Does Histogram replace Light Meter job?

tmonatr wrote in post #5975755
I don't understand why a light meter would be hopeless in this situation. Now let me first say that I do not have a light meter (although one is on the way from B&H as I type), and I have never shot under those specific conditions. But, if I understand correctly, the black background or white highlights of the flower will not "fool" the light meter (as it can your in-camera meter) and the meter is reading the actual light falling on your subject. Therefore the given exposure should be correct.
You obviously have a system that works for you, and that's great. I am just trying to gather information to improve my photography skills.

I think the issue is that the post by Glenn NK should have said,
"My experience with flower closeups differs somewhat from this; I use a black velvet backdrop for some flowers (either to set them off better or get rid of a messy bg), and the reflected light meter is hopeless in this situation."

A light meter in the camera is a 'light meter' and the light meter held in hand with a reflected light lens is a 'light meter' and the light meter with a hemisphere is a 'light meter', too! But light meter in the camera is a 'reflected light meter' and the light meter held in hand with a reflected light lens is a 'reflected light meter' and the light meter with a hemisphere is an 'incident light meter'. Our discussions should try to state things in a specific, not generic, way so as to be understood appropriately.

Wilt wrote in post #5975882
I think the issue is that the post by Glenn NK should have said,
"My experience with flower closeups differs somewhat from this; I use a black velvet backdrop for some flowers (either to set them off better or get rid of a messy bg), and the reflected light meter is hopeless in this situation."

A light meter in the camera is a 'light meter' and the light meter held in hand with a reflected light lens is a 'light meter' and the light meter with a hemisphere is a 'light meter', too! But light meter in the camera is a 'reflected light meter' and the light meter held in hand with a reflected light lens is a 'reflected light meter' and the light meter with a hemisphere is an 'incident light meter'. Our discussions should state things in a specific, not generic, was so as to be understood appropriately.

Okay. I understand how a reflected light meter could be thrown off in this situation.

(I wish I had a dollar for every time you used the word "meter" in that post. )

tmonatr wrote in post #5975971
Okay. I understand how a reflected light meter could be thrown off in this situation.

(I wish I had a dollar for every time you used the word "meter" in that post. )

Wilt makes a very good point though. As we discuss lighting there are many variables and terms that help us understand and explain, if used correctly. If omitted or used incorrectly it can further confuse or complicate matters.

Now speak clearly and stand up straight!

How Now Brown Cow.

This is a interesting debate. I myself have wondered the same thing. This is one of those threads that examples would probably be useful.

tmonatr wrote in post #5975971
Okay. I understand how a reflected light meter could be thrown off in this situation.

(I wish I had a dollar for every time you used the word "meter" in that post. )

I wish I had a dime for every post asking "which lens should I buy for portraits?" or "do I need wide angle?", as if the question had never ever been asked!

It appears that I should clarify my remarks:

The original post stated in effect "do you think light meter function can be replaced by the camera histogram?" And Robert/TMR (somone that I feel is very knowledgeable about photography) replied, "absolutely not". And I agree with him.

My first post comments were based on the assumption that since "digital SLR" and "meter" were in the same sentence, it was referring to the camera's built-in light meter (which is a reflected light meter - which isn't as good IMO as an incident light meter).

I had an indcident light meter about 45 years ago, but it's long gone, and if I still had it, I would definitely use it for the purpose I outlined. I may well consider one for the future as it would likely save me more than a few shutter actuations and some chimping.

But, seriously, if I used the camera's light meter, the damn thing would try to expose black velvet as 18% grey, and everything else would be blown right out. On occasion, when the subject is large enough and within the spot meter target area, I will use it, but any other setting of the camera's meter will result in failure.

http://www.naturescape​s.net …s/portfolio.php​?cat=24479

Glenn NK wrote in post #5977648
It appears that I should clarify my remarks:

The original post stated in effect "do you think light meter function can be replaced by the camera histogram?" And Robert/TMR (somone that I feel is very knowledgeable about photography) replied, "absolutely not". And I agree with him.

My first post comments were based on the assumption that since "digital SLR" and "meter" were in the same sentence, it was referring to the camera's built-in light meter (which is a reflected light meter - which isn't as good IMO as an incident light meter).

I had an indcident light meter about 45 years ago, but it's long gone, and if I still had it, I would definitely use it for the purpose I outlined. I may well consider one for the future as it would likely save me more than a few shutter actuations and some chimping.

But, seriously, if I used the camera's light meter, the damn thing would try to expose black velvet as 18% grey, and everything else would be blown right out. On occasion, when the subject is large enough and within the spot meter target area, I will use it, but any other setting of the camera's meter will result in failure.

http://www.naturescape​s.net …s/portfolio.php​?cat=24479

Understand the scenario of your presenting the original question (in camera meter vs. histogram). That brings ME to the fact that the histogram is in certain ways a fairly poor 'substitute' for a meter, even an in-camera one. The rationale for that statement...

