Essentially it's the same thing, just the old analog variant.

I like to do a lot of bridal portraits and groups in open shade. Typically the camera is set on Manual. Taking an incident reading at the b/g's position, I'll get an excellent reading of the amount of light falling on the white dress & black tuxedo, instead of a reflected measure from one or the other, which will be totally different.

Once I have my accurate ambient reading, I'll set my flash to output light that is 1/2 to 1-stop less than the ambient for a pleasant, modelled effect. If I did studio work I'd probably use the digital meter a lot as Gonzo and Hawkeye have indicated. It's nice to know where your starting point is, and then tweak from there.:D - Stu

[sapearl]

Read part of your blog Alex - interesting comments.... some of it I agree with, parts I don't.

The flashmeter is just another tool in the kit, a different sized wrench, etc. I grew up with a hand held meter, owning my first one in 1969. It helps some to do things faster, easier and more creatively while other folks can figure the exposures in their heads, or with a glance at the histogram. It's whatever you're comfortable with that works.

[matonanjin]

sapearl is right in that it is another tool. One can choose to use it or not.

It also depends a lot on what one shoots. I shoot sports both indoor and out. Lot's of difficult lighting. I would be in deep trouble without my meter.

[Wilt]

With a light meter I can quickly do these things that I could not do as rapidly (or at all) without a meter...
1. Set the relative intensity of shoot-thru gelled light thru a background with one test shot
2. Set the dynamic range of the lighting so that highlights:shadows will not exceed what an offset press printer can reproduce in a printed magazine ad or brochure
If you do not shoot professionally, you can get away without a meter. There are pro applications which cannot be done (like item 2 in the list) with no meter. And other things (like item 1 in the list) could only be done experimentally, wasting the client's time and/or taxing their patience.

[RDKirk]

I found this device useless in the studio and out.. Now, with all digital and instant photo preview, do you really use it?
Have a small post regarding the subject on on my blog (http://www.akelstudio.com/blog/2010/01/why-i-do-not-use-flash-meter-do-you/)


Would be glad to hear your opinion..

From your blog:

After I’ve got it in hands and played in studio and out, I found that I do not need it at all.. It was completely useless in a studio, as I always connect camera to a computer, and after first test shot I can clearly see where I need more or less light. And, looking on the image directly I do have much more info where and how much I need to change lights comparing to dry numbers flash meter tells me.

So what do you use when you're in a situation not connected to a computer?

[gonzogolf]

Or if your laptop isnt calibrated..

[rvdw98]

So what do you use when you're in a situation not connected to a computer?

Or if your laptop isnt calibrated..

The camera's histogram?

[gonzogolf]

The camera's histogram?

Yes, but that's not the computer, its the camera.

[akoloskov]

Thanks for responses to all, I see your points.
I agree, if you get use to it, you'll be using it with the great success. And the opposite is true as well: if you have enough experience, you "feel" the lights (especially if this is your studio strobes), you can get great results without a flash meter. Especially if you soot exteriors and interiors using multiple exposures (aka HDR) photography, like I do. The result (clients said, not me:-) is far better that you can do by "conventional" way.
Also, if you have a laptop (it does not need to be calibrated, histogram, color temp, etc will tell you everything you need to know) Also, if you know how to read your camera histograms (which I never do, it is not accurate, it based on a JPEG, not RAW, regardless on what format you are shooting) it helps a lot.

I never studied any photography lessons, courses or college. Really, what I know and do I "invented" myself, just by looking on photography I like and trying to get the same result. So, you can call me completely uneducated photographer :-)
So, flash meter was not a part of my education, and I guess it never will be a part of my professional carrier. But, who knows.. never say never :-)

P.S I also really like to eat gene modified products, the future after them! :-))

[buurin]

I use it. I mostly shoot on location (i.e. not tethered) so I find it pretty valuable.

Im still new & pretty bad at guessing where I'm at when it comes to flash exposure. Its nice to have a good starting point.

