DG Phototraining
Woof
- Messages
- 5,064
- Name
- Dave
- Edit My Images
- Yes
At the end of the day it matters not one jot how you achieve the right result, so long as you achieve it
Dave
Dave
At the end of the day it matters not one jot how you achieve the right result, so long as you achieve it
I never ever found it problematic. RAW files have so much latitude that you can always bring back the highlights.
Not if you have pushed them past the maximum recordable level of any of the colours' sensors.
Steve.
That's true, but you really have to make an effort to get there.
There are plenty of people making that extra effort!!!!
steve.
Have you guys actually tried it ??? Cos you are wrong lol
Imagine your Bride is in the typical position of being near a window as the light source, beautiful soft light falling across her - if you read the light falling on her by pointing it towards the window you have a perfect exposure, if you turn the lightmeter towards the camera so its now reading from a darkened room too the light falling on the Bride will blow. If you then move your camera position more into the room to have her short-lit she will blow even more as the lightmeter is reading even more from the darker room
Dave
Great well now the OP has two things to try and they can make their own mind up.
From what I remember, the duplex method as suggested in the Dunn and Wakefield book was for meters with a flat front diffusion disc. Meters with a dome already take the light from all directions into account and just need to be pointed at the camera.
Steve.
What is sad is that many no longer believe the truth of the situation, when it is explained to them. because they have seen it on the web.
What is worse, is that those misled in this way, are now teaching others.
I think it's pretty bizarre people are advocating using a light meter to shoot weddings... Our camera's have meters and it's very easy to work out exposure using it. There's no need to use a ( seperate ) light meter and when the style these days is to capture things happening as they happen instead of posed shots, using a lightning meter is overkill and would slow things down.
If you use the kit you have correctly a ( seperate ) light meter is completely pointless IMO
as for the lightning meter , i'd keep away from thunderstorms
I think it's pretty bizarre people are advocating using a light meter to shoot weddings... Our camera's have meters and it's very easy to work out exposure using it. There's no need to use a light meter and when the style these days is to capture things happening as they happen instead of posed shots, using a lightning meter is overkill and would slow things down.
If you use the kit you have correctly a light meter is completely pointless IMO
While camera meters these days are very good indeed They do not measure in the same way as an incident meter.
You have perhaps noticed that even matrix metering changes the exposure with the slightest movement in the direction the camera is pointing. In the case of a bride and groom it can be a matter of how the B&G are centred. Of course in either case the light has not changed , nor has the required exposure. This is where an incident meter wins out, as its reading will not change and will give a consistent exposure and resulting tones. .
In fact it takes no longer to do. Exposure is often established before the first shot. All you need to do in stable light conditions is to take a single reading from the direction you will be shooting and mentally note the exposure, Do the same at 90 degree each side and note the difference. you can then adjust for that amount as the need arises... you will find you have a perfectly balanced set of shots. In more transient lighting conditions with fleeting clouds you need to take more care.
A set of photographs where the Brides dress looks equally detailed and white with the grooms suit equally dark in every picture, and with the skin tones spot on. demonstrates care and professionalism.
if you're using a good camera it can usually cope well with such things anyway...
I was with you right till this point
Haha well it's not often people agree with anything I say so I've done well with my last post then
What don't you agree with exactly? You can't rely on it to get it right 100% of the time but if you know your camera well you should know if it's going to do anything funky when you move and the exposure changes, most of the time it'll get it reasonably right but as I said it's very easy to check the LCD or Histogram to make sure
I just don't think you can rely on your camera out sorting things out...its a bit like my Mum's common statement 'Hugh has a good camera, he takes fantastic photos" Cheers Mum
Not wedding photographerswhat I find extraordinary is how well Incident light meters hold their second hand prices on EBAY.
even After all I have said, there seems to be a never ending demand for them. So some one is still using them.
It just astounds me. RAW, Blinkies, Exposure lock, Materix metering, Auto ISO, Exposure compensation and a screen on the back of the camera to see what you have taken instantly.
