Camera or Light meter which is right.

[CT]

That's an excellent post Eduardo. Anyone who has a meter and wants to get to grips with proper metering technique would do well to print it off and stick it in their camera bag.

A meter is far from an essential piece of kit these days - the combination of the preview screen, histogram and blinkies will get you the shot. Modern camera meters are pretty accurate anyway, but they are easily fooled, particularly in high contrast scenes in contrasty light, and while you're buggering about making the adjustments an intelligently taken meter reading will get you the shot in one.

My preferred method of metering is to take a spot reading from the brightest highlight or darkest shadow and adjust accordingly - I find it gives consistently reliable results. My Sekonic allows me to take a 1 degree spot reading from the tiniest of areas or from a distant tone - something the spot meters in cameras just can't do, which is why my meter isn't going anywhere soon, and it really comes into it's own when shooting film with an unmetered camera.

 

[EOS_JD]

Eduardo
I meant in comparison to an incident meter. I can't see hhow is can be? Take a reading from where you want and bam - done. No EC, no need to worry about the subjects tone - just the placement realtive to the light.

 

[EdBray]

That's an excellent post Eduardo. Anyone who has a meter and wants to get to grips with proper metering technique would do well to print it off and stick it in their camera bag.

Stop it, I can hardly get through the door as it is Praise on two seperate threads from different members, it's almost too much to bear

Eduardo
I meant in comparison to an incident meter. I can't see hhow is can be? Take a reading from where you want and bam - done. No EC, no need to worry about the subjects tone - just the placement realtive to the light.

Just out of curiosity then, how would you have used an incident light reading to take this image?

Unfortunately, the big downside of an incident light meter is that you need to actually be in a similar light to your subject, if not, you'm is buggered!

I think I would get consistently better and more artistic results with a spot meter than I would with an incident light meter because I would be putting the tones where I wanted them on an image not where the amount of light dictated they fell.

With an incident light meter and a high contrast scene, it would be possible to both blow out the highlights and block up the shadows leaving you the exposure in the middle. I in that case would expose for the subject, or the brightest or darkest part of the image depending on what I wanted to show.

 

[EOS_JD]

Haha shooting portraiture doesn't give issues like that Obviously for an image liker that not only would an incident meter be inconsistent, it's useless..... I'm talking about situations where you would use one or the other.
Regards
Jim

 

[EOS_JD]

With an incident light meter and a high contrast scene, it would be possible to both blow out the highlights and block up the shadows leaving you the exposure in the middle. I in that case would expose for the subject, or the brightest or darkest part of the image depending on what I wanted to show.

This is why placement of the meter is crucial. Measure from the highlight if that's where you require the exposure to be - just as you would with the spot.. Same job as a spot.....

 

[String]

Stop it, I can hardly get through the door as it is Praise on two seperate threads from different members, it's almost too much to bear



Just out of curiosity then, how would you have used an incident light reading to take this image?

Unfortunately, the big downside of an incident light meter is that you need to actually be in a similar light to your subject, if not, you'm is buggered!

I think I would get consistently better and more artistic results with a spot meter than I would with an incident light meter because I would be putting the tones where I wanted them on an image not where the amount of light dictated they fell.

With an incident light meter and a high contrast scene, it would be possible to both blow out the highlights and block up the shadows leaving you the exposure in the middle. I in that case would expose for the subject, or the brightest or darkest part of the image depending on what I wanted to show.

It's pretty logical really. If you are going to measure the light falling on the subject you need to be in the light falling on the subject......

Unless you are not going to measure incident light and measure the light reflected by the subject.

Or actually measure the highlights and the shadows and arrive at an average value?

 

[artyman]

I tend to use evaluative in the camera and interpet the figures it gives me based on what is in the viewfinder.

 

[HoppyUK]

Why all this messing about with metering and theory and the Zone System?

That's for film, when you have no choice. With digital, you just take a picture, check the LCD/histogram/blinkies, and if you don't like the result, tweak it. It'll be done and dusted before you've even got your hand/spot/incident meter out of the bag.

AND, it will be dead accurate - because it is an actual exposure, and not a guess, which is all the meter can do. Even if it might be a good guess if you know what you're doing :shrug:

 

[EdBray]

It's pretty logical really. If you are going to measure the light falling on the subject you need to be in the light falling on the subject......

Thanks for that The question was a Rhetorical one! and I think I had already answered it in the post.

Unless you are not going to measure incident light and measure the light reflected by the subject.

How, by using a spot meter?

Or actually measure the highlights and the shadows and arrive at an average value?

And end up with average exposures. Why not just use Matrix metering then and be done with it? :bang:

 

[String]

And end up with average exposures. Why not just use Matrix metering then and be done with it? :bang:

I have no problem with matrix metering, assuming of course that the computer which decides on the average is right........

Sometimes they aren't, sometimes I'm not, and, god help us, sometimes you're not right either. The correct route?

Perhaps it's bracket like hell and hope on of them is...

