Advice on using a lightmeter

[Mattys]

Yes, you're doing exactly what the people said they would do and proving them right. Repeat your experiment with the light generally to the front of the object. I don't think people are helping themselves though as what you did is exactly my understanding of what others would have done lighting like you did.

I respect people that can see both sides of the discussion.....

I can and do respect that you respect folks who see both sides!

If I repeat my experiment, it doesn't suddenly make pointing the meter towards the camera right. It makes a light in front of the subject be pointed at by the meter. That's pointing the meter at the light, not the camera.

Telling me that something I know to be right is wrong; especially when I've proved me right, isn't going to change my mind. Prove that pointing the meter at camera is right and I will wind my neck in - unless I can disprove it, which I will do my utmost to as I dislike people being told misinformation

 

[arad85]

which I will do my utmost to as I dislike people being told misinformation

With respect... you could point it out with a little more tact The people who are taking part in this thread are well respected photographers. They know what they're doing, I just don't think they're explaining it well...

I don't think ANY of them are going to come on here and claim metering the background light under the chin and pointing at the camera of the portrait you are just about to take is the correct way to use a meter.

This thread will advance our collective understanding though.

 

[Richard King]

Mattys
lets draw a line under this and all start at the same point

What are you trying to achieve with your light meter reading...

Do you want it to tell you what to set your camera to?
Do you want it to affirm your camera setting?
Do you want it to determine how much power you want to set your lights to?
Do you want to measure the dynamic range in a scene?

 

[Mattys]

With respect... you could point it out with a little more tact The people who are taking part in this thread are well respected photographers. They know what they're doing, I just don't think they're explaining it well...

I don't think ANY of them are going to come on here and claim metering the background light under the chin and pointing at the camera of the portrait you are just about to take is the correct way to use a meter.

This thread will advance our collective understanding though.

You're right.

To all reading. Please forgive my lack of tact in this thread.

To explain myself and why I find this subject makes me debate strongly. Like many, I came to a love of photography relatively late in life (teenage shooting is far too long ago to count in this). I, like many, have paid for courses with various trainers. Like many, I've come to find those who suit the way I like to learn and have settled on one person in particular. That person, I'm honoured to call a friend now as well as mentor, has shown me time and again, and had me prove to myself that metering towards the light source is the way to go. Unfortunately, I've met with lots of people who've gone to trainers who teach things wrongly. Those trainers are doing their delegates a massive dis-service by teaching things wrongly. It angers me when I can prove, with only 5 minutes effort why I know I'm right on a subject. It pleases me immensely when someone proves me wrong and I can't find a way to refute their proof. It challenges me and makes me think and that helps me learn more.

My knowledge is quite simply, and this is proven over and over, that you meter your lights by metering towards them and not towards the camera. As noted earlier, rather sarcastically, it's a meter for metering light, not for metering cameras. It makes no difference whether split lighting, which I chose to show why metering your camera is wrong, or something more frontal. Pointing the meter at the light is how we measure the light we have falling on (and subsequently reflecting off) the subject.

Say, for example, that we're lighting in a Rembrandt pattern with an on-axis fill (on a boom or ceiling track) and we've chosen to have our fill 3 stops below the key. The light from the key is the majority of our light in the image. The small amount of light from the fill is going to make only the tiniest bit of difference to the overall exposure. Such a small difference that it's unlikely that we will measure it on the meter. To prove that, I suggest that those who are used to metering the camera set their main at f8 in Rembrandt position and a fill at 2.8 on axis (or as close to axis on same side as we can). Meter both lights individually to power by pointing at the light and then, with only the key switched on shoot at the keylight setting. Then switch on the fill and shoot the keylight setting without messing with exposure or metering again. Now upload both those images to computer and inspect them for difference in light power on the side of the key - the opposite side will, of course, be more illuminated by the fill. Inspect the side which has the key on it and decide if that fill light has had any effect on the exposure.

If you can't see a difference, try it with fill 2 stops under. Then try it with 1 stop. You might be surprised at the results.

Once you've done that, then decide whether measuring the camera is worth your time or not. Even if you decide to do so, it still does NOT detract from the fact that in some patterns, it just gives you a crap exposure versus metering the lights themselves.

Try the split-lighting pattern just for proof of how wrong it is to meter towards the camera. I understand that if you have key and fill pretty close to each other and very frontal to the subject, then metering them both together by pointing in that general direction will give you an overall reading (very close to the key light setting unless you're trying to match your light output).

Question is though, why would you want to mess about doing it one way for some lighting patterns (frontal) and then another way for other lighting patterns (side or multi light with accents for example) when the one way just works whatever the lighting pattern - metering the lights and not the camera.

If someone can prove to me that I'm wrong and give me a repeatable experiment which doesn't have flaws in it, I'll be a happy person because I've learned. Otherwise, I'll stick with what I know and can prove to be right. And I can prove it again and again and again

 

[Richard King]

Unfortunately, I've met with lots of people who've gone to trainers who teach things wrongly. Those trainers are doing their delegates a massive dis-service by teaching things wrongly.

