How useful is a light meter?

get one. very useful. saves time. eliminates bad shots. if you;re doing a lot of strobist, definite yes
id go sekonic

drvnbysound wrote in post #14160267
David now criticizes people who use light meters

Can you reference this?

I often use several flashes, with everything in manual mode. Manual flash, manual camera, with different flashes at different outputs. I've never found the need to use a flash meter, and I;ve never been in a situation where I've thought I needed one.

All I do is chimp and check the histogram, and I find my flashes are very easy to set. Why should I spend a few hundred dollars to get something when all I need to do is take a couple of test shots?

Tiberius47 wrote in post #14161222
I often use several flashes, with everything in manual mode. Manual flash, manual camera, with different flashes at different outputs. I've never found the need to use a flash meter, and I;ve never been in a situation where I've thought I needed one.

All I do is chimp and check the histogram, and I find my flashes are very easy to set. Why should I spend a few hundred dollars to get something when all I need to do is take a couple of test shots?

What do you do if you want a background to subject exposure that is consistent from one day to the next, but at a different location?

kokakaste2 wrote in post #14161189
Can you reference this?

Criticize may be a strong word... but this is what I was referencing:

On the Strobist DVD that has Morning Session, Part 2, when talking about balancing light and light control, he says:

"When you think of exposure, do not think in terms of absolutes and f-stops, and is this f5.6 and 2/3. It is like the anal-retentive exposure guy....

But if you can get away from that idea of being, like, really anal retentive about your f-stops and shutter speeds and your exposure, and just move into I like this a little warmer, or a little cooler; I want this a little hotter, a little lower in light, you just start to think intuitively and start to liberate yoursel from a lot of the numbers that are associated with photography. It is a very daunting thing to consider doing if you are married to a flash meter, but it is a very liberating thing to actually have done. "

Later in the same segment he gets to the section I was referring to about anal retentive types who measure excessively,

"You know, I know guys what walk around the scene with a flash meter, f5.6, f5.6, f5.6, f5.6, f5.61 (imitating measuring every few feet). Then change, change, change (imitating adjusting light), f5.6 and yeah they have got f5.6 everywhere. But my God I mean, really, I mean, how anal retentive can you get about your light? I mean, what are the odds that that person is going to come up with a creative visual solution for the picture if he is spending so much time worrying about whether something is f5.6 or f5.61?"

I typed these quotes out while watching the video, so these are not quotes you will likely find on the Strobist website, but if you have the videos it's definitely there.

Thanks, I don't have the Strobist DVDs.

JakAHearts wrote in post #14161352
What do you do if you want a background to subject exposure that is consistent from one day to the next, but at a different location?

I do agree that this would be a situation that a light meter would definitely be useful. I certainly haven't had any needs to do this yet, but I suppose it would be reflective of an actual shoot that lasts a number of days.

I'd like to point out that comparing oneself to David Hobby or any other well experienced photographer is extremely arrogant.

Damn right Hobby shouldn't need a meter anymore, hes been using one for 20 years.

Have you?

Whoa. Hang on there, Case.
No one compared himself to David Hobby.
To call oneself a "strobist" simply means you follow his teachings and try to take his advice, in an effort to learn.

I think after years and years of doing something everyday it will become second nature and the need for metering when using the same equipment all the time is something you might be able to indeed do without. But he did use a meter for years and still might on a situation that he has not come across before which happens but I would say to anyone staring out until you have those years of experience a good flash meter will save you a ton of trial and error and most important, until you have gotten to that point that he is at, time. I use an old Minolta IV to get my ratios right when using multiple strobe. Time is not my friend in most situations so the faster I can get the shot the better and chimping my way there when there are art directors and paying clients on the set is really not the best way to do it.

airfrogusmc wrote in post #14162409
I think after years and years of doing something everyday it will become second nature and the need for meter when using the same equipment all the time you can indeed do it without measuring. But he did use a meter and still might on a situation that he has not come across before which happens but I would say to anyone staring out until you have those years of experience a good flash meter will save you a ton of trial and error and most important, until you have gotten to that point that he is at, time. I use an old Minolta IV to get my ratios right when using multiple strobe. Time is not my friend in most situations so the faster I can get the shot the better and chimping my way there when there are art directors and paying clients on the set is really not the best way to do it.

I couldnt agree more. There were a few of on-location segments in the Strobist DVDs. In some cases, David was given ample time to setup before hand, knew what the purpose of the shot was, and chimped away while no one was on set (shooting the background to test BG lighting, and/or shooting his hand in the location he expected the subject(s) to be positioned). Once the subject(s) arrived, all of the lighting was already setup and he just worked on posing and possible minor adjustments to light height or direction of lights. David's approach during these was much like his background as a photojournalist, where he was concerned with getting one main shot to run as a cover, etc.

