Do you need light meters ?

londuck wrote in post #2819541
If you have more than one light a meter becomes more necessary.

I recently learned in class that you meter for only a part of the subject, where the main-light is falling. If none of your other lights are affecting that area, why would adding lights affect the desired exposure? I'm not trying to disagree, I'm trying to learn.

treeshugger wrote in post #3002827
I recently learned in class that you meter for only a part of the subject, where the main-light is falling. If none of your other lights are affecting that area, why would adding lights affect the desired exposure? I'm not trying to disagree, I'm trying to learn.

Adding light is like adding water to a bucket...the more water falling on the bucket makes it fuller; the more light added to the scene makes it brighter, possibly enough to alter the overall exposure.

The other reason to have a meter, when having more lights, is to help you in adjusting the brightness of one light source vs. another. For example, adding a light to the hair and metering the brightness of that light to compare it with the brightness of the main light...lets you know in advance if that light would be not bright enough to be seen (with a dark haired subject) vs. too bright and overpowering (with a blond subject)

cosworth wrote in post #3002070
Londuck, how accurate are the Minoltas you think? I mean compared to Canon's ASA/ISO equivalents?

Cosworth,

Sorry to take so long to reply, I just unearthed your comment.

The Minolta flash meters are fine instruments. It is a shame they are no longer produced. Possibly Sony will bring them back. This would underpin their desire to be taken seriously as a camera maker.

I think most of the Minolta flashmeter series have a way to easily adjust the calibration of that particular meter. Possibly other that have Minolta meters will comment (Wilt??). I have used a Minolta IV many times in a studio I frequent. I like it.

The only thing I don't like about the Minolta is that it is a lot larger than the Sekonic 308 I personally own. But, a large meter in a fixed studio is of no concern. It is just when the meter has to go into a bag that reveals the size of the Minolta. Note that the Minolta meters are not really that much larger than most flashmeters, it is just that the Sekonic 308 is just much smaller than most flash meters.

I suspect the Minolta meters are close to the Canon ISO settings, but I have seen some testing to indicate the Canon ISO values are understated (ISO 100 is actually more like ISO 125).

At least DPReview consistently indicates this in their test reports.

See (a typical reading for most recent Canon DSLRs):
http://www.dpreview.co​m …ws/canoneos30d/​page20.asp

Enjoy! Lon

londuck wrote in post #3003007
I suspect the Minolta meters are close to the Canon ISO settings, but I have seen some testing to indicate the Canon ISO values are understated (ISO 100 is actually more like ISO 125).

At least DPReview consistently indicates this in their test reports.

How would you calibrate a flash meter to match a camera? Shoot a 18% gray card and look for the histogram spike?

Curtis N wrote in post #3003078
How would you calibrate a flash meter to match a camera? Shoot a 18% gray card and look for the histogram spike?

I suspect that most meters that allow easy user calibration, or what more would be interested in synchronization, will only allow one bias for all meter functions, not a special bias just for flashmeter function.

If this is the case, then I would just make sure the ambient reading of the hand held light meter was consistent with metering the same thing with the cameras meter.

I think using a 18% gray card to fill the entire flame of the camera and pulling the hand held meter close to the card would negate any center bias etc. of the cameras meter.

Then just adjust the hand held meter to conform to the cameras meter.

The presumption is that the hand held meter would maintain this same bias in flashmeter function.

This would not mean the hand held meter after the bias setting would be any more accurate (it might even be less accurate) but you would have more consistency between your light metering devices.

I have been very lucky, all of the cameras I use that have working meters (for years my studio cameras had broken meters), most indicated exposure values are very close to each other and to my Sekonic 308. The reading are most likely closer that the accuracy of most shutters. Shutters, especially at the shutter extremes are seldom as the settings indicate. I see many fret over 1/10 an EV in a reading, when it is likely the shutter in the camera they are using is very often off far more than that. The unknown seems to inflict less hand wringing.

Enjoy! Lon

Thanks, Lon.

I was recently facing an upcoming assignment that would have required some honest-to-god lights and a meter, and it was crunch time for a buying decision. But I managed to sub-contract the job to a friend who is actually qualified to do it, and I'll be there to assist and learn.

A meter is a waste of money unless you are setting up ratio's between two strobes, use your histogram and change settings until you get what you want...
With the AB's anything faster than 250 shutter will show shutter, so I usually set shutter first at like 125, then adjust aperture and iso, and light output, to get the desired results, once set minor adjustments can be made.
A meter is nice, but definately not a necessity with digital.
Jim