I feel you may be labelling "different" as "wrong" like with many things, there are a number of ways of achieving a good result, and a number of ways of achieving a bad result. Sometimes there are 3 right ways of doing something

The difficulty with forums, is you often don't know someones starting position or skill set

When you say to me, when do you use a meter I will say in this order
- at a wedding
- for shooting a still life
- for shooting a portrait

When you say to Garry "when do you use a meter" I guess he will say
- in the studio day in day out

I don't need to measure the stuff Garry does, I don't have a colour meter, I don.t shoot (very) commercial photography. 99.9% of the time, I can be subjective with my exposure, I don't need my work to be reproducible with last years brochure etc..

 

[Mattys]

Mattys
lets draw a line under this and all start at the same point

What are you trying to achieve with your light meter reading...

Do you want it to tell you what to set your camera to?
Do you want it to affirm your camera setting?
Do you want it to determine how much power you want to set your lights to?
Do you want to measure the dynamic range in a scene?

___________________________________________________________

Drawn.

In order:
Yes and not really - I want to choose myself.
Not really - I have an idea of how I want to expose something so I meter and adjust the lights for that effect.
See answer above.
Nope. Not interested overall, however, once I know how much ambient I have I can make a decision for what effect I can pull off in a particular scene.

Let's say that I'm shooting a portrait outdoors. I have (assuming ISO 200 as this can be achieved by current dslrs) 1/60 at f4

I want to over-ride the ambient somewhat for a darker feel to my image as the particular location lends itself to a spooky feel. To achieve this, I can increase my shutter speed, I can stop down the lens, I can do both (and I can set 100 ISO if my kit allows this). I don't particularly want to kill every ounce of light in the scene, but I want to get a feel for the location rather than sharp details. So I can decide to set 5.6 for aperture which is still relatively narrow as long as I'm on a longer lens and my subject is relatively close to the lens. That's one stop less than "correct" for ambient. Is one stop enough? Or should I go to two stops? I'll go to two stops as that gives a better dark feel, so I set the shutter to 1/125.

Now I know what I'm going to get from the ambient, I need to set flash for my subject to be lit properly in this spookily dim location. I want to be able to shoot at 5.6 for that location, so I place my key light to give me a suitably eerie lighting pattern or just a simple butterfly as it's a beautifully effective pattern and meter&adjust it accordingly to give me 5.6.

Now I have a nicely exposed subject in a dimly lit location. Is it right yet? Maybe, but I have another speedlite in my bag so I might as well use it. Adding a gel or not is a decision to make (you can pick up cheap gels on ebay) at this point. Much lower levels of light can be used from this light as it's an accent only. Side light to give a nice rim? Good idea. So I don't want this to compete at all with my key. In fat I don't want it to illuminate much at all. I just want it to give me a rim of accent so I decide to set it at 2.8 or even 2. Each time I adjust, I meter the light pointing towards the speedlight or it just won't read it properly.

Now I have a 3 light situation. 2 stops under on the ambient, "correct" from my key and 2 or 3 stops under on the accent light.

How long has it taken me to do the setup? 5 minutes at most and the majority of that is fiddling about putting a set of batteries in the accent flash.

In a similar manner to the above example of metering each light towards it's source, I did the following pic. Leaving the composition a bit unbalanced for the more spooky effect. Butterfly lit with no accent light was the decision I made before even moving the lightstand from the previous setup.

Does metering the way I say is right work? You can decide yourself when you look at the picture


_MG_9256 by matty27272, on Flickr

 

[bryan elliott]

Ok what a interesting debate this is turning into

I'm going to try and summarise what some folks on hear are saying please amend if i get anything wrong.

1, point meter to camera for reading key light, when light is in front of subject and light is easy accessible for meter to read i.e. 45 degree to subject.

2. when key light is more behind subject etc, i.e. in profile lighting then common sense must prevail and meter is pointed at light source.

is this correct or have i miss understood what folks are saying

 

[Mattys]

I feel you may be labelling "different" as "wrong" like with many things, there are a number of ways of achieving a good result, and a number of ways of achieving a bad result. Sometimes there are 3 right ways of doing something

The difficulty with forums, is you often don't know someones starting position or skill set

When you say to me, when do you use a meter I will say in this order
- at a wedding
- for shooting a still life
- for shooting a portrait

When you say to Garry "when do you use a meter" I guess he will say
- in the studio day in day out

I don't need to measure the stuff Garry does, I don't have a colour meter, I don.t shoot (very) commercial photography. 99.9% of the time, I can be subjective with my exposure, I don't need my work to be reproducible with last years brochure etc..

In answer to the question of when do I use my lightmeter?

Always. With the exception of snapshots while out and about with the kids where metering would just lose the spontaneity.