However, there were other segments of shoots that were more lively and interactive where David was moving lights or the subject around. The One Light series by Zack Arias was very similar to this as well. Both of them would 'guess' at an initial flash power and adjust flash power, location of the light source, or aperature to compensate, while chimping away. Understanding that both of them have a ton of experience, and are able to make much better initial 'guesses' and also able to make quick adjustments as well. That said, there are a number of exposures that they take that are under or overexposed and they make the proper adjustments to fix the issue.

As Curtis pointed out, I certainly am in no way comparing myself to any of these photographers; I don't think anyone else has either. I am simply stating my observations to watching them work on the videos they have presented; specifically the lack of light meter usage during shoots and having a much more organic experience, looking at the shots taken and making creative changes accordingly.

Edit: Also note that David Hobby has an engineering background (also mentioned in the DVDs). So for an engineer to put down a measuring device and get away from actual data points could not have been an easy thing to do.

Curtis N wrote in post #14162339
Whoa. Hang on there, Case.
No one compared himself to David Hobby.
To call oneself a "strobist" simply means you follow his teachings and try to take his advice, in an effort to learn.

Then i read this wrong:

drvnbysound wrote in post #14160267
Let me start by saying, I'm an amateur photographer who has been shooting for about 2 yrs. I have recently finished watching Zack Arias' One Light Workshop, David Hobby's Strobist DVDs, and some workshops from Sly Arena. That said, none of them use light meters [anymore]. Zack stated he carries one in his gear bag but rarely, if ever, uses it. David mentioned something similar. I don't specifically recall Syl's comments regarding carrying a meter.

..snip..snip..

All of that said, yes, I do think light meters are excellent tools and they are great at what they do. But are they really necessary? I'm not yet convinced... then again, I'm not being paid to shoot either

Because thats exactly what hes doing,

"Well, they aren't using light meters, so maybe they aren't necessary for me either..."

Technically to that i could say that absolutely nothing is necessary, you could be shooting at iso6400 f16 all your shots because its your artistic vision regardless of how much light is around.

Pointing out that one photographer does not use a light meter in a debate about light meters is comparing yourself to that photographer. Now, if you were comparing yourself to Christa Meola for example... Then i might let it go

drvnbysound wrote in post #14162610
I couldnt agree more. There were a few of on-location segments in the Strobist DVDs. In some cases, David was given ample time to setup before hand, knew what the purpose of the shot was, and chimped away while no one was on set (shooting the background to test BG lighting, and/or shooting his hand in the location he expected the subject(s) to be positioned). Once the subject(s) arrived, all of the lighting was already setup and he just worked on posing and possible minor adjustments to light height or direction of lights. David's approach during these was much like his background as a photojournalist, where he was concerned with getting one main shot to run as a cover, etc.

However, there were other segments of shoots that were more lively and interactive where David was moving lights or the subject around. The One Light series by Zack Arias was very similar to this as well. Both of them would 'guess' at an initial flash power and adjust flash power, location of the light source, or aperature to compensate, while chimping away. Understanding that both of them have a ton of experience, and are able to make much better initial 'guesses' and also able to make quick adjustments as well. That said, there are a number of exposures that they take that are under or overexposed and they make the proper adjustments to fix the issue.

As Curtis pointed out, I certainly am in no way comparing myself to any of these photographers; I don't think anyone else has either. I am simply stating my observations to watching them work on the videos they have presented; specifically the lack of light meter usage during shoots and having a much more organic experience, looking at the shots taken and making creative changes accordingly.

Edit: Also note that David Hobby has an engineering background (also mentioned in the DVDs). So for an engineer to put down a measuring device and get away from actual data points could not have been an easy thing to do.

When you use your meter as much as he has used his over the years and probably the same lighting equipment and modifiers you get to a point where its like breathing, you no longer have to think about the technique. Again the important message is he was not born with that ability but had to work years to get to a point where it was second nature. Like Winogrand not using a light meter when he shot on the streets. Use the same film, the same camera, the same lens and run 6, 7 rolls of film ever day for years through it you get to a point where you know the light and know it better than any meter. Thats not with strobes which have so many variables like modifiers, different required quality of light and also different requires intensities of light but even with that do it long enough with the same stuff you can get to a point after years and years of doing it that you know what the results are going to be before you do it. But its the experience that gets someone to that level. Ya just don't wake up with it and it takes time doing it with the right tools first to get good at it.

RDKirk wrote in post #14158123
Is that like being a Baptist?

Maybe when David Hobby registers Strobist as a religious organization.

I'm a recovering strobist.