A meter tells you, before the fact, what exposure to use, to capture the scene when it fits the '18% grey average scene brightness'. It does not inherently know how to handle non-average scenes (snow fields, beach scenes, coal mines, black velvet large backgrounds)

A histogram tell you, after the fact, where the pixels are recorded in the brightness range. It, too, knows not what the scene content is, it only knows how they were recorded! So it is possible to 'shoot to the right' in a coal mine, and show everything very bright, but not blown out, and nowhere near the inherent brightness (very dark!) of the scene...and for that reason, chimping the histogram is a very poor alternative!

krb wrote in post #5974926
Beginners are the ones who take a picture, look at the histogram and reshoot. Professionals are the ones who use a light meter, grey card, etc. to get the shot right the first time.

Preview and reshoot only works when you -can- reshoot.

Really?

I've never had any luck getting a running back or a point guard to stop and let me meter them--much less hold a grey card.

The guys at the racetrack are pretty uncooperative too.

And then the birders and wildlife shooters have that whole language barrier to deal with.

Wilt wrote in post #5977831
Understand the scenario of your presenting the original question (in camera meter vs. histogram). That brings ME to the fact that the histogram is in certain ways a fairly poor 'substitute' for a meter, even an in-camera one. The rationale for that statement...

A meter tells you, before the fact, what exposure to use, to capture the scene when it fits the '18% grey average scene brightness'. It does not inherently know how to handle non-average scenes (snow fields, beach scenes, coal mines, black velvet large backgrounds)

A histogram tell you, after the fact, where the pixels are recorded in the brightness range. It, too, knows not what the scene content is, it only knows how they were recorded! So it is possible to 'shoot to the right' in a coal mine, and show everything very bright, but not blown out, and nowhere near the inherent brightness (very dark!) of the scene...and for that reason, chimping the histogram is a very poor alternative!

True enough.

But in practice when I'm taking a half dozen or so focus stack shots of a flower (against the jet black bg), one more "preliminary" shot is hardly a bother.

I take the chimping shot before I take the important stack shots. And even with most of the bg well over to the left on the histogram, the subject will show a small trace that extends to the right of the histogram, and I push this to the limit because the small trace is what's important, not the black bg.

Also in practice the technique works very well - I have Contrast set to minus two, and pushing the histo to the right occasionally results in a tiny bit of single channel blowout in Lightroom which is easily corrected with the Recovery slider.

But frankly, the histogram is a godsend for the stuff I do a lot of.

An incident meter might do the trick too, but the histogram is already paid for.

The truth is you can use either method and a variety of metering devices as long as you learn how to use them well and use them for the appropriate situation. I'm not about to throw away my old Gossen meter and the 30D's spot meter can be really useful for selective metering of difficult situations. I can't think of a metering method I haven't used, including histograms. Remember that old saying that when all you have is a hammer, everything tends to look like a nail. A good craftsman has more than one tool in the toolbox and uses the best tool for the particular task at hand.

My feeling is that the "correct" WB for a shot may not be what I feel is the "right" WB when it's being edited. Sometimes I like a warmer shot, sometimes a cooler one. Sometimes I only want part of a shot to be warmer, as in here: MOVE YOUR FEET! A <rant> of sorts.

So I shoot RAW & adjust the WB to what I want & this works well for me:
Gray Card…White Paper. What’s best?

In no way can the histogram replace the reflective light meter within a camera. Its implausible to ever think so. The histogram will give you value readings on your overall exposure and rgb but it simply cannot determine where the specific colours within any given shot should fall on the camera meter. You meter what you want correctly exposed and hope that a: highlights dont get blown and b: detail in shadow remains. If either happens you act accordingly - grad filter or fill flash, for example.

Glenn NK wrote in post #5978491
True enough.

But in practice when I'm taking a half dozen or so focus stack shots of a flower (against the jet black bg), one more "preliminary" shot is hardly a bother.

I take the chimping shot before I take the important stack shots. And even with most of the bg well over to the left on the histogram, the subject will show a small trace that extends to the right of the histogram, and I push this to the limit because the small trace is what's important, not the black bg.

Also in practice the technique works very well - I have Contrast set to minus two, and pushing the histo to the right occasionally results in a tiny bit of single channel blowout in Lightroom which is easily corrected with the Recovery slider.

But frankly, the histogram is a godsend for the stuff I do a lot of.

An incident meter might do the trick too, but the histogram is already paid for.

Understand the perceived value of chimping the histogram, if only it was better than it is when displayed on the camera LCD, rather than as displayed by a program on a laptop with a 14" or greater LCD!
The difficulty I have with the whole 'shoot to the right' process is that it totally ignores the inherent brightness of the subject in the ambient lighting, so that you do not know where the final brightness needs to be brought DOWN to, after you bring it UP during the shooting process. This is, I presume, the product photographer side of me that wants to ACCURATELY render the object which the client is portraying, both accurate in color balance and accurate in fundamental tonality! Shoot to the right loses the inherent accuracy; while Av and Tv can record EC value for the shot, M does that provide that insight.

Not being a production photographer, and not having any clients to satisfy, and not having to accurately render the subject for them, I don't have any particular requirements other than to produce what I perceive to be a creative and pleasing image. Inherent accuracy is not a governing factor for me - it's not even a consideration!!

Be back in three weeks - I'm off on holidays.