Split lighting proves the point-meter-at-camera-theory wrong. Not different, just wrong. I don't know how to write that more tactfully. Just try doing it. Split light your subject - and it doesn't matter if it's a white polystyrene head used for practicing lighting patterns (as in my example early on in the thread) or any other subject with any other reflectance. Split lighting and then metering towards camera will give an incorrect exposure for the amount of light coming out of your light. That just can't be rightly argued. It's plain and simple fact.

I'll make the point that there is no reason to change the way you meter things just because you're in a different setup. One day you or I or anyone will forget and screw up the exposure because we've used the wrong way for that setup. Might as well just do it the same way (right) in the first place for all lighting patterns.

 

[paul williams]

Light source was a large dish in same plane as subject. Aimed slightly forward to feather the light across the subject and not hit the background (ambient in the room gave some small illumination on that).

Metering was taken from the nose of the polystyrene head pointing towards the lightsource and then from the same position towards the camera.

Your point that the front of the subject would be in partial shadow is absolutely correct and illustrates EXACTLY why the lightsource is the direction the meter needs to be pointed. This point is why I gave the head a split-lit (close enough for a quick and dirty point-prover) pattern instead of something more frontal.

When the meter isn't pointed at the lightsource, it isn't picking up the light which is hitting the subject and thus reflecting off to the sensor.

Metering really IS that simple

I just wanted to know if you were using poor technique to prove the point or not - 99% of my shots would be metered pointing toward the camera and that one I'd have taken the reading at the subjects right ear, but still pointing toward the camera.

Paul

 

[Garry Edwards]

A challenge! I like a challenge

I'll take some example shots and post them, to illustrate why you got the results you did.

Watch this space...

There you go, please click here

 

[Mirus Lux]

Thanks for the Garry seeing it visually really helps! Great blog post too!

In the words of Rhod Gilbert - "Answer!"

 

[mike weeks]

Split lighting proves the point-meter-at-camera-theory wrong. Not different, just wrong.

For one set of circumstances but not all, is this the exception that proves the rule????

I don't know how to write that more tactfully. Just try doing it. Split light your subject - and it doesn't matter if it's a white polystyrene head used for practicing lighting patterns (as in my example early on in the thread) or any other subject with any other reflectance.

.One thing that has been lacking in this thread by some has been tact. Unfortunately or possibly fortunately none of my clients have a white polystyrene head or at least none have a head with the reflective properties of white polystyrene.

Split lighting and then metering towards camera will give an incorrect exposure for the amount of light coming out of your light. That just can't be rightly argued. It's plain and simple fact.

And the majority of portraits are shot this way? I think not - the metering has to be relevant to the lighting pattern, no more, no less.

Mike

 

[bryan elliott]

I'm just about to hit the land of nodd , but felt compelled to reply, I haven't yet read garrys blog post(need to be fully awake and thinking logically) but mike metering should just be metering the light, not donthis for that light pattern and something else for another, that just doesn't seem right to me

 

[stumac]

Very well explained Garry and point made I think

 

[HoppyUK]

<big snip>

Does metering the way I say is right work? You can decide yourself when you look at the picture

It looks very under exposed. Not just dark, as was obviously intentional, but under exposed.

You would have got a much better result by exposing properly (it's actually a perfect candidate for ETTR) and darkening it in post.

 

[JonathanRyan]

So hang on.....loads of people do stuff and they are happy with what they get...? Or am I missing something?

But then sectarian wars always confuse me.

 

[alexam]

A very interesting blog and Garry's demonstration clearly gives the answer, which is the way I have always understood to be correct.

Perhaps not surprising then, that the Sekonic instruction manual states that ..... 'Measurements are basically made by the method of measuring with the lumisphere aimed in the camera direction (more precisely, in the direction of the light axis of the lens) at the position of the subject'

As well respected manufacturers, they would know how best to use the equipment.

Thanks to all for a great read.

 

[Garry Edwards]

I'm glad that's sorted then.

I wasn't trying to score any points, I was just trying to explain how the fundamental principle works, which is what I feel forums are actually all about. Maybe I should have gone into more detail right at the beginning and saved a lot of 'ink'

 

[Mahoneyd187]

Never mess with the G-man lol

 

[mike weeks]

I'm just about to hit the land of nodd , but felt compelled to reply, I haven't yet read garrys blog post(need to be fully awake and thinking logically) but mike metering should just be metering the light, not donthis for that light pattern and something else for another, that just doesn't seem right to me

Sorry but you do change how you use the meter depending on how you set the lights. Gary has clearly identified if you want to measure the light falling on the subject it is normal to point the meter towards camera and that he does a visual check for things like hairlights and it is there that others will possibly use a meter pointing to the light. Then you have the question of if a hairlight for a blonde is the same power as somebody with black hair.
If I am using a HiLite I point the meter to it and if I am using white paper I point to the camera, so yes I change my metering depending on setup.
Mike

 

[Mattys]

Sorry but you do change how you use the meter depending on how you set the lights. Gary has clearly identified if you want to measure the light falling on the subject it is normal to point the meter towards camera and that he does a visual check for things like hairlights and it is there that others will possibly use a meter pointing to the light. Then you have the question of if a hairlight for a blonde is the same power as somebody with black hair.
If I am using a HiLite I point the meter to it and if I am using white paper I point to the camera, so yes I change my metering depending on setup.
Mike

I know you pointed this question to Mr Elliott, but I'll ask you a question on it. Why do you mess around metering in different ways for a different setup? Either the white background effectively becomes your light source when you bounce your b/g light off it or you don't light it. The highlight is exactly the same thing. It becomes your light source when you put light(s) in it or you don't illuminate it at all.

