Is flash exposure just trial & error?

wow

such egos

breathe, guys.

I think everybody is entitled to their own opinions and there is no forum rule that says that everyone has to agree with everybody else in this forum. What the forum rule does say is that everybody needs to respect each other so lets keep that in mind, OK?

Thank you. Your cooperation in keeping this place the best and friendliest forum is greatly appreciated.

PacAce wrote in post #4603941
I think everybody is entitled to their own opinions and there is no forum rule that says that everyone has to agree with everybody else in this forum. What the forum rule does say is that everybody needs to respect each other so lets keep that in mind, OK?

Thank you. Your cooperation in keeping this place the best and friendliest forum is greatly appreciated.

If I have mis-behaved, I apologise to both the OP and the rest of the forum members.
I had thought I made my last post on here, but I promise this is the last one.

I am not a pro tog- no where near, and I don't pretend to be. Neither am I 100% conversant with PS, in fact I doubt even 40% come to that. But what has been presented above of MY images, has nothing to do with metering correct exposure at the time of capturing the image!

I also photo-shopped them to bits, hence the change of colour of the jumper on one of them.
You may have been better to have asked for the original raw files, I have attached a screen print for both, the girl image has ONE highlight of overexposure, of which is the reflection of my lights on the balloon, of which was expected IMO. There are also no blown highlights in the boy shot, and notice all sliders are set to zero / nil, not the PS default Brightness +50 & contrast +25. In my opinion they were both exposed correctly at the time of exposure - in camera - not during Photoshop manipulation. If my final images look under thats because I eyeballed in PS. There will always be the case of conflict of calibrated monitors.

I'm out of here.

HOSTED PHOTO
please log in to view hosted photos in full size.

HOSTED PHOTO
please log in to view hosted photos in full size.

hot subject....
I knew one guy now passed on, that could set up strobes on location without a meter the guy knew his equipment inside and out and was a master.
Keep in mind this was shooting film and sometimes he would take the shot and say hmmm that wasn't right make a small adjustment and shoot again and every time he was right the second was in a small way better.
How he did it is beyond me....
Mortals like me used light meters and his pictures where still better than mine....

LBaldwin wrote in post #4600103
Actually if you oldsters will remember 18% grey was never really..... well, 18%.
If you were to go old school and use an actual Kodak 18% grey card, you paid a princely sum of $30 or so for an 8x10 card. But if you bought the Hanimex, or the Polaroid, or the Porters or any of the dozen or so other makers you would get a pretty wide variation in what was called 18% grey.

Take a stack of kodak cards and compare them and you would see some variation lot too lot too.
The lab guys or in a lot of cases the time the photog spent in the darkroom didnt get nearly enough credit back in the day.
Just like a photoshop wizard doesnt get enough credit today.

::John:: wrote in post #4603829
wow

such egos

breathe, guys.

I'm not a mind reader...so I don't know exactly what motivates people. Ego is probably a factor.

One thing I do know is how to light for still photography...actually​, I am pretty close to being an expert at it.

This is kindergarten.... Meter the light. Take a photo. Adjust as needed. Trial and error is always a factor. There are literally an infinite number of reasons as to why the best meter readings won't always be the final exposure.

It's actually so simple...there should be NO argument. If anybody attempting to learn the craft of photographic lighting ever contemplates why there aren't many advertising photographers with top clients (almost none) in forums helping to explain advanced techniques then this thread is an excellent case study. Arguing to death the simplest, most basic, kindergarten concepts drives away the most experienced shooters.

Now, I'll move on and stop posting...but those that don't know much about what they are talking about will continue to accummulate thousands more posts and stick around the forum. A little bit of knowledge is a dangerous thing. The best part is that most surfers won't know the difference anyway. So it really doesn't matter...in the end.... Ignorance is bliss.

Axton wrote in post #4549462
I have set up an off camera flash. 2 to be exact. One as key light and a second as a background/hair light. Here is my question:
How do I adjust the manual settings on my camera beforehand so I get a good exposure? I can't rely on the ambient light because it's low and with the flash I would be WAY over exposed.

I do a couple of test shots and adjust from there (though sometimes it's a big difference between what's on my LCD camera screen and my computer screen.) Is this normal procedure?

What I don't get is if I buy a light meter, do I hold it near my subject and set off the flash? Otherwise, I would just be metering for ambient light, right?

Any advice on this is appreciated.

Its an art and a science just like almost anything to do with photography.
Science will get you close but art separates the masters from the pack.

Yes you want too meter from the subject location and set your ratios.

iso 100 for max dynamic range, 1/125 or so is a good start.
Then use your light meter to get the setting for the f-stop.
If its too low then up the strobes power or move them closer if possible if not up the iso.
Or you can set the f-stop then adjust the strobe power to match.
In that case 2 deep f/8, one person f/4 is a good starting point.
But the focal length of the lens and the distance between you and the subject and the distance between them and the background all play a role and determine the best f-stop.

Depending on the subject, the meter should be placed with the globe facing directly at the camera for your main light. For your fill, hair, rim, I usually take readings both toward the head and toward the camera. I even sometimes get a reflected off of the subject if there is a large issue with reflectance or specularity. Having shot thousands of products, catalog work and such, I really hated the polaroid metering system. But that was all we had at that time, remember? So even in the past we took meter readings and then shot Polaroids to get dialed in.

In the old days the pol was more or less matched to the type of film you were shooting. Type xxx was for Fuji Veliva, and Type ZZZ was for Kodak Ektachrome. Polaroid was nice enough to engineer polaroid film stock that was pretty darm close to the trannies you were using. Variations in Temp, time and age were factors in how well the Pols actually worked. Why do I bring this up? We do the exact same thing with digital. Digital killed polaroid. Digital killed Kodak to an extent.

We now use tiny screens on the back to check for focus, DOF, layout, and exposure. But just like the polaroids it is not perfect. You still need a meter, and you still need the modern polaroid - LCD. Meters do more now, than they ever did and have been able to keep themselves as a necessary tool for proper exposure. On camera flash, especially Canon really cannot compete with well done strobes for pro use. I know pros that have them in their kit and use them all the time and swear by them - I am not one of them.

But you should get a good meter, learn how to use it and it will assist you in ways that the camera's meter never could.

Les

I will stay clear of this conversation, I just wanted to give you this site to look at. It was the one that helped me the most when I bought my SEKONIC L-358.
After you read it you can go to the last link at the bottom of the page and it will take you back to the tutorial page if you like. It has allot of good reading.

http://super.nova.org/​DPR/Ratios/