Advice on using a lightmeter

[Mattys]

And that's a back lit portait is it?

Did I say that?

Nope. I didn't. I said that I'd add flash to balance out or overpower the sun. I didn't state what kind of portrait it was.

The choice of whether to balance or overpower would be an aesthetic one, but once made, that would give me what I needed to do the scientific bit of measuring

 

[Mahoneyd187]

But Matty, I was only following your advice. Your statement of complete and utter certainty, that no matter what light source, no matter what angle it's from, type, colour, creed, intended artistic interpretation, the meter must, I repeat, MUST be pointed at any and all light sources and never at the camera.

I shoot medium format film, I use a spot meter for almost everything I do, so I literally don't care about how people use their incident meter as long as it works for them! But you're not arguing that your process works for you, you're arguing that metering to the camera is wrong, and it isn't.

This is just getting boring now.

To any reading, try both methods, so how you get on, nobody cares how you meter, it's certainly not something I ask myself when I see a shot I like, WOW MR TESTINO, WHERE DID YOU POINT YOUR INCIDENT METER?

 

[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

And that's a back lit portait is it?

Did I say that?

Nope. I didn't. I said that I'd add flash to balance out or overpower the sun. I didn't state what kind of portrait it was.

No you didn't, I did

 

[Mattys]

But Matty, I was only following your advice. Your statement of complete and utter certainty, that no matter what light source, no matter what angle it's from, type, colour, creed, intended artistic interpretation, the meter must, I repeat, MUST be pointed at any and all light sources and never at the camera.

I shoot medium format film, I use a spot meter for almost everything I do, so I literally don't care about how people use their incident meter as long as it works for them! But you're not arguing that your process works for you, you're arguing that metering to the camera is wrong, and it isn't.

This is just getting boring now.

To any reading, try both methods, so how you get on, nobody cares how you meter, it's certainly not something I ask myself when I see a shot I like, WOW MR TESTINO, WHERE DID YOU POINT YOUR INCIDENT METER?

Don't be ridiculous. Twisting what I say is not really supporting the argument in the thread and nor is it disproving my points. And, yes. I am absolutely utterly certain about measuring your lightsources. I don't measure my camera, I measure light. Once you know what you've got, THEN you make your artistic interpretation, but you base that on knowledge. I didn't say never point it at camera. I've stated more than once that you point it at your camera if that is where your lightsource is. Personally, I don't light with flash on camera as I don't like the light it gives. You may have differing taste, I don't know.

You point the meter at the light source. That is simple. Whether you're measuring ambient or supplemental light you're adding. If you measure the ambient towards the sun and don't have any supplemental light but still want to shoot into the sun, well, you know what you'll get but don't forget to measure how much light is in the front of your subject. No, that doesn't mean meter your camera, it means meter the light in front of the subject.

In your situation, the only thing you'll achieve by pointing your meter at the camera is a reading of the ambient which is being reflected from the direction of the camera. It will not give you a reading to base your decisions about supplemental light on.

I don't give a toss whether you want to know how Testino meters his images. What you do say in that paragraph is a repeat of what I've stated several times already. Try both ways of doing things. See which is right and try it in all types of lighting setups and see which works for every setup and which doesn't.

You use a spot-meter and that works for you. I've already stated in another response that if your metering method works FOR YOU, then it's right FOR YOU.

If the conversation is getting boring, I believe there is a simple solution. When something is boring me, I don't bother with it any more. I wonder if this would be good for you too?

 

[Mattys]

No you didn't, I did

And therefore, your point is?

 

[Mattys]

but don't forget to measure how much light is in the front of your subject.

Change to:

but don't forget to measure how much light is in front of your subject unless you want a silhouette

 

[Mahoneyd187]

You point the meter at the light source. That is simple.

Ok I'll try this angle.

How about refering to your "light" meter, as an "exposure" meter. Your simplistic approach of, you meter light, with a light meter, doesn't quite work now does it. Your camera sets the exposure with shutter speed and aperture, the reading you get off of a light meter, is (in most cases depending how you have it set) just that, in shutter speed and aperture.

