E-TTL and softbox

CliveyBoy wrote in post #16322175
I agree. But isn't ETTL because it is too accurate, finnicky?

No, ETTL isnt too accurate. Sorry but thats a fantasy.

gonzogolf wrote in post #16321041
But I dont want ETTL to take that changed circumstance into account when I'm doing off camera studio work. I want the light power to be the same because the distances are the same, the exposure of the scene hasnt changed, only minor changes in the position come into play.

Why would anyone use ETTL in a studio situation? First, a studio situation implies studio strobes which aren't ETTL capable. Second, studio situation implies that one is able to control light so the dynamic range of the scene will be within the dynamic range of the sensor.

ETTL, by its nature is intended for speedlites, and quickly changing scene situations. reflective meters all presume mid gray. As does an incident meter. The incident meter output is based on the light striking the dome and suggesting an exposure that will render middle gray middle gray. It just so happens that since white is more reflective than middle gray it will also be rendered properly.

Using an incident meter in a dynamic situation outside is likely to make the meter reading irrelevant by the time the photographer gets back to the shooting position.

No text

dmward wrote in post #16322223
Why would anyone use ETTL in a studio situation? First, a studio situation implies studio strobes which aren't ETTL capable. Second, studio situation implies that one is able to control light so the dynamic range of the scene will be within the dynamic range of the sensor.

ETTL, by its nature is intended for speedlites, and quickly changing scene situations. reflective meters all presume mid gray. As does an incident meter. The incident meter output is based on the light striking the dome and suggesting an exposure that will render middle gray middle gray. It just so happens that since white is more reflective than middle gray it will also be rendered properly.

Using an incident meter in a dynamic situation outside is likely to make the meter reading irrelevant by the time the photographer gets back to the shooting position.

I understand, you are preaching to the choir here. But the strobist crowd is endorsing ETTL strobes and triggers for studio work. Nearly anytime you have a new thread here about what sort of lights should a newbie purchase it quickly fills with the strobist folks suggesting speedlites as the be all end all and ETTL as a must have. All I've been trying to point out here is that ETTL is antithetical to consistent studio results.

gonzogolf wrote in post #16322188
No, ETTL isnt too accurate. Sorry but thats a fantasy.

I have been told I don't know what I'm doing for saying that at DPreview.

digital paradise wrote in post #16322237
I have been told I don't know what I'm doing for saying that at DPreview.

I like ETTL for many uses, just not in the studio.

CliveyBoy wrote in post #16322175
I agree. But isn't ETTL because it is too accurate, finnicky?

Meters are accurate based on their sensitivity and calibration.
When my cameras did not have built in meters and mechanical shutters I calibrated each meter (selenium cell Sekonic incident/reflective meters) to each camera. Then listed the adjustment factors on a piece of masking tape on each meter.

FEC is a handy mechanism built into the camera for applying an adjustment factor when using a reflective meter. Experience gives one the knowledge required to apply the adjustment factor before taking a meter reading with a reflective meter. The LCD screen on the pack of the camera is the digital equivalent of a polaroid test image I often shot for critical assignments. Raw capture and basic sliders in Lightroom replace the push/pull development used with film.

We're talking about tools and how to use them effectively. Both metering approaches work, one isn't better than the other, its just more or less appropriate for a given circumstance.

Back to the original question;
Softbox in studio with strobe, meter it with an incident meter.

Softbox on location with speedlite, ETTL is an option. If one know their equipment, one should be able to set the FEC based on what the subject is wearing, the background and their complexion and be within a half stop on the first test shot.

With an incident reading I doubt if one would be any closer.

gonzogolf wrote in post #16322234
I understand, you are preaching to the choir here. But the strobist crowd is endorsing ETTL strobes and triggers for studio work. Nearly anytime you have a new thread here about what sort of lights should a newbie purchase it quickly fills with the strobist folks suggesting speedlites as the be all end all and ETTL as a must have. All I've been trying to point out here is that ETTL is antithetical to consistent studio results.

It's interesting that you use "strobist" and link the term to ETTL.
David Hobby and Joe McNally did a road show for either Adorama or B&H a couple years ago. Hobby was mister manual flash and Joe was mister ETTL.

Hobbyists can have a hobby. Most working professionals, including Hobby and McNally readily agree there is more than one kind of light and each has its strengths and weaknesses.

dmward wrote in post #16322292
It's interesting that you use "strobist" and link the term to ETTL.
David Hobby and Joe McNally did a road show for either Adorama or B&H a couple years ago. Hobby was mister manual flash and Joe was mister ETTL.

Hobbyists can have a hobby. Most working professionals, including Hobby and McNally readily agree there is more than one kind of light and each has its strengths and weaknesses.

I understand, but he has lost control of the term at this point.

gonzogolf wrote in post #16322239
I like ETTL for many uses, just not in the studio.

They were referring to non studio, event shoots.

drvnbysound wrote in post #16318781
That is the lack of accuracy that I was referring to.

If I'm setting up a softbox, chances are I'm not in an environment or shooting where the lighting is changing enough to use ETTL.

Since we seem to be stretching this point till it breaks, it not a lack of accuracy its a change of input.

As Gonzogolf has pointed out, in the studio things don't change without direct photographer involvement, so a deliberate approach using an incident meter is practical, and most would use it.

Dynamic situations lend themselves to ETTL since the photographer can, based on knowledge, experience and insight, make adjustments at the camera that will adapt the flash to the situation.

dmward wrote in post #16322374
Since we seem to be stretching this point till it breaks, it not a lack of accuracy its a change of input.

As Gonzogolf has pointed out, in the studio things don't change without direct photographer involvement, so a deliberate approach using an incident meter is practical, and most would use it.

Dynamic situations lend themselves to ETTL since the photographer can, based on knowledge, experience and insight, make adjustments at the camera that will adapt the flash to the situation.

A few members at DPreview raved about it's accuracy with little need for adjustment while others stated they could go into any situation and preset FEC and get a perfect exposure every time. While I don't doubt you can get pretty good at it I doubt you can nail it every time.

It started when I mentioned I purchased Metz for the Auto exposure and the Canon die hards got worked up because they claimed ETTL was just as accurate.

digital paradise wrote in post #16322397
While I don't doubt you can get pretty good at it I doubt you can nail it every time.

That depends on what one's definition of "nail it" With my film cameras the shutter speeds were 1 EV apart and the aperture ring had half stop detents. Shooting raw, I seldom have to adjust an exposure more than two quick develop clicks in Lightroom which is well within the tolerance I had to accept with film.

I seldom have to throw out an image because there is an ETTL exposure problem. I may have to throw it out because I screwed up and left the ISO set for indoor when I go outside. etc. I bounce may speedlites inside and I think that makes ETTL more reliable since the metering is evaluating the whole scene and the speedlite is lighting it all via bounce.

Naturally, getting one of the off camera speedlites into the frame screws things up but that has to be expected.

What bothers me are photographers saying only one approach works. I chalk that up to lack of experience. When one has as many grey hairs as I do, one realizes that nothing is perfect, especially something that is mechanical and driven by a computer via firmware.

As for Metz auto exposure, my only experience was a couple of quick test shots at a show booth where the rep was attempting to convince me it was better than Canon ETTL.

DP, the above was not a specific reference. Rather a generalization.

Good comments and I realize that. I won't through them out either as you have to work with it.