I never use it for ambient - but I keep telling myself I'm going to start.

[Mark_Cohran]

I use a flash meter a lot in studio. It lets me quickly set up by basic exposures and flash ratios. Like any other tool, it can be be quite useful if it's used for the right purpose in the right situation. I'd much rather spend 5 minutes setting up my initial flash settings and ratios than much more time trying to do it by trial and error.

[rvdw98]

Yes, but that's not the computer, its the camera.

Not sure what point you're trying to make.

[yogestee]

I use my flash meter when shooting with off camera flash.. My flashes are set to manual.. It takes the guesswork out of reading the flash exposure..

[PhotosGuy]

I usually have time to set up, so I use 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)

[neilwood32]

Also, if you know how to read your camera histograms (which I never do, it is not accurate, it based on a JPEG, not RAW, regardless on what format you are shooting) it helps a lot.


While this is strictly true, if you use the neutral picture style, then you effectively get the RAW exposure as this style performs no adjustments.
Hence why I never leave Neutral when shooting RAW.

[Mark1]

There is a huge divide on meters from those who shot film on an advanced level (your moms Disk camera does not count) and those that didn't. Way back when, there was no such thing as chimping. Well there was... but it took 3 days to see your "test shot", not 3 seconds like now. There simply was no other way but to meter the lights. And we could get the good lights within a 10th of a stop. It is beyond some as to how you can operate efficiently without a meter. Taking 5 shots to get the exposure only close is utter blasphemy! Where a meter can get you there before you ever make an exposure. Then there are ones that are the trial and error shooters. A few of them are quite good at guessing the light. But most go by nothing more than what the back of the camera says. And for them the time it takes to get it right is fine. But as Wilt points out the last thing you want to do is start to chimp with the client in front of you.

While the chimping method does work. And works well, as evident by some of the current top pros that claim to not own a meter. However useing the meter does in fact save time (once you know how to use it) and you are able to do things you simply cant do without one.

[rvdw98]

your moms Disk camera does not count

And you dare to use the word "blasphemy"? Go wash your mouth boy!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O2g4_wI74WQ

[sapearl]

Absolutely agree Mark - not only was it a three day chimp, but it was quite costly to get to that point and even more so if you were wrong and had to arrange for a reshoot.

Yup, meters did and still do have their place ;).

......Way back when, there was no such thing as chimping. Well there was... but it took 3 days to see your "test shot", not 3 seconds like now. There simply was no other way but to meter the lights. And we could get the good lights within a 10th of a stop. It is beyond some as to how you can operate efficiently without a meter. ......

[breal101]

There is a huge divide on meters from those who shot film on an advanced level (your moms Disk camera does not count) and those that didn't. Way back when, there was no such thing as chimping. Well there was... but it took 3 days to see your "test shot", not 3 seconds like now. There simply was no other way but to meter the lights. And we could get the good lights within a 10th of a stop. It is beyond some as to how you can operate efficiently without a meter. Taking 5 shots to get the exposure only close is utter blasphemy! Where a meter can get you there before you ever make an exposure. Then there are ones that are the trial and error shooters. A few of them are quite good at guessing the light. But most go by nothing more than what the back of the camera says. And for them the time it takes to get it right is fine. But as Wilt points out the last thing you want to do is start to chimp with the client in front of you.

While the chimping method does work. And works well, as evident by some of the current top pros that claim to not own a meter. However useing the meter does in fact save time (once you know how to use it) and you are able to do things you simply cant do without one.

I have to disagree on a couple of points, first it didn't take three days to get a test shot, it took the worlds longest minute (later 90 seconds). The time it took to process a polaroid. Many of us can make an educated guess for a starting exposure with lighting gear we have used for any period of time. The OP shoots tethered to a computer as I do as much as possible. Generally I can get the lighting set with one additional shot beyond the first. Clients love having the computer to view the images as they come in, some use me just because they're offered that advantage. The computer also offers the opportunity to use the densitometer to set exposure across the image. When shooting interiors using HDR or modified HDR as I call it because I also use flash as part of the exposure it's especially helpful, a blown window will influence the histogram but can be ignored when measuring with the densitometer because it will be replaced with a properly exposed image and combined later. I just need to get the part of the image I'm going to keep properly exposed and ignore the rest.