You're not saying meter however you want to meter though are you, you're categorically stating that metering towards the camera, the instrument that records the light and creates the image, is WRONG.

I'll take you more seriously if you are Academically Qualified to speak authoritively on this subject, but since you're struggling with basic physics you either aren't at all, or our education system has really let you down.

Either way I feel bad for you.

 

[Mahoneyd187]

And therefore, your point is?

Mattys rule 101.

Meter towards your light SOURCE.

Sun in background.

Model.

Photographer.

If I meter the back of her head, I will end up with a silhouette. You're correct, and you've also disproved your own theory well done.

Lunch time *ding ding*

 

[mike weeks]

Matty,

What part of the light coming from the background is going to affect the front of the subject I am shooting? (I know the answer because I setup the lights) Read what I wrote, all things that reflect light are a light source but positioning such as relative distance and angle along with reflectance influence how much they contribute to the light on the subject you are shooting and hence I am metering correctly for my situation and do not need to meter for the light on the subject coming from the background.
Mike

 

[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

You may not see a white b/g being used as a lightsource, but it is. Various people have mentioned light bouncing around and a white b/g regardless of whether it is vinyl/paper or a hilite is going to bounce some of that light around. Are you saying that they're wrong too? Or just that I am. Make your mind up.

Sometimes you might choose to turn the hilite around and have the black side towards your subject as a dark background type of thing. Saves taking a black background with you along with a hilite if you plan to do both black and white background setups. Personally, I see no point in carrying gear that I don't need to.

I use a hilite. I used it on Sunday. I wonder what use of the tools of the trade you're talking about? The only one mentioned in there whch you could be referring to is a hilite. Well, maybe you're talking about a paper b/g? No. I don't use those because I simply prefer the hilite. I don't like them because I've used them.

One last thing. Your sig states that you're right because you have 29 years in the industry. I will just make the simple point that doing something for 29 years doesn't make it right, it just makes it that you've done it for 29 years. And a lit background DOES become a lightsource no matter how many years you've been doing it

 

[Mattys]

Ok I'll try this angle.

How about refering to your "light" meter, as an "exposure" meter. Your simplistic approach of, you meter light, with a light meter, doesn't quite work now does it. Your camera sets the exposure with shutter speed and aperture, the reading you get off of a light meter, is (in most cases depending how you have it set) just that, in shutter speed and aperture.

You're not saying meter however you want to meter though are you, you're categorically stating that metering towards the camera, the instrument that records the light and creates the image, is WRONG.

I'll take you more seriously if you are Academically Qualified to speak authoritively on this subject, but since you're struggling with basic physics you either aren't at all, or our education system has really let you down.

Either way I feel bad for you.

If you want to change the name of the meter, that isn't a discussion of physics or anything to do with academic things. It's a change of name only.

Anyway, I thought you were bored of the subject now?

Telling me that you won't take me seriously because I don't have an academic qualification only tells me that you refuse to take any of my suggestions to try things in the manner I posit and have gone for an argument which is neither relevant nor much use in a debate. "I'm not listening to you because you are not qualified - ner!"

Sorry.

 

[Garry Edwards]

One last thing. Your sig states that you're right because you have 29 years in the industry. I will just make the simple point that doing something for 29 years doesn't make it right, it just makes it that you've done it for 29 years. And a lit background DOES become a lightsource no matter how many years you've been doing it

No, his 29 years in the industry doesn't make him right, just as my 40+ years in the industry, my BA and my FRPS don't make me right.

What makes us, and everyone else who has tried patiently, time and time again, to explain a very simple concept to you right, is our ability to listen and learn from giants like Newton, and to test and accept the findings of those tests.

A line from one of the Sharpe episodes...
"We should do twice as much listening as talking, that's why God gave us just one mouth but two ears"

I'm going to shut up now before I become more forthright and get myself banned...

 

[Mattys]

Ok I'll try this angle.

How about refering to your "light" meter, as an "exposure" meter. Your simplistic approach of, you meter light, with a light meter, doesn't quite work now does it. Your camera sets the exposure with shutter speed and aperture, the reading you get off of a light meter, is (in most cases depending how you have it set) just that, in shutter speed and aperture.