As both have become a light source in the same place, why change the way you meter? It doesn't make sense to add a level of complexity to your setups. They can become complex enough without adding to them in this way

 

[Mattys]

Firstly, thankyou for taking the time to do this for the education of all the readers.

Your butterfly setup has the light nicely placed for the face, but I wonder why you shot this from the side only. Surely if making a proof, you'd shoot it from various angles, including the logical place for a butterfly setup; on-axis. You metered towards the light. Had you placed the camera in the logical place for that setup, you'd be using the meter-to-light reading for your camera and it wouldn't be underexposed. How can the same light in the same place and the subject in the same place suddenly be underexposed just because you moved the camera? That doesn't make any kind of sense, let alone a proof. Perhaps you're saying that when you move the camera around to the side of the subject on a butterfly setup, you have to overexpose the face to get a brighter side profile? I don't understand why you'd suddenly want to overexpose the subject just because you've moved the camera 45 degrees off axis. Not sure you've made any point other than to overexpose the face for a butterfly setup if you're off-axis.

In your article, you state:

But this mannequin consists of complex shapes and the light reflects off at all sorts of different angles, which is the main reason , apart from shadows, why the tone always varies across the image, and the main reason why only a meter reading towards the camera position can take any account of these varying angles.

I accept that different angles will reflect light towards the camera differently. That much is simple physics being applied. I wonder, however, how the meter is seeing this reflected light? You're pointing it at the camera, aren't you? So, how does the cone on the meter see that light? If the meter is pointed towards the camera, it isn't seeing that light as the body of the meter is between the subject and the cone.

I just don't see that.

Another quote:

Some subjects absorb far more light than they reflect, and with this type of subject it doesn’t always make a big difference whether we meter to the camera or to the light

Which means, quite logically, that with some subjects it really DOES matter which direction you meter in. So some subjects you HAVE to meter towards the light.

You are not proving your point with that statement.

I once had to photography a stainless steel machine with a truly mirror finish, and it was a complete nightmare to get both the light and camera angles right because, except at the perfect angle, all of the light just bounced away into the ether and it was impossible to show it as anything other than black! Metering to the camera was a dramatic demonstration of the importance of correct metering, because there were 8 stops of difference between metering to camera and metering to the key light.

You have no setup shots of that in your article. No finished image displayed. It shouldn't be be in the article as it isn't proving anything, it's just re-stating your position. Saying something is so doesn't make it so, no matter how many times you say it. Only proof makes it so. And this isn't a proof, it's just saying so.

I’ve lit it from the side and of course most of the light has just shot off in the opposite direction. Taking a meter reading from the reflector centre to the light indicated f/22, which as you can see is hopelessly wrong. Metering to the camera instead indicated f/11, which is correct.

The time one is shooting a reflective surface, one has highlights and not a fully lit surface. One shoots for highlighting the shapes, the curves, the edges. This is what gives us the 3d lie in our 2d medium. In the same way that we shoot for shadows on non-reflective surfaces, we shoot to highlight shapes, curves and edges.
Your initial shot of the reflector has highlights. This is the correct image, not the second one which is fully illuminated.

Again, point not proven, in fact you've disproved by what you've shown.

For one set of circumstances but not all, is this the exception that proves the rule???? .One thing that has been lacking in this thread by some has been tact. Unfortunately or possibly fortunately none of my clients have a white polystyrene head or at least none have a head with the reflective properties of white polystyrene.And the majority of portraits are shot this way? I think not - the metering has to be relevant to the lighting pattern, no more, no less.

Mike

No. My example early in the thread proves that this unusual lighting setup for a portrait is exactly what DISPROVES the rule being posited by others in this discussion.

I'm just about to hit the land of nodd , but felt compelled to reply, I haven't yet read garrys blog post(need to be fully awake and thinking logically) but mike metering should just be metering the light, not donthis for that light pattern and something else for another, that just doesn't seem right to me

I'm glad someone is seeing why I think it is silly to meter one way for one setup and not for another one.

Very well explained Garry and point made I think

Sorry. Point re-stated, rather than made.

It looks very under exposed. Not just dark, as was obviously intentional, but under exposed.

You would have got a much better result by exposing properly (it's actually a perfect candidate for ETTR) and darkening it in post.

