Why I do not use flash meter.. Do you?

gonzogolf wrote in post #9338316
Yes, but that's not the computer, its the camera.

Not sure what point you're trying to make.

I use my flash meter when shooting with off camera flash.. My flashes are set to manual.. It takes the guesswork out of reading the flash exposure..

I usually have time to set up, so I use my 1-cent flash "meter" in images 5S & 6S.
Simple 2 Light Portrait Set-up

akoloskov wrote in post #9338571
Also, if you know how to read your camera histograms (which I never do, it is not accurate, it based on a JPEG, not RAW, regardless on what format you are shooting) it helps a lot.

While this is strictly true, if you use the neutral picture style, then you effectively get the RAW exposure as this style performs no adjustments.
Hence why I never leave Neutral when shooting RAW.

There is a huge divide on meters from those who shot film on an advanced level (your moms Disk camera does not count) and those that didn't. Way back when, there was no such thing as chimping. Well there was... but it took 3 days to see your "test shot", not 3 seconds like now. There simply was no other way but to meter the lights. And we could get the good lights within a 10th of a stop. It is beyond some as to how you can operate efficiently without a meter. Taking 5 shots to get the exposure only close is utter blasphemy! Where a meter can get you there before you ever make an exposure. Then there are ones that are the trial and error shooters. A few of them are quite good at guessing the light. But most go by nothing more than what the back of the camera says. And for them the time it takes to get it right is fine. But as Wilt points out the last thing you want to do is start to chimp with the client in front of you.

While the chimping method does work. And works well, as evident by some of the current top pros that claim to not own a meter. However useing the meter does in fact save time (once you know how to use it) and you are able to do things you simply cant do without one.

Mark1 wrote in post #9343048
your moms Disk camera does not count

And you dare to use the word "blasphemy"? Go wash your mouth boy!

http://www.youtube.com​/watch?v=O2g4_wI74WQ

Absolutely agree Mark - not only was it a three day chimp, but it was quite costly to get to that point and even more so if you were wrong and had to arrange for a reshoot.

Yup, meters did and still do have their place .

Mark1 wrote in post #9343048
......Way back when, there was no such thing as chimping. Well there was... but it took 3 days to see your "test shot", not 3 seconds like now. There simply was no other way but to meter the lights. And we could get the good lights within a 10th of a stop. It is beyond some as to how you can operate efficiently without a meter. ......

Mark1 wrote in post #9343048
There is a huge divide on meters from those who shot film on an advanced level (your moms Disk camera does not count) and those that didn't. Way back when, there was no such thing as chimping. Well there was... but it took 3 days to see your "test shot", not 3 seconds like now. There simply was no other way but to meter the lights. And we could get the good lights within a 10th of a stop. It is beyond some as to how you can operate efficiently without a meter. Taking 5 shots to get the exposure only close is utter blasphemy! Where a meter can get you there before you ever make an exposure. Then there are ones that are the trial and error shooters. A few of them are quite good at guessing the light. But most go by nothing more than what the back of the camera says. And for them the time it takes to get it right is fine. But as Wilt points out the last thing you want to do is start to chimp with the client in front of you.

While the chimping method does work. And works well, as evident by some of the current top pros that claim to not own a meter. However useing the meter does in fact save time (once you know how to use it) and you are able to do things you simply cant do without one.

I have to disagree on a couple of points, first it didn't take three days to get a test shot, it took the worlds longest minute (later 90 seconds). The time it took to process a polaroid. Many of us can make an educated guess for a starting exposure with lighting gear we have used for any period of time. The OP shoots tethered to a computer as I do as much as possible. Generally I can get the lighting set with one additional shot beyond the first. Clients love having the computer to view the images as they come in, some use me just because they're offered that advantage. The computer also offers the opportunity to use the densitometer to set exposure across the image. When shooting interiors using HDR or modified HDR as I call it because I also use flash as part of the exposure it's especially helpful, a blown window will influence the histogram but can be ignored when measuring with the densitometer because it will be replaced with a properly exposed image and combined later. I just need to get the part of the image I'm going to keep properly exposed and ignore the rest.

Well yes - I suppose that's true if you were working in a studio; point taken. But I did a lot of wedding and event work out in the field and never used a polaroid. Actually, I've never owned one.

breal101 wrote in post #9343149
I have to disagree on a couple of points, first it didn't take three days to get a test shot, it took the worlds longest minute (later 90 seconds). The time it took to process a polaroid..

Stu, when you do what you described earlier on this post, where is the flash; on camera?

Morning Peace - yes, it's mounted on my Newton Bracket, connected to the camera. The way I have it configured the flash head is about 6-7" top dead center above the lens.

Peacefield wrote in post #9343391
Stu, when you do what you described earlier on this post, where is the flash; on camera?

I'd almost forgotten Peace - here are a whole series of shots showing my flash/bracket setup:

https://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthre​ad.php?t=338933

sapearl wrote in post #9343359
Well yes - I suppose that's true if you were working in a studio; point taken. But I did a lot of wedding and event work out in the field and never used a polaroid. Actually, I've never owned one.

Different specialties require different techniques, no doubt about that. Sometimes I feel a little guilty over polaroid's demise. I used tons of that stuff back in the day, and it wasn't just in the studio I used it in the field too. When I switched to digital it was just natural to shoot tethered. It's like shooting a huge polaroid and with the added advantage of having a shot I can actually use if I hit it right the first time. Also I have a copy on the card and on the laptop which is like wearing a belt and suspenders.

Oh, I'm all for a belt and suspenders .

My only PC equipment at this time is desktop gear .... perhaps one day I'll get a laptop; until that time I've got another wedding to pay for this coming May .

breal101 wrote in post #9343544
Different specialties require different techniques, no doubt about that. ....... When I switched to digital it was just natural to shoot tethered. It's like shooting a huge polaroid and with the added advantage of having a shot I can actually use if I hit it right the first time. Also I have a copy on the card and on the laptop which is like wearing a belt and suspenders.

breal101 wrote in post #9343149
I have to disagree on a couple of points, first it didn't take three days to get a test shot, it took the worlds longest minute (later 90 seconds). The time it took to process a polaroid.

That assumes everybody used a polaroid back. A lot of us did not. I beat the 3 day chimp by hand processing my own film. But even then, it was like 3 hours till the film was dry enough to handle.

breal101 wrote in post #9343149
Many of us can make an educated guess for a starting exposure with lighting gear we have used for any period of time.

I haver no reason to doubt that you can. We can point out specifics all day. But take the photography world as a whole and it will be way below the line with who can and who cant.