First Meter: A question, a photograph, and general amazement

Anyone know of a good tutorial on using the Sekonic L-358? Tips & tricks, etc.

Coach wrote in post #6031832
Anyone know of a good tutorial on using the Sekonic L-358? Tips & tricks, etc.

Have you tried the manual? It's a little on the verbose side, but seemed to give pretty good instructions on its use...

bieber wrote in post #6031883
Have you tried the manual?

I always read my manuals cover-to-cover (well, I skip the foreign language sections). I can't always remember everything, but if something comes up, I might remember the feature and then I can look it up again.

I'm looking over the links in the sticky now, just looking for more practical applications.

The problem, if you will, with metering tutorials is that depending on the source, you'll get varying opinion and technique.

Even though the manual is a bit skimpy it does show you the method that the manufacturer suggests.

If you have specific or even general metering questions why not post them to a new thread and I'm sure you'll get some very good help.

bieber wrote in post #6031794
Wow, lively discussion :O

Anywho, I'm still not sure about those odd shutter speeds. I know that it has another set for cinema, but this seems to come between the normal speeds and the cinema speeds?

For some seemingly odd reason Sekonic decided to slap on the 1/200 and 1/400 shutter speeds in between the range of regular shutter speeds and the movie f/s range. Since 1/200 and 1/400 are 1/3 increment shutter speeds instead of full increment speeds (which would be 1/250 and 1/500), maybe Sekonic decided to include 1/200 and 1/400 for those whose camera max sync speed is 1/200 and have the meter set to full increment display instead of 1/3 increments. Just speculating, though.

Here are a few links. There's some good information. Perhaps you'll find them useful.

If you search around you'll find many sites and articles with tips and tricks but I suggest you put those tips to the test before relying on them in an important situation. Results will vary based on many variables.

http://www.kodak.com …/techInfo/af9/i​ndex.shtml

http://www.ephotozine.​com …g-a-hand-held-light-meter

http://www.luminous-landscape.com …/understandexpo​sure.shtml

http://www.sekonic.com …port_11_details​.asp?ID=10

Hoff and TMR's little exchange bears some refereeing...they are BOTH right, but only in the right circumstances!

When the light is subject to the Inverse Square Law (flash head or even hot lights set up by the photographer), the meter MUST be at the subject and very close to the face, or else the reading is biased wrongly by the Inverse Square Law...closer to the source renders a reading that would result in underexposure of the subject!

When the light is NOT subject to the Inverse Square Law (sunlight, overcast sky, or super large softbox close by), the distance from meter to subject is less relevant.

Wilt wrote in post #6033974
Hoff and TMR's little exchange bears some refereeing...they are BOTH right, but only in the right circumstances!

When the light is subject to the Inverse Square Law (flash head or even hot lights set up by the photographer), the meter MUST be at the subject and very close to the face, or else the reading is biased wrongly by the Inverse Square Law...closer to the source renders a reading that would result in underexposure of the subject!

When the light is NOT subject to the Inverse Square Law (sunlight, overcast sky, or super large softbox close by), the distance from meter to subject is less relevant.

[ HOSTED PHOTO DISPLAY FAILED: ATTACH id 293891 does not exist. ]

Wilt wrote in post #6033974
Hoff and TMR's little exchange bears some refereeing...they are BOTH right, but only in the right circumstances!

When the light is subject to the Inverse Square Law (flash head or even hot lights set up by the photographer), the meter MUST be at the subject and very close to the face, or else the reading is biased wrongly by the Inverse Square Law...closer to the source renders a reading that would result in underexposure of the subject!

When the light is NOT subject to the Inverse Square Law (sunlight, overcast sky, or super large softbox close by), the distance from meter to subject is less relevant.

Now do remember, the sun is bound by the inverse square law. You can't very well take an incident reading here on Earth, if you mean to photograph Mars

bieber wrote in post #6037406
Now do remember, the sun is bound by the inverse square law. You can't very well take an incident reading here on Earth, if you mean to photograph Mars

I agree and was going to post a similar argument but decided, for all practical purposes, that on Earth, the inverse square law doesn't apply to the sun for illuminating the subject on Earth as long as the measurement is taken where the sun is up and not where it's night time, dusk or dawn.

bieber wrote in post #6037406
Now do remember, the sun is bound by the inverse square law. You can't very well take an incident reading here on Earth, if you mean to photograph Mars

Yes, 93,000,000 miles + 11' is closer than 93,000,000 miles + 16' ...the drop off is there, but of not particular intensity signficance for a particular given day of the year. OTOH, 11' vs. 16' in front of a flash does make a meaningful difference.

Wilt wrote in post #6037775
Yes, 93,000,000 miles + 11' is closer than 93,000,000 miles + 16' ...the drop off is there, but of not particular intensity signficance for a particular given day of the year. OTOH, 11' vs. 16' in front of a flash does make a meaningful difference.

Wilt - do you mean that we don't need to calculate exposure settings to .00001% of the nominal values (like some folks apparently want to do when calculating depth of field ) when we take a shot of someone on the top of a 200-foot building and another at ground level?

SkipD wrote in post #6037864
Wilt - do you mean that we don't need to calculate exposure settings to .00001% of the nominal values (like some folks apparently want to do when calculating depth of field ) when we take a shot of someone on the top of a 200-foot building and another at ground level?

By George, I think he's got it!

OTOH, one might find that ground reflections might make ground scenes a bit less contrasty than ones at the top of a 200' tower with little reflections...an interesting experiment for someone to try!

Then again, the inverse square law would apply to a "super large softbox close by"...

PacAce wrote in post #6031966
For some seemingly odd reason Sekonic decided to slap on the 1/200 and 1/400 shutter speeds in between the range of regular shutter speeds and the movie f/s range. Since 1/200 and 1/400 are 1/3 increment shutter speeds instead of full increment speeds (which would be 1/250 and 1/500), maybe Sekonic decided to include 1/200 and 1/400 for those whose camera max sync speed is 1/200 and have the meter set to full increment display instead of 1/3 increments. Just speculating, though.

I kinda agree wit PacAce. A lot of manual focus cameras have full stops for the shutter speeds and the sync speed is different... so that might be the reason.

In any case, the sekonic does have shutter speeds like that, it's normal and it's a matter of getting used to.