You're not saying meter however you want to meter though are you, you're categorically stating that metering towards the camera, the instrument that records the light and creates the image, is WRONG.

I'll take you more seriously if you are Academically Qualified to speak authoritively on this subject, but since you're struggling with basic physics you either aren't at all, or our education system has really let you down.

Either way I feel bad for you.

Actually, the meter measures what is falling on. The camera records what is reflected off.

This proves the point to meter the camera how?

 

[Mattys]

Mattys rule 101.

Meter towards your light SOURCE.

Sun in background.

Model.

Photographer.

If I meter the back of her head, I will end up with a silhouette. You're correct, and you've also disproved your own theory well done.

Lunch time *ding ding*

If I choose to only have the sun as my lightsource, yes. I have a silhouette. This post by you ignores totally the rest of the initial post and the subsequent one about adding light to change that silhouette.

Perhaps, dong dong?

 

[Mattys]

Ah **** it.

Not one of you will even try to measure the light instead of just re-iterating your points.

I actually went to measure towards the camera after reading your blog post Garry. I found that it doesn't give me the right exposure once I start moving the camewra around in relation to the on-axis light source.

Have you moved your camera around in that situation? And found anything? Or are you just re-iterating your point.

40 years+ of experience and your FRPS (and BA) is good, but I'll raise you the fact that my mentor, who you say is wrong, has more than one fellowship, his degree and several photographer of the year awards in different areas. He's also known to be a wizard of light (hint) and proves with every shoot that metering towards the light is the best way of getting a good exposure.

I'll leave you with that.

I've had enough. I've tried your way, it doesn't work for me. Have you tried my way without measuring your camera?

 

[Mahoneyd187]

If I choose to only have the sun as my lightsource, yes. I have a silhouette. This post by you ignores totally the rest of the initial post and the subsequent one about adding light to change that silhouette.

Perhaps, dong dong?

Why do you need to add any further light to the front? Is it an impossibility to expose a models face then in this scenario? There's no way around it, you will 100% always end up with a silhouette if you shoot a backlit portrait and don't use fill flash or a key light at the front to over-power the sun?

This is very basic stuff, painfully basic. Whoever is giving you these opinions has reached god-like status in your mind, evidently you will defend illogical misinformation to the ends of the earth.

I bid you farewell, and genuinely hope your photography improves

Your pitch is flawed, your opinion is not backed up by real world knowledge, qualification, or application. In the words of the Dragon's...I'm out

 

[Mahoneyd187]

Ah **** it.

Not one of you will even try to measure the light instead of just re-iterating your points.

I actually went to measure towards the camera after reading your blog post Garry. I found that it doesn't give me the right exposure once I start moving the camewra around in relation to the on-axis light source.

Have you moved your camera around in that situation? And found anything? Or are you just re-iterating your point.

40 years+ of experience and your FRPS (and BA) is good, but I'll raise you the fact that my mentor, who you say is wrong, has more than one fellowship, his degree and several photographer of the year awards in different areas. He's also known to be a wizard of light (hint) and proves with every shoot that metering towards the light is the best way of getting a good exposure.

I'll leave you with that.

I've had enough. I've tried your way, it doesn't work for me. Have you tried my way without measuring your camera?

LMAO!!

I have a Canon Portrait Award...does that make me cool?

 

[mike weeks]

One last thing. Your sig states that you're right because you have 29 years in the industry. I will just make the simple point that doing something for 29 years doesn't make it right, it just makes it that you've done it for 29 years. And a lit background DOES become a lightsource no matter how many years you've been doing it

A cheap and nasty shot and wholly inaccurate as at no point does it say that what I am saying is right, it just says 29 years of experience, it used to say that it is hard to soar with the eagles when you are surrounded by turkeys, but it never said that I was a turkey or an eagle, now it says "It's hard to have a battle of wits with an unarmed opponent" and such cheap shots are often the result of somebody finding they are unarmed. I do not do a lot of what I did 29 years ago because I have learnt better, improved or just wholly correct methods and equipment has improved.

If I light my background it does not follow that any of that light is a light source of my subject, it is just a light source within the image. At this point I usually pass the shovel out to allow people to did deeper.

Mike