[sapearl]

Well yes - I suppose that's true if you were working in a studio; point taken. But I did a lot of wedding and event work out in the field and never used a polaroid. Actually, I've never owned one.

I have to disagree on a couple of points, first it didn't take three days to get a test shot, it took the worlds longest minute (later 90 seconds). The time it took to process a polaroid..

[Peacefield]

Stu, when you do what you described earlier on this post, where is the flash; on camera?

[sapearl]

Morning Peace - yes, it's mounted on my Newton Bracket, connected to the camera. The way I have it configured the flash head is about 6-7" top dead center above the lens.

Stu, when you do what you described earlier on this post, where is the flash; on camera?

[sapearl]

I'd almost forgotten Peace - here are a whole series of shots showing my flash/bracket setup:

http://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthread.php?t=338933

[breal101]

Well yes - I suppose that's true if you were working in a studio; point taken. But I did a lot of wedding and event work out in the field and never used a polaroid. Actually, I've never owned one.

Different specialties require different techniques, no doubt about that. Sometimes I feel a little guilty over polaroid's demise. I used tons of that stuff back in the day, and it wasn't just in the studio I used it in the field too. When I switched to digital it was just natural to shoot tethered. It's like shooting a huge polaroid and with the added advantage of having a shot I can actually use if I hit it right the first time. Also I have a copy on the card and on the laptop which is like wearing a belt and suspenders. :lol:

[sapearl]

Oh, I'm all for a belt and suspenders :lol:.

My only PC equipment at this time is desktop gear .... perhaps one day I'll get a laptop; until that time I've got another wedding to pay for this coming May :rolleyes:.

Different specialties require different techniques, no doubt about that. ....... When I switched to digital it was just natural to shoot tethered. It's like shooting a huge polaroid and with the added advantage of having a shot I can actually use if I hit it right the first time. Also I have a copy on the card and on the laptop which is like wearing a belt and suspenders. :lol:

[Mark1]

I have to disagree on a couple of points, first it didn't take three days to get a test shot, it took the worlds longest minute (later 90 seconds). The time it took to process a polaroid.

That assumes everybody used a polaroid back. A lot of us did not. I beat the 3 day chimp by hand processing my own film. But even then, it was like 3 hours till the film was dry enough to handle.

Many of us can make an educated guess for a starting exposure with lighting gear we have used for any period of time.

I haver no reason to doubt that you can. We can point out specifics all day. But take the photography world as a whole and it will be way below the line with who can and who cant.

[airfrogusmc]

I have to disagree on a couple of points, first it didn't take three days to get a test shot, it took the worlds longest minute (later 90 seconds). The time it took to process a polaroid. Many of us can make an educated guess for a starting exposure with lighting gear we have used for any period of time. The OP shoots tethered to a computer as I do as much as possible. Generally I can get the lighting set with one additional shot beyond the first. Clients love having the computer to view the images as they come in, some use me just because they're offered that advantage. The computer also offers the opportunity to use the densitometer to set exposure across the image. When shooting interiors using HDR or modified HDR as I call it because I also use flash as part of the exposure it's especially helpful, a blown window will influence the histogram but can be ignored when measuring with the densitometer because it will be replaced with a properly exposed image and combined later. I just need to get the part of the image I'm going to keep properly exposed and ignore the rest.

I used to never judge density or color on a polaroid just comp and shadows. And we would send test 4X5s to the lab to see how their run was going that day. It would take usually less than an hour to get transparencies back and we would adjust filtration and exposure per the test run.

I ALWAYS use a flash meter. It saves time and takes all the guess work out of the process. Its great for NAILING ratios and most of the time I don't have time to be screwing with adjusting ratios in the shoot.