Nope. Just dark. And exposed exactly as my meter told me. Why would anyone choose to deliberately expose incorrectly to then have to fix that in post by doing the ETTR thing? If I did that on a nursery shoot, I'd have perhaps over a thousand images to fix in post-production. No thanks. Just daft. Get the exposure right when you shoot, not deliberately make it wrong to then fix.

A very interesting blog and Garry's demonstration clearly gives the answer, which is the way I have always understood to be correct.

Perhaps not surprising then, that the Sekonic instruction manual states that ..... 'Measurements are basically made by the method of measuring with the lumisphere aimed in the camera direction (more precisely, in the direction of the light axis of the lens) at the position of the subject'

As well respected manufacturers, they would know how best to use the equipment.

Thanks to all for a great read.

Garrys demonstration re-states his position. It doesn't make the point. Please have a read through what I've posted above in response to the article and run the experiments for yourself. When you run them, take shots from multiple angles which will prove things properly and not just the one which supports the position stated.

I've looked at the manuals on the sekonic website for the 358 and 308 and both have your statement in them. I will, however, repeat that if you're using the meter to get your split-lighting correct, that just doesn't work. It also doesn't go into anything past "basically". So unless you want to use the meter for only basic things and don't want to progress, keep pointing it at the camera.

I'm glad that's sorted then.

I wasn't trying to score any points, I was just trying to explain how the fundamental principle works, which is what I feel forums are actually all about. Maybe I should have gone into more detail right at the beginning and saved a lot of 'ink'

I'm not trying to score any points either, and I will repeat my opening of this post. Thankyou for taking the time to do this. We all want correct information to be on the fora and a good discussion such as this will educate some folks in things which will have previously been beyond their experience and I hope it will encourage them to experiment on their own instead of just taking things at face value

Please address the points raised though. Especially how the beauty light shot is suddenly underexposed just by moving the camera off-axis when the light remains the same, the subject remains the same and the only thing which changes is the camera position to 45 degrees off axis.

Never mess with the G-man lol

Ummm. This is relevant to the discussion how?

 

[Richard King]

___________________________________________________________

Drawn.

In order:
Yes and not really - I want to choose myself.
Not really - I have an idea of how I want to expose something so I meter and adjust the lights for that effect.
See answer above.
Nope. Not interested overall, however, once I know how much ambient I have I can make a decision for what effect I can pull off in a particular scene.

Let's say that I'm shooting a portrait outdoors. I have (assuming ISO 200 as this can be achieved by current dslrs) 1/60 at f4

I want to over-ride the ambient somewhat for a darker feel to my image as the particular location lends itself to a spooky feel. To achieve this, I can increase my shutter speed, I can stop down the lens, I can do both (and I can set 100 ISO if my kit allows this). I don't particularly want to kill every ounce of light in the scene, but I want to get a feel for the location rather than sharp details. So I can decide to set 5.6 for aperture which is still relatively narrow as long as I'm on a longer lens and my subject is relatively close to the lens. That's one stop less than "correct" for ambient. Is one stop enough? Or should I go to two stops? I'll go to two stops as that gives a better dark feel, so I set the shutter to 1/125.

Now I know what I'm going to get from the ambient, I need to set flash for my subject to be lit properly in this spookily dim location. I want to be able to shoot at 5.6 for that location, so I place my key light to give me a suitably eerie lighting pattern or just a simple butterfly as it's a beautifully effective pattern and meter&adjust it accordingly to give me 5.6.

Now I have a nicely exposed subject in a dimly lit location. Is it right yet? Maybe, but I have another speedlite in my bag so I might as well use it. Adding a gel or not is a decision to make (you can pick up cheap gels on ebay) at this point. Much lower levels of light can be used from this light as it's an accent only. Side light to give a nice rim? Good idea. So I don't want this to compete at all with my key. In fat I don't want it to illuminate much at all. I just want it to give me a rim of accent so I decide to set it at 2.8 or even 2. Each time I adjust, I meter the light pointing towards the speedlight or it just won't read it properly.

Now I have a 3 light situation. 2 stops under on the ambient, "correct" from my key and 2 or 3 stops under on the accent light.

How long has it taken me to do the setup? 5 minutes at most and the majority of that is fiddling about putting a set of batteries in the accent flash.

In a similar manner to the above example of metering each light towards it's source, I did the following pic. Leaving the composition a bit unbalanced for the more spooky effect. Butterfly lit with no accent light was the decision I made before even moving the lightstand from the previous setup.