 

[EOS_JD]

And end up with average exposures. Why not just use Matrix metering then and be done with it? :bang:

Ed I still don't get what is more consistent (other than times when you can't use incident readings)

 

[EdBray]

I have no problem with matrix metering, assuming of course that the computer which decides on the average is right........

Sometimes they aren't, sometimes I'm not, and, god help us, sometimes you're not right either. The correct route?

Perhaps it's bracket like hell and hope on of them is...

I don't bracket, or machine gun my images, hence why my 1DsMk3 has only got 8400 clicks (and it had about 4500) when I got it.

I was brought up on film, managed to run a good photographic business and used to use 5 rolls of 120 film per wedding. Film and processing cost money so you learnt to expose properly, (there were no take an image check it out, alter a few things and then take another one with the exception of Poloroids and they were notoriously unreliable and quite expensive).

Different strokes for different folks, and each to their own, but it is still no bad thing to learn to expose corectly. (Oh, I spelt correctly incorrectly not as perfect as I think then)

 

[EdBray]

My quote was actually aimed at the statement above it about taking the average of the dark tones and the light tones.

Ed I still don't get what is more consistent (other than times when you can't use incident readings)

And that's the reason in a nutshell, you can't always use it.

As I said earlier, each to their own. I'll stick with my spot meter for ambient light and use incident for flash photography, fortunately I have both in my Sekonic L758D.

 

[mrtoad]

That's pretty much the whole point of an incident reading!

incident reading is taking a reading from the light falling on the subject towards the camera lens
you can take other readings with a meter...spot readings summed
incident readings...or rather reading...is only one reading..

 

[mrtoad]

So how is spot metering more consistent?

consistent with what?
do you think there is a 'correct' exposure for a shot without reference to the desired result
two people may shoot a scene at different EV's and produce good images...consistent with the image they wanted in the first place
not all images need be 'grey card'

spot metering takes the exposure in an area you wish to have 'correctly' exposed
an incident reading will give you general exposure for the shot overall assuming one light source and the where you point the face of the card
the light source or the camera lens
??

 

[mrtoad]

Why all this messing about with metering and theory and the Zone System?

That's for film, when you have no choice. With digital, you just take a picture, check the LCD/histogram/blinkies, and if you don't like the result, tweak it. It'll be done and dusted before you've even got your hand/spot/incident meter out of the bag.

AND, it will be dead accurate - because it is an actual exposure, and not a guess, which is all the meter can do. Even if it might be a good guess if you know what you're doing :shrug:

tunnel
a
last
light
at
in
the

rearrange into a well known phrase or saying

 

[EOS_JD]

consistent with what?
do you think there is a 'correct' exposure for a shot without reference to the desired result
two people may shoot a scene at different EV's and produce good images...consistent with the image they wanted in the first place
not all images need be 'grey card'

spot metering takes the exposure in an area you wish to have 'correctly' exposed
an incident reading will give you general exposure for the shot overall assuming one light source and the where you point the face of the card
the light source or the camera lens
??

Exactly. The spot meter does not do that unless either you

A - Meter off a (roughly) 18% grey
or
B off a known value where you then need phjotographers skill to evaluate what's needed.

That's why the incident reading is better

I totally accept the actual exposure value may differ from shot to shot.

 

[EOS_JD]

incident reading is taking a reading from the light falling on the subject towards the camera lens

That is incorrect. You direct the dome at the light you are measuring. This could be in the highlight area or shadow. You don't need to point the meter at he camera although there are times you do.

 

[EOS_JD]

My quote was actually aimed at the statement above it about taking the average of the dark tones and the light tones.



And that's the reason in a nutshell, you can't always use it.

As I said earlier, each to their own. I'll stick with my spot meter for ambient light and use incident for flash photography, fortunately I have both in my Sekonic L758D.

Yes I see what you mean. I was only thinking in terms of a subject in front of me

 

[EdBray]

Exactly. The spot meter does not do that unless either you

A - Meter off a (roughly) 18% grey
or
B off a known value where you then need phjotographers skill to evaluate what's needed.

That's why the incident reading is better For who?

I totally accept the actual exposure value may differ from shot to shot.

So what you are saying in a roundabout way is that if you don't have any 'photographers skill' you are better off with an incident light meter.

 

[EOS_JD]

No what I'm saying is if you are not skilled in exposure (and adding/subtracting exposure based on a specific tone) that an incident meter reading will provide more consistent exposure.

I'm not saying that using spot metering is the wrong thing to do at all. I suppose it depends on who is using it

 

[EdBray]

No what I'm saying is if you are not skilled in exposure (and adding/subtracting exposure based on a specific tone) that an incident meter reading will provide more consistent exposure.

I'm not saying that using spot metering is the wrong thing to do at all. I suppose it depends on who is using it

I know, I'm just joshing

 

[EOS_JD]

b^*&"£!&^£"

 

[Hodders]

The answer in my mind to the OP's subject. Is both.

If I am shooting a landscape I will use the cameras suggestion tweaked according to what I see.

If I am in the studio with multiple light sources and want light A to be 2 stops down on light B then out comes my meter.

The exposure meter in the camera and a hand held meter both have their uses. But like all tools knowing which to use when is the key bit of knowledge.