[breal101]

I used to never judge density or color on a polaroid just comp and shadows. And we would send test 4X5s to the lab to see how their run was going that day. It would take usually less than an hour to get transparencies back and we would adjust filtration and exposure per the test run.

I ALWAYS use a flash meter. It saves time and takes all the guess work out of the process. Its great for NAILING ratios and most of the time I don't have time to be screwing with adjusting ratios in the shoot.

The lab must have been very close to you, dry to dry E-6 is about 40 to 45 minutes. We didn't use the closest lab because they were inconsistent. The one we used was absolutely anal about quality control and never strayed much. They let me look at the control charts any time I asked too. As long as the emulsion was the same I never worried too much about color or density inconsistency. Judging a polaroid was as much an art as a science, it was just a confirmation of what we already knew. Keep in mind that I'm talking about shooting tethered, even with a calibrated laptop there is some brain biasing involved because they never match the calibrated studio display. That's why I shoot by the numbers. The printers I work with do much the same thing in pre- press, they may glance at the histogram but they're all over the image with the densitometer. If they're happy I'm happy. The flash meter is an extra step I don't need with my style of shooting, if others need it fine but I don't for the most part.

[airfrogusmc]

The lab must have been very close to you, dry to dry E-6 is about 40 to 45 minutes. We didn't use the closest lab because they were inconsistent. The one we used was absolutely anal about quality control and never strayed much. They let me look at the control charts any time I asked too. As long as the emulsion was the same I never worried too much about color or density inconsistency. Judging a polaroid was as much an art as a science, it was just a confirmation of what we already knew. Keep in mind that I'm talking about shooting tethered, even with a calibrated laptop there is some brain biasing involved because they never match the calibrated studio display. That's why I shoot by the numbers. The printers I work with do much the same thing in pre- press, they may glance at the histogram but they're all over the image with the densitometer. If they're happy I'm happy. The flash meter is an extra step I don't need with my style of shooting, if others need it fine but I don't for the most part.

Yeah it was close and these were tests to test the how the labs machine was running that day. The tests had little to do with emulsions we bought in bulk with the same emulsion. It was more to test the lab that day. 1/8 of a degree or even a slightly different mix on the developer could cause the color to shift and the density to change and we were working with very picky art directors.

All I can say is to get my ratios perfect before I shoot the meter is one of the most valuable tools I have and I use it every time I use my white lightnings or travelites.

[RDKirk]

That assumes everybody used a polaroid back. A lot of us did not. I beat the 3 day chimp by hand processing my own film. But even then, it was like 3 hours till the film was dry enough to handle.

Polaroid was expensive and time consuming--even 30 seconds per exposure could seem interminable when you were working with live subjects. I don't know anyone who depended on Polaroid for basic exposure determination--it was more of a final check after determining exposure and ratios with a meter. It also proved whether all lights and the camera were operating properly.

[Wilt]

Shooting 4x5 transparencies, the Polaroid was used by me as a final check for unwanted visual elements in the frame. It was never used to check exposure, as the exposure outcome was affected too much by time and temperature.

[airfrogusmc]

Shooting 4x5 transparencies, the Polaroid was used by me as a final check for unwanted visual elements in the frame. It was never used to check exposure, as the exposure outcome was affected too much by time and temperature.

Yep, I never relied on polaroid for anything more than shadows and composition, maybe to see the ratio, but even then the contrast of the polaroid was much different than that of the film.

[breal101]

Polaroid had uses outside of exposure, if you read my earlier post I said I lived with a meter around my neck back in those days. But if you shot enough of it you learned to read it, B&W polaroids that held highlight details indicated underexposure for film of the same speed. When the highlights started to blow you knew that was very close. From there you followed the three rules of photography: bracket, bracket, bracket. Film was a lot cheaper than a reshoot.

[Mark1]

...the three rules of photography: bracket, bracket, bracket. ..