Does metering the way I say is right work? You can decide yourself when you look at the picture


_MG_9256 by matty27272, on Flickr

What you are discussing is more than where should I place my meter, but in fact, "how should I balance all of the elements in a shot"

Rightly so, in a real world scenario, where everything changes from moment to moment, and from location to location, you have to take a subjective step back. You rightly realise that the meter is just another measuring tool that helps with the decisions

In your scenario, you need to take a number of base measurements (how bright is the ambient), or make a number of assumptions, of course you can roll all these into one and also use other measuring tools like the histogram. How many corners you cut or how much you rely on experience will determine your final output and rate of work

For my weddings, these are all split second decisions, with the odd meter / camera / histogram reading thrown in. When I am shooting a portrait in a studio environment, I will have used my meter to check the illuminance of the background (evenness) the overall background exposure, the contribution the background makes at the back of the subject, the ratio of my lights, and my exposure I'm going to shoot at

What Garry has demonstrated is the real world obvious position that the camera records the photons that are travelling towards it. Its a bit of a physics arse about face reading, because it seems counter intuitive (it actually records the photon's landing on the subject in that plane at that point. It works and is particularly useful because it is subject agnostic, which is useful if you shoot a lot of items that are different to each other, but whose relative exposure needs to be the same

 

[Richard King]

I accept that different angles will reflect light towards the camera differently. That much is simple physics being applied. I wonder, however, how the meter is seeing this reflected light? You're pointing it at the camera, aren't you? So, how does the cone on the meter see that light? If the meter is pointed towards the camera, it isn't seeing that light as the body of the meter is between the subject and the cone.

I just don't see that.

The incident reading ignores the subject

If in Garrys set-up, he substituted a white blond, a brown haired Asian and a dark haired black lady into the same scene in sequential shots, you would rightly expect your camera or your lightmeter to come up with three different readings. If you used those readings in your camera, any work you did with the background lighting would be screwed

By taking the incident reading, when he shoots "any colour lady, with any colour hair, and any colour dress" the exposure will be as near as dammit right

 

[Richard King]

I've looked at the manuals on the sekonic website for the 358 and 308 and both have your statement in them. I will, however, repeat that if you're using the meter to get your split-lighting correct, that just doesn't work. It also doesn't go into anything past "basically". So unless you want to use the meter for only basic things and don't want to progress, keep pointing it at the camera.

I am sure that actually you are in the right direction - if you are metering your individual lights to a ratio, then yes you need to meter them individually, to understand their contribution to the scene

After which you need to make a compromise, or take an equalised reading AKA pointing the meter at the camera. If the subject is very complex. Your final exposure may include lighting that inst metered, and doesn't contribute to the exposure (like a hair light)

The meter to camera is a broad brush that covers off most general lighting set-ups that are fairly global from the subjects POV, i.e the key light, the fill light. i.e. if it were a face, it would me most of the lights/reflectors directing light to the front of the face

 

[Mahoneyd187]

Ummm. This is relevant to the discussion how?

You've categorically stated that the only way to correctly meter, is to a light source, and all else is misinformation. You're wrong, the trainer that told you that, is wrong. How a photograph is lit is down to the interpretation of the photographer, whatever metering method they use, that works for them, is correct, and I say that without the rules of physics being applied.

If you want to see what the camera sees buy a good quality spot meter and take 1deg spot readings from the exact camera position, argument settled.

My comment was a light hearted joke with Garry, **** all to do with you, back up.

 

[Mattys]

The incident reading ignores the subject

If in Garrys set-up, he substituted a white blond, a brown haired Asian and a dark haired black lady into the same scene in sequential shots, you would rightly expect your camera or your lightmeter to come up with three different readings. If you used those readings in your camera, any work you did with the background lighting would be screwed

By taking the incident reading, when he shoots "any colour lady, with any colour hair, and any colour dress" the exposure will be as near as dammit right

Exactly right when you state the incident reading is colour/texture/shape agnostic. Why is it pointing away from the subject and towards the camera though? It reads the light falling on it, yes? We do agree on that. Why do you point it away from the light then? I just don't get why you keep stating that the camera is being measured by pointint hte meter at it.

Please do the experiment for yourself. Split light a subject - it can even be yourself with your camera on a remote should you choose, and measure both for towards the light and for towards the camera. This one simple experiment shows that pointing your meter at the camera is wrong.

Pointing your meter at the light source you have is the only way to measure how much light is falling on the subject from that light. It works for wherever the light is in relation to the subject, it works for wherever the camera is in relation to the subject and wherever the light is in relation to the camera. Pointing the meter at the camera does not work for all those things.

You don't have to just take my word for it or look at someone elses diagrams or finished images. Do the experiment yourself and see the results from your own kit with your own eyes.

 

[Mattys]

The incident reading ignores the subject

If in Garrys set-up, he substituted a white blond, a brown haired Asian and a dark haired black lady into the same scene in sequential shots, you would rightly expect your camera or your lightmeter to come up with three different readings. If you used those readings in your camera, any work you did with the background lighting would be screwed

By taking the incident reading, when he shoots "any colour lady, with any colour hair, and any colour dress" the exposure will be as near as dammit right

And if he points his meter at the light source, the exposure doesn't need to be near-as-dammit right, it will be right for that light-source

 

[Mattys]

You've categorically stated that the only way to correctly meter, is to a light source, and all else is misinformation. You're wrong, the trainer that told you that, is wrong. How a photograph is lit is down to the interpretation of the photographer, whatever metering method they use, that works for them, is correct, and I say that without the rules of physics being applied.

