Wow... the 580EXII is pretty powerful... heres proof!

M Powered wrote in post #5929062
ahhh gotcha!

But I don't use a light meter

You mean your camera doesn't have a meter?!

Or are you refering to the fact that, like countless hobbyists fooling around with strobes for 'studio lighting', you rely upon the 'shoot and chimp the histogram' method of exposure and lighting balance?

M Powered wrote in post #5929055
Almost everything I shoot has a small amounts of ambient in it. Models constantly move, unless told otherwise, so I need to make every effort to prevent motion blur

And there the relative balance of amount of exposure contributed by the ambient light has a key part, too! If the ambient contribution is -2EV from the flash exposure, it would be so dim as to be effectively not present in the image...the motion does not really show up.

Wilt wrote in post #5929142
You mean your camera doesn't have a meter?!

Or are you refering to the fact that, like countless hobbyists fooling around with strobes for 'studio lighting', you rely upon the 'shoot and chimp the histogram' method of exposure and lighting balance?

Oh yea... I use the camera's metering. When you say, "it reads 1/200 @ F4" I thought you were referring to a meter.

Some of my locations I have to rely on the shoot and chimp method and I'm sure everyone does to an extent also

M Powered wrote in post #5929126
Not if you saw what was on top of that rock prior!

One of our daughters was on a boat with us, and the tour went out to a guano-covered rock with a seal perched on it, on the way to a picnic on an 'island' -- which was actually a peninsula (yeah, they had to find something to try to make it interesting to the touristas in Mazatlan who paid for the day trip to the 'island'!)...her comment was, "We spent all this time to come out to a sh**-covered rock to see a seal?!"

M Powered wrote in post #5929174
Oh yea... I use the camera's metering. When you say, "it reads 1/200 @ F4" I thought you were referring to a meter.

Some of my locations I have to rely on the shoot and chimp method and I'm sure everyone does to an extent also

Not 'everyone'

Wilt wrote in post #5929154
And there the relative balance of amount of exposure contributed by the ambient light has a key part, too! If the ambient contribution is -2EV from the flash exposure, it would be so dim as to be effectively not present in the image...the motion does not really show up.

Motion blur does affect sharpness, even in small amounts. For me thats unacceptable, especially when I retouch them.

Wilt wrote in post #5929192
Not 'everyone'

So your saying someone out there that actually views their LCD and doesn't adjust their lights because it might be a tad too high or too low? Or fix it in post?

I guess in a perfect world there would be no need for a "test" shot.

M Powered wrote in post #5929225
So your saying someone out there that actually views their LCD and doesn't adjust their lights because it might be a tad too high or too low? Or fix it in post?

I guess in a perfect world there would be no need for a "test" shot.

No, I am saying that there are those of us who use hand held light meters and shoot, and we care nothing about chimping the histogram! I know my flashmeter is precisely calibrated and what an exposure does according to its reading.

To me, a 'test shot' is not about exposure, it is about nuances in the set arrangement, pose (hair and makeup, too), details that got overlooked (like the bit of trash that shows up in the shot), and all of that is seen NOT in the LCD but viewed on a PC monitor. In the film days, Polaroids were used for this, NOT for exposure.

Wilt wrote in post #5929243
No, I am saying that there are those of us who use hand held light meters and shoot, and we care nothing about chimping the histogram! I know my flashmeter is precisely calibrated and what an exposure does according to its reading.

Even for On location shoots at different time of day?

M Powered wrote in post #5929252
Even for On location shoots at different time of day?

I find histograms on the LCD are of limited value too frequently. For example, let us assume the dynamic range of the scene is 8EV, so something in the scene must be overexposed or something else underexposed, there is not avoiding it. To view the histogram alone, I have no way of knowing if the blown pixels are important to the shot, or not!...I can assess that if I have the 'blinkies' enabled, too, but sometimes it is not 'all or nothing' at one position in the photo...maybe it is a bit of capturing SOME pixels but letting others blow out in that same vicinity.

Wilt wrote in post #5929276
I find histograms on the LCD are of limited value too frequently. For example, let us assume the dynamic range of the scene is 8EV, so something in the scene must be overexposed or something else underexposed, there is not avoiding it. To view the histogram alone, I have no way of knowing if the blown pixels are important to the shot, or not!...I can assess that if I have the 'blinkies' enabled, too, but sometimes it is not 'all or nothing' at one position in the photo...maybe it is a bit of capturing SOME pixels but letting others blow out in that same vicinity.

I hear ya. Which is why I use strobes on location. If the sun i too harsh, I use the strobes to overpower it.

You sound pretty knowledgable! I'd love to see some of your work, have a website?

Right now, for my on location shots I'm relying on knowing my equipment and hands on experience to get the proper exposure I want with limited chimping

M Powered wrote in post #5929322
I hear ya. Which is why I use strobes on location. If the sun i too harsh, I use the strobes to overpower it.

Yeah, the age old method of 'make the dynamic range not so wide'!

Wilt wrote in post #5929424
Yeah, the age old method of 'make the dynamic range not so wide'!

Hey, what ever makes the picture look good

So do you have a website of some of your stuff? I'd love to see it!

M Powered wrote in post #5929704
Hey, what ever makes the picture look good

So do you have a website of some of your stuff? I'd love to see it!

Nope, never set one up.

Wilt wrote in post #5929276
I find histograms on the LCD are of limited value too frequently. For example, let us assume the dynamic range of the scene is 8EV, so something in the scene must be overexposed or something else underexposed, there is not avoiding it. To view the histogram alone, I have no way of knowing if the blown pixels are important to the shot, or not!...I can assess that if I have the 'blinkies' enabled, too, but sometimes it is not 'all or nothing' at one position in the photo...maybe it is a bit of capturing SOME pixels but letting others blow out in that same vicinity.

I pretty much gave up using a meter, except under demanding circumstances. I can guess pretty much an offset from the ambient lighting, and then cam 'chimp it in' from there if need be. I think its all about experience and knowing your equipment well. I can pretty much tell what's blown, what's not, or split the different with a quick zoomed view of the image on the areas of concern, and a secondary check of the histogram. I probably use my light meter about 20% of the time.

Wilt wrote in post #5929243
To me, a 'test shot' is not about exposure, it is about nuances in the set arrangement, pose (hair and makeup, too), details that got overlooked (like the bit of trash that shows up in the shot), and all of that is seen NOT in the LCD but viewed on a PC monitor. In the film days, Polaroids were used for this, NOT for exposure.

I don't know of any photographer from my film days that didn't use a Polaroid for exposure checks. It was part of the process. Granted, we used light meters to get us dialed in, but then used the Polaroids to fine tune the exposure, lighting, composition, etc. And even then, there was the 3 sheet brackets for nuances since you never know what a AD or client would prefer. But yea, Polaroids were definitely part for the exposure process.

For the pose, makeup, hair, set details, etc, we used our eye balls! (or an stylist). But its amazing what is overlooked when you are staring at the set in person, but then pick up on it in Polaroids or final films.

Wilt wrote in post #5929720
Nope, never set one up.

How does one get away with that in this day and age?? I'm constantly being asked for my website from clients, prospective clients, etc, as a way to pre-qualify me prior to bringing in my book. I'd love to do away with it as its a considerable expense (~$2K year), but it would affect my income quite a bit.