Im so glad thoes days are pretty much over. I absolutley hated shooting with a bulk back. But it made sense on a lot of situations. Looking back it was a killer knowing you would send that much film through a camera knowing you would throw 3/4 of it away as soon as it is developed.

[PhotosGuy]

That assumes everybody used a polaroid back. A lot of us did not. I beat the 3 day chimp by hand processing my own film. But even then, it was like 3 hours till the film was dry enough to handle.
We would shoot a sheet of 8X10, process it in Dektol, squeegee it, & slap it on a viewer. :D
Looking back it was a killer knowing you would send that much film through a camera knowing you would throw 3/4 of it away as soon as it is developed. We had our own lab in the studio, too. But later when I was out of town, there were a lot of good reasons for bracketing heavily.
Bracketing with film. (http://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthread.php?t=24269) Post #27

[breal101]

We would shoot a sheet of 8X10, process it in Dektol, squeegee it, & slap it on a viewer. :D


That's real he man stuff Frank, no fancy dan polaroids and that PITA processor for you guys. :lol:

[sapearl]

Back in my college days we were always running on deadline and used a foul little solution of super fast developer called HC-110.

It had a pretty good developing range of around 68F - 80+ depending upon how loud the editors were yelling. We kept the solution happy by throwing it some raw meet twice a week. I believe that was the substitute for replenisher.:D But it did last a while so we didn't have to whip up a new batch too often.

[PhotosGuy]

We used the 110 concentrate as a one-shot developer. "They" paid for it. ;)

[sapearl]

True in our case too..... although I think my skin may have paid for it pretty well back then....:lol:.


We used the 110 concentrate as a one-shot developer. "They" paid for it. ;)

[RDKirk]

I loved HC-110. At 1:32 it was a pretty nice developer, easy to mix and use as a one-shot. You just had to have one of those very small graduates and make sure you used some of your developer make-up water to rinse it out.

When I worked on a paper in the early 70s, we didn't use daylight tanks. We used 4x5 dunk tanks. There were several light-tight developing booths with developer, stop, and fixer in the dunk tanks and a bunch of stainless reels and stick hangers. Oh, and the ubiquitous Gralab timer. We just loaded the reels in the dark, put them on a stick, and started dunking and timing.

The rooms did have a green safelight, so if we had pushed the exposure index 'way the heck beyond the meter's limits, we could very quickly check the film in what might be mid-development to see if there was an image building up.

When I was in Honololu, I was in my f/64 phase. The tap water ran at a constant 70 degrees year 'round--no thermometer needed. Now, that was paradise.

[airfrogusmc]

Adams used a special dilution HC 110 with tri x 320 professional that he claimed gave him more range. That film/developer combo when you look at the film curves the curves come straight up with very little toe. in other words a good deal of detail in those very dark areas where other film/developer combos wouldn't have detail. When you look at most B&W film/dev combos film curves they all have much more of a toe.

[Wilt]

Ah, reminiscing about HC-110 !

[gonzogolf]

Ah, reminiscing about HC-110 !

Its been nearly 15 years and I swear I can still smell stop bath on my fingers.

[sapearl]

You still have fingers? Hmmmmm..... I must have been doing something wrong...:rolleyes:....


Its been nearly 15 years and I swear I can still smell stop bath on my fingers.

[Wilt]

I always was bothered by the smell of fixer on my hands, more than the others.

[Wilt]

You still have fingers? Hmmmmm..... I must have been doing something wrong...:rolleyes:....

You should have had to deal with Cibachrome chemistry!

[breal101]

Adams used a special dilution HC 110 with tri x 320 professional that he claimed gave him more range. That film/developer combo when you look at the film curves the curves come straight up with very little toe. in other words a good deal of detail in those very dark areas where other film/developer combos wouldn't have detail. When you look at most B&W film/dev combos film curves they all have much more of a toe.

We used HC 110 in a replenished 31/2 gallon tank back in the day, the owner was a Brooks grad and I believe he mentioned getting the idea from Adams.

[breal101]

You should have had to deal with Cibachrome chemistry!