 

[EOS_JD]

The answer in my mind to the OP's subject. Is both.

If I am shooting a landscape I will use the cameras suggestion tweaked according to what I see.

If I am in the studio with multiple light sources and want light A to be 2 stops down on light B then out comes my meter.

The exposure meter in the camera and a hand held meter both have their uses. But like all tools knowing which to use when is the key bit of knowledge.

Yes I agree with that.

 

[String]

I don't bracket, or machine gun my images, hence why my 1DsMk3 has only got 8400 clicks (and it had about 4500) when I got it.

I was brought up on film, managed to run a good photographic business and used to use 5 rolls of 120 film per wedding. Film and processing cost money so you learnt to expose properly, (there were no take an image check it out, alter a few things and then take another one with the exception of Poloroids and they were notoriously unreliable and quite expensive).

Different strokes for different folks, and each to their own, but it is still no bad thing to learn to expose corectly. (Oh, I spelt correctly incorrectly not as perfect as I think then)

Ditto me. At 58 I was taking photographs well before digital was even a twinkle in anyones eye. But it was a good living and at least it was rare to burn out a wedding dress. These days the intolerance to over exposing highlights means it has to be more accurate, truth be told. And I still run a twin lens reflex and metz mecablitz 45CT1

 

[whiteflyer]

W With digital, you just take a picture, check the LCD/histogram/blinkies, and if you don't like the result, tweak it. It'll be done and dusted before you've even got your hand/spot/incident meter out of the bag.

What if you have one and only one chance at at shot, no way of re-shooting if it's wrong then it's gone.

Everyone seem to assume that you can take a shot check the histogram adjust the settings then take the shot again. This is not always the case, especally if shooting sports.

 

[EOS_JD]

Obviously that would depend on the lighting at the time.

 

[mrtoad]

Exactly. The spot meter does not do that unless either you

A - Meter off a (roughly) 18% grey
or
B off a known value where you then need phjotographers skill to evaluate what's needed.

That's why the incident reading is better

I totally accept the actual exposure value may differ from shot to shot.

ok...
just one more point...regarding incident readings...do you take them at the subject or on your side of the lake....where its shady
i think the ball park is pretty big on this one
cheers
geof

 

[EOS_JD]

ok...
just one more point...regarding incident readings...do you take them at the subject or on your side of the lake....where its shady
i think the ball park is pretty big on this one
cheers
geof

I think you may have missed the chat above that discussed the same thing! Where you can take an incident reading it will provide more consistency. Even if you take a spot reading from the other side of the lake it still takes a certain skill to get the exposure right.... Consistency is down to how the photographer reads it - not the camera's meter.

 

[mrtoad]

I think you may have missed the chat above that discussed the same thing! Where you can take an incident reading it will provide more consistency. Even if you take a spot reading from the other side of the lake it still takes a certain skill to get the exposure right.... Consistency is down to how the photographer reads it - not the camera's meter.

i think i have to agree with the observation that its the taker who decides
using the datum of his meter as an infallible? supplier of information
you really cant tell what exposures were used on a shot
either
over
under
or
correct
the figures are up to the taker...
as for not reading above....thats one of my bad points...i read the last post and then comment on that..
so apologies for seeming a dullard in that respect
really if i am honest i do use what one would call grey card...my skin but even then its only a check on what the camera says
and in fact my camera is not accurate..
firstly my iso is not 80 as set but 125 so i am told
the iris diameter may not be exactly 5.6 etc
and the speed not quite exactly 1/125...but as its seamless i cant really relate to a readout in complex numbers
so to sum up...bet you were wondering..
the grey card is a safe bet for consistent readings..
now...what do you use to read the card...
hand meter...how accurate is it in relation to the inaccurate settings on your camera
the shorter the chain of information..the more accurate the prime and terminal data is
so i now go back to cooking my curry till tomorrow
cheers
geof

 

[EOS_JD]

i think i have to agree with the observation that its the taker who decides
using the datum of his meter as an infallible? supplier of information
you really cant tell what exposures were used on a shot
either
over
under
or
correct
the figures are up to the taker...
as for not reading above....thats one of my bad points...i read the last post and then comment on that..
so apologies for seeming a dullard in that respect
really if i am honest i do use what one would call grey card...my skin but even then its only a check on what the camera says
and in fact my camera is not accurate..
firstly my iso is not 80 as set but 125 so i am told
the iris diameter may not be exactly 5.6 etc
and the speed not quite exactly 1/125...but as its seamless i cant really relate to a readout in complex numbers
so to sum up...bet you were wondering..
the grey card is a safe bet for consistent readings..
now...what do you use to read the card...
hand meter...how accurate is it in relation to the inaccurate settings on your camera
the shorter the chain of information..the more accurate the prime and terminal data is
so i now go back to cooking my curry till tomorrow
cheers
geof

Well after reading that my conclusion is - I'm hungry

 

[mrtoad]

Well after reading that my conclusion is - I'm hungry

just whacking down the bananas and ice cream...
finger talk makes me hungry as well
cheers
geof