If you want to see what the camera sees buy a good quality spot meter and take 1deg spot readings from the exact camera position, argument settled.

My comment was a light hearted joke with Garry, **** all to do with you, back up.

Really? You're stating that photography is interpretive? Wow. That's perceptive. It doesn't change the fact that metering is the scientific part and is not interpretive.

How you light is the interpretive bit. You have made your decision before you set things up. You've interpreted the scene before you start the kit bit. Please see above for my thought process on making a particular image. Once you've done your interpretation, THEN you get to the scientific part.

If you're not going to be scientific about the lighting in the image, don't bother with a meter, just blast light around until it's about right for how you look at the scene and then do the same with all other lights.

HOWEVER, I will fully agree with you on one part of your comment:

whatever metering method they use, that works for them, is correct, and I say that without the rules of physics being applied.

If it's working for you because you've adapted to that way of working, then it is correct FOR YOU. When it comes to teaching new learners, the best way is not the adapted way which works FOR YOU. To do that is a dis-service to the learner.

Oh and when you're stating my mentor is wrong, please note your qualifications both recognised educational body and any association/institute or society you might belong to. He has more than a few of them and I reckon that gaining fellowships from photographic associations/societies/institutes (along with a degree) is worth in knowledge much more than thousands of forum posts. It's also much more convincing as an educator to make me go away and experiment with what has been taught

Me? I'm unqualified unless you take the gcse grade e I got in photography at age 16 at school. What I do know is that I see things being "taught" or taught and I go away and experiment with them and prove or disprove them to myself rather than just taking the word of he who shouts loudest.

 

[Mattys]

You've categorically stated that the only way to correctly meter, is to a light source, and all else is misinformation. You're wrong, the trainer that told you that, is wrong. How a photograph is lit is down to the interpretation of the photographer, whatever metering method they use, that works for them, is correct, and I say that without the rules of physics being applied.

If you want to see what the camera sees buy a good quality spot meter and take 1deg spot readings from the exact camera position, argument settled.

My comment was a light hearted joke with Garry, **** all to do with you, back up.

No. Your comment was a dig in a forum thread. If you wanted it to be a light-hearted joke with Garry instead of a dig, you'd have done it in a PM or email and not a public post

 

[mike weeks]

I know you pointed this question to Mr Elliott, but I'll ask you a question on it. Why do you mess around metering in different ways for a different setup? Either the white background effectively becomes your light source when you bounce your b/g light off it or you don't light it.

Its not being used as a light source, it is being used as the background, so I am metering to get them white, not for how else they are affecting the image.

The highlight is exactly the same thing. It becomes your light source when you put light(s) in it or you don't illuminate it at all.

Can't understand why you would buy a HiLite and not normally put lights in it

As both have become a light source in the same place, why change the way you meter? It doesn't make sense to add a level of complexity to your setups. They can become complex enough without adding to them in this way

The Hilite is transmitting the light and the paper is reflecting it, so if I am stood in the way I am blocking the light, when measuring what is being reflected. No complexity, just common sense, well at least for many of us that have to use the different tools of our trade.

Mike

 

[Garry Edwards]

Pointing your meter at the light source you have is the only way to measure how much light is falling on the subject from that light. It works for wherever the light is in relation to the subject, it works for wherever the camera is in relation to the subject and wherever the light is in relation to the camera. Pointing the meter at the camera does not work for all those things.

I've tried to explain this, and so have other people. I'll try once more.
If you point the meter at the light you get a reading of the amount of light reaching the meter at that angle.But it fails because, very often, not all of the light reaches the camera.
If you point the meter at the camera to get a reading of the amount of light that the camera will see, taking account of light lost because it has gone off at an angle.

I'm sorry if my explanations, and the explanations of other people, have fallen on deaf ears. With respect, you just need to think about angles of incidence and reflectance. And you need to pay attention to people like Sekonic, and to everyone else who has told you that you're wrong. And you might want to get a new mentor while you're at it, the one you have may be a good friend but he doesn't seem to understand the basics.

 

[Mahoneyd187]

No. Your comment was a dig in a forum thread. If you wanted it to be a light-hearted joke with Garry instead of a dig, you'd have done it in a PM or email and not a public post

It wasn't a dig actually, and even if it was it wasn't an offensive one. Feel free to make yourself look like an ass, I really don't care

For the record...should I have PM'd you that?

 

[mike weeks]

Pointing your meter at the light source you have is the only way to measure how much light is falling on the subject from that light. It works for wherever the light is in relation to the subject,

it works for wherever the camera is in relation to the subject and wherever the light is in relation to the camera. Pointing the meter at the camera does not work for all those things..

:thumbsdown:

You don't have to just take my word for it

Definitely not going to

or look at someone elses diagrams or finished images. Do the experiment yourself and see the results from your own kit with your own eyes.

I did, I have done and I will continue to do so. You have highlighted one case and believe this proves all, it does not
I suggest that you :rules: Gary's blog post so that many of us can stop:bang: or :bonk: - please believe what you will but also please stop trying to propogate poor information as that will help far more people.