How ever did I manage with a Bronica S2a (do a google search) and a Weston light meter and get it right.
Sorry forgot - Histogram
How ever did I manage with a Bronica S2a (do a google search) and a Weston light meter and get it right.
It just astounds me. RAW, Blinkies, Exposure lock, Materix metering, Auto ISO, Exposure compensation and a screen on the back of the camera to see what you have taken instantly.
How ever did I manage with a Bronica S2a (do a google search) and a Weston light meter and get it right.
Sorry forgot - Histogram
Jeez.I wonder if all this digital stuff helps get it right first time, or is it just a more complex suck it and see system.
Take a shot
Have a look
don't like it
Make an adjustment
Try another shot
Iterate as needed
Iterate as needed
Iterate as needed
Opportunity lost..... :dummy1:
Perhaps it is all a faster way to get it wrong first time.
Neg film had fantastic latitude
It just astounds me. RAW, Blinkies, Exposure lock, Materix metering, Auto ISO, Exposure compensation and a screen on the back of the camera to see what you have taken instantly.
How ever did I manage with a Bronica S2a (do a google search) and a Weston light meter and get it right.
Sorry forgot - Histogram
At a wedding! Anyone know where that emoticon has gone with a little yellow face and a finger pointing at the temple going in a circular motion.I wonder what polaroid backs were for
Jeez.
At what point do you get so old that you assume you're so superior because you used to do something a different way.
And we know the dirty secrets:
1)Neg film had fantastic latitude
2)A decent pro lab produced consistent results that belied lots of sloppy camerawork.
3)And the biggest one: the average standard of 'social photographers' 20 years ago was devoid of any 'talent'. Basically if you could manage the technical side of photography, you were considered of a 'professional standard'.
Like many of us have already said, there's no 'right' way. And I've seen no results from anyone claiming to know the 'right way' that show any measure of superiority.
In fact the last 'old school' guy shouting the odds about how digital shooters rely on Photoshop and how 'traditional was best' turned out to be about the worst 'professional' that ever graced this forum.
Actually it's very apropos.
All those modern photographers being 'attacked' for their working methods have links to their websites in their signatures. Some good work too IMO.
All the 'old guard' looking down on them are doing so without putting their money where their mouth is.
Like I say, the last guy doing this was found to be incompetent.
You could easily clear up any suspicion.
I don't believe any metering method is "the most accurate." The only thing any of them do is tell you the exposure for 18% grey based upon the metering pattern; spot/cw/matrix vs dome (matrix equiv)/disk (spot equiv). One tool is measuring what *is being reflected* to the camera, the other tool is telling you what *will be reflected* back to the camera (same-same).
Once again, just different tools...an incident meter can be just as "wrong" as a reflectance meter.
If you have a white dress in hard light that's actually blowing out in spots, following an incident meter will (can) make it blow out.
If you have a black suit that's actually clipping to black, following an incident meter will (can) make it clip to black.
If you want a high key image, following an incident meter will not give the desired result.
If you want a low key image, following an incident meter will not give the desired result.
If you want a silhouetted, pointing an incident meter at the camera will not give the desired result.
If you don't want a silhouette, pointing the meter at the light source won't give the desired result.
Should I meter the area (dome) or the spot (disk)? depends.
Should I meter for a flatter surface (disk) or a more rounded subject (dome)? depends.
In either case an incident meter doesn't account for reflectance efficiency (i.e. white vinyl vs white fabric).
etc., etc....
The in camera meter can be just as wrong of course...
Anyone who says they can take an incident meter reading and set their exposure 100% right "every time" is, um... stretching the truth a bit. Anyone who says they can take a reflectance reading and set an offset 100% is also "stretching the truth." But either method will/can get you a reasonable/usable exposure if you know what you are doing and why. Hell, once I have a known exposure I can set subsequent exposures just by using the inverse square law (f-stops) with very reasonable results.