Yeah, no kidding. Who set the skunks loose? :lol:

[gonzogolf]

You still have fingers? Hmmmmm..... I must have been doing something wrong...:rolleyes:....


Fingers yes, nails.... well sorta kinda....

[airfrogusmc]

And the graying of your and nails and skin from the silver. They say it will eventually go away :confused::lol:.

[breal101]

And the graying of your and nails and skin from the silver. They say it will eventually go away :confused::lol:.

What's a little metol poisoning amongst friends.:lol: Brett Weston nearly lost his fingers from it. I just had brown nails, digital was the best cure I found.

[airfrogusmc]

Yeah, no kidding. Who set the skunks loose? :lol:

I actually got very sick one time. I was printing a portfolio of 20 prints 16X20 and I guess I had one to many nose hits when removing the top of the tube. Kodachome 25 and cibachrome. What a combo.

And it could be very frustrating at times. No matter how fast you got the tube on the rolling machine I would get chemical steaks on probably 1 out of every four large prints.

[airfrogusmc]

What's a little metol poisoning amongst friends.:lol: Brett Weston nearly lost his fingers from it. I just had brown nails, digital was the best cure I found.

And I used t use a very strong rapid fix solution (archival) with a very long wash time when printing my serious stuff (fiber base) and it would give me raw skin on my fingers which I called fixer finger. Gray nails and raw fingers the babes just loved it :lol::lol:.

[breal101]

I actually got very sick one time. I was printing a portfolio of 20 prints 16X20 and I guess I had one to many nose hits when removing the top of the tube. Kodachome 25 and cibachrome. What a combo.

And it could be very frustrating at times. No matter how fast you got the tube on the rolling machine I would get chemical steaks on probably 1 out of every four large prints.

I loved the look of Cibachrome. K-25 and a Ciba was a beautiful combination. 4X5 E-6 looked pretty good too. We used a basket line but it wasn't much better, basket marks on at least 25% of the prints. We finally had to abandon it because the girls up front said they were going on strike over the smell.

[sapearl]

Nahhhh..... that color stuff was all black magic and sorcery to me back then. Besides, we could only afford a b/w darkroom ;).


You should have had to deal with Cibachrome chemistry!

[akoloskov]

From your blog:



So what do you use when you're in a situation not connected to a computer?

I use camera LCD screen. The only time I do not have my pc connected when I shoot interior/exteriors, and 99% I shoot HDR, 3 or more exposures for each image. I always use 3 or 4 strobes as additional light source while shooting interiors, but still I feel like I do not need to use flash/ambient meter there.

[Mark_Cohran]

If your workflow and process allow you the time to get by without using a light meter, that's great for you. Many photographers find a light meter to be an invaluable tool allowing them quickly set up initial exposures, set lighting ratios more accurately, utilize incident light readings instead of reflected readings, and greatly reduce the trial and error process. If you're suggesting digital photography has made light meters useless, then I disagree. That you don't use one it simply a matter of preference and you simply haven't explored the uses of the device enough to make it of any utility to yourself.

[akoloskov]

If your workflow and process allow you the time to get by without using a light meter, that's great for you. Many photographers find a light meter to be an invaluable tool allowing them quickly set up initial exposures, set lighting ratios more accurately, utilize incident light readings instead of reflected readings, and greatly reduce the trial and error process. If you're suggesting digital photography has made light meters useless, then I disagree. That you don't use one it simply a matter of preference and you simply haven't explored the uses of the device enough to make it of any utility to yourself.

Agree with you. Actually, I was saying that flash meter is useless for me, and was asking about other photographer's experience. I think I never content that it is useless for all. I was asking:-)

Yes, we do post process images a lot. I very rare provide the client with camera raw images. In most cases we adjust, clean and process photos before it gets to a client.

[Peacefield]

Morning Peace - yes, it's mounted on my Newton Bracket, connected to the camera. The way I have it configured the flash head is about 6-7" top dead center above the lens.

Thanks, I appreciate the share.