Mike

 

[Mattys]

What you are discussing is more than where should I place my meter, but in fact, "how should I balance all of the elements in a shot"

Rightly so, in a real world scenario, where everything changes from moment to moment, and from location to location, you have to take a subjective step back. You rightly realise that the meter is just another measuring tool that helps with the decisions

In your scenario, you need to take a number of base measurements (how bright is the ambient), or make a number of assumptions, of course you can roll all these into one and also use other measuring tools like the histogram. How many corners you cut or how much you rely on experience will determine your final output and rate of work

For my weddings, these are all split second decisions, with the odd meter / camera / histogram reading thrown in. When I am shooting a portrait in a studio environment, I will have used my meter to check the illuminance of the background (evenness) the overall background exposure, the contribution the background makes at the back of the subject, the ratio of my lights, and my exposure I'm going to shoot at

What Garry has demonstrated is the real world obvious position that the camera records the photons that are travelling towards it. Its a bit of a physics arse about face reading, because it seems counter intuitive (it actually records the photon's landing on the subject in that plane at that point. It works and is particularly useful because it is subject agnostic, which is useful if you shoot a lot of items that are different to each other, but whose relative exposure needs to be the same

Yes. I posted the thought process to illustrate that it is more than just a scientific thing about measuring your light and in response to the comments that an image is about more than just measuring the light. Interpreting your scene is something you do on every shoot as a wedding photographer and you can keep that job. Kids portraits are more than enough for me as a regular thing. I like to be in control of the scene, in control of the subject and in control of my lighting. Whether I include ambient in the lighting setup overall or not is a decision I make. Whether I use a particular modifier or not is a decision I make, what type of light I use is another of MY decisions. I don't make assumptions, I make readings and I judge things based on those readings only if I need to. I don't often need to judge things because I've measured them.

"What Garry has demonstrated........"
Hold on. Yes, it's arse about face. It doesn't seem counter-intuitive. It IS counter-intuitive. And it's not correct. Run the split-lighting experiment to prove to yourself the validity or not of that

When you point a meter at the camera, it only measures what is in front of it; it just does not measure how much light is falling on the object or subject which is behind it. What's in front is the camera. Unless your camera is your light source (flash on top, perhaps?), it just ISN'T measuring the overall light in the scene. That doesn't change unless the only light in the scene is between the camera and the subject (however high or low it is). I just don't know how to explain that bit in any plainer language. You're not measuring your camera, you're measuring light so it makes no sense and none of the arguments so far have made enough sense either. Every time the same thing is stated, I refer back to split-lighting a subject to show that measuring your camera is wrong. Just plain wrong.

 

[Mahoneyd187]

Next time I shoot a back-lit portrait in natural light, I'll take your advice and meter from the back of my models head, to the sun

 

[Mattys]

Its not being used as a light source, it is being used as the background, so I am metering to get them white, not for how else they are affecting the image.Can't understand why you would buy a HiLite and not normally put lights in itThe Hilite is transmitting the light and the paper is reflecting it, so if I am stood in the way I am blocking the light, when measuring what is being reflected. No complexity, just common sense, well at least for many of us that have to use the different tools of our trade.

Mike

As soon as you put light on it and it reflects some of that light, it is a light source. That's not semantics, it's a measurable thing.

Consider:
Rembrandt light from the left in a dim location. Do you want the shadow side of the face to be really dim or do you want to flatter the subject and give some fill? You can do the fill with a reflector. That reflector, once you've bounced light off it, is now a light-source.

And so is your background whether you're using a hilite or a more traditional vinyl/paper background.

Unless, of course, you're saying that it's spurious to say that metering for everything in the scene together is wrong. That would go against everyone here who is arguing for metering towards the camera

 

[Mattys]

Next time I shoot a back-lit portrait in natural light, I'll take your advice and meter from the back of my models head, to the sun

Will you? I hope you get a lovely silhouette then.

Personally, in this situation, I'd meter the ambient (at the back of her/his head) and see how much light I need to add from the front to balance out or overpower the sun. Depending on taste on the day, of course. And I'd use that to then meter my flash from the front pointing at the flash source to make sure I knew exactly how much flash I was putting in

 

[Mahoneyd187]

Will you? I hope you get a lovely silhouette then.

Personally, in this situation, I'd meter the ambient (at the back of her/his head) and see how much light I need to add from the front to balance out or overpower the sun. Depending on taste on the day, of course. And I'd use that to then meter my flash from the front pointing at the flash source to make sure I knew exactly how much flash I was putting in

And that's a back lit portait is it?

 

[Mattys]

Next time I shoot a back-lit portrait in natural light, I'll take your advice and meter from the back of my models head, to the sun

Actually, if I was wanting to get silhouettes, I'd also make sure I had some kind of flag in front of the subject too - to block any bounce from things in front of him/her. That will help your planned silhouettes.

You don't need to take my word for it though, you can go out and do it to prove or disprove it to yourself