Light meter the right tool ?

T

testbloke

Messages
2,451
Name
Kevin
Edit My Images
Yes
We currently hire studio time when required, the only downside to this is you never know exactly what kit will be in the studio you are hiring and therfore you are constantly setting up and trying to balancedifferent heads. We are spending time doing this and often not getting it very good resulting in more pp work than should be necessary.
Therefore are looking to purchase a light meter, but ...
Last time I used one was over twenty years ago and that was not in a studio environment, will a light meter help us measure and balance multiple studio heads ?
Also, as there is so much tech out there, will one lightmeter be usefull for both studio work as mentioned above and also outdoor portrait work, weddings etc.
Lastly, what grey card is recomended, was about to buy one but surely £30 for a grey card is excessive ?
 
I'm not a major studio expert, only been in a pro studio once but when I use my kit and also speedlights indoors and out I use a light meeter. I also use one for natural light a lot of the time as I find it takes the guess work away.

A sekonic 308 will do the trick, I've just upgraded to the 358 for some extra features like aperture priority and also 2 ISO options stored for quick readings.
 
mark1616 said:
I'm not a major studio expert, only been in a pro studio once but when I use my kit and also speedlights indoors and out I use a light meeter. I also use one for natural light a lot of the time as I find it takes the guess work away.

A sekonic 308 will do the trick, I've just upgraded to the 358 for some extra features like aperture priority and also 2 ISO options stored for quick readings.
Click to expand...

Thanks Mark, will have a look at the 308, could be a good starting point
 
308 is perfect for what you want. What do you want to use the grey card for? White balance or exposure or both?

You could use a plain white sheet of paper for WB (or any neutral grey page)

JD
 
Last edited:
EOS_JD said:
308 is perfect for what you want. What do you want to use the grey card for? White balance or exposure or both?

You could use a plain white sheet of paper for W (or any neutral grey page

JD
Click to expand...

Grey card - was thinking outside the studio here, particularly white wedding dress on a sunny day. Flash meter will still go for 18% grey, so give it something 18% grey to point at ? (my theory from 20 years ago, lol). Is this what the incidence (?) mode compensates for ?
 
Have to say white balance isn't the be-all and end-all. You need to worry about colour rendition too if you want truly representative. If you use LR/PS, something like the XRite ColorChecker passport is pretty darned good. It also contains a 18% grey card for white balance (you shouldn't use a white piece of paper for 2 reasons: 1; there are a million different shades of white, 2; if you saturate any of the R, G or B channels, you don't get a true white balance). Whilst it is expensive for a set of colours in a plastic case, I've found it very useful. Have a look here (and the pages following): http://photo.andysheen.co.uk/technical/lightroom-raw-vs-dpp-raw-processing/ to see the difference colour profiling makes (I know the comparison is between LR and DPP, but you should be able to see the difference colour profiles make).
 
Pre owned Minolta Flashmeter 1V or V, what better.
 
testbloke said:
Grey card - was thinking outside the studio here, particularly white wedding dress on a sunny day. Flash meter will still go for 18% grey, so give it something 18% grey to point at ? (my theory from 20 years ago, lol). Is this what the incidence (?) mode compensates for ?
Click to expand...

No Kevin the flash meter reads the light falling ON the subject NOT REFLECTED off it. You point the light meter at the light source, press the button job done.

Incident light is the light that falls on the subject.

For exposure you don't need a grey card if you have a light meter.

What you can do (without a meter) is ask the subject to hold a grey card. Take a shot of the card in the subject's light then addcomepensation until the line is bang in the centre (you should just get pretty much a single line in the histogram). Try it with a sheet of white paper. This time you want the white paper to be white so you add compensation so that the histogram sees the paper as white without clipping.

If you want to see how the light meter works, give me a shout and you can nip round to mine after work (you still in HIT Park)? I can show you the L358.
 
Last edited:
arad85 said:
Have to say white balance isn't the be-all and end-all. You need to worry about colour rendition too if you want truly representative. If you use LR/PS, something like the XRite ColorChecker passport is pretty darned good. It also contains a 18% grey card for white balance (you shouldn't use a white piece of paper for 2 reasons: 1; there are a million different shades of white, 2; if you saturate any of the R, G or B channels, you don't get a true white balance). Whilst it is expensive for a set of colours in a plastic case, I've found it very useful. Have a look here (and the pages following): http://photo.andysheen.co.uk/technical/lightroom-raw-vs-dpp-raw-processing/ to see the difference colour profiling makes (I know the comparison is between LR and DPP, but you should be able to see the difference colour profiles make).
Click to expand...

Regards the shade of the paper for WB that doesn't really matter so long as it's neutral. For a quick check it does a job.

I agree the Xrite Checker would be a good buy too.
 
EOS_JD said:
Regards the shade of the paper for WB that doesn't really matter so long as it's neutral.
Click to expand...
I think you're confusing shade with intensity. A neutral shade of paper has only one colour. Take 3 different white pieces of paper and put them next to each other. They will all look slightly different. Whether this is enough to make a difference is debatable though ;)

Al,so with white paper, you need to be careful not to blow one or more channels. Check the RGB histogram
 
testbloke said:
We currently hire studio time when required, the only downside to this is you never know exactly what kit will be in the studio you are hiring and therfore you are constantly setting up and trying to balancedifferent heads. We are spending time doing this and often not getting it very good resulting in more pp work than should be necessary.
Therefore are looking to purchase a light meter, but ...
Last time I used one was over twenty years ago and that was not in a studio environment, will a light meter help us measure and balance multiple studio heads ?
Also, as there is so much tech out there, will one lightmeter be usefull for both studio work as mentioned above and also outdoor portrait work, weddings etc.
Lastly, what grey card is recomended, was about to buy one but surely £30 for a grey card is excessive ?
Click to expand...

Don't really understand what sort of studio doesn't have a light meter available and included in the hire cost - it is as essential as the lights themselves! Similarly I would expect a one brand light set-up with all the 'usual' modifiers ready and waiting - unless thing have change since I last hired, but that was indeed many, many years ago. :thinking:

Paul
 
paul williams said:
Don't really understand what sort of studio doesn't have a light meter available and included in the hire cost - it is as essential as the lights themselves! Similarly I would expect a one brand light set-up with all the 'usual' modifiers ready and waiting - unless thing have change since I last hired, but that was indeed many, many years ago. :thinking:

Paul
Click to expand...
I agree, it's reasonable to expect any hire studio to be fully equipped, and there should certainly be a meter.
You point the light meter at the light source, press the button job done.
Click to expand...
Let's not start this again;) But you point the meter at the subject, not at the light source.
 
arad85 said:
I think you're confusing shade with intensity. A neutral shade of paper has only one colour. Take 3 different white pieces of paper and put them next to each other. They will all look slightly different. Whether this is enough to make a difference is debatable though ;)

Al,so with white paper, you need to be careful not to blow one or more channels. Check the RGB histogram
Click to expand...

So long as the shade is neutral i.e grey (it's probably not pure white) it shouldn't matter too much although I agree about blowing highlights - that's more related to exposing it properly though as each shade will have a different line on the histogram.
 
Last edited:
EOS_JD said:
No Kevin the flash meter reads the light falling ON the subject NOT REFLECTED off it. You point the light meter at the light source, press the button job done.

Incident light is the light that falls on the subject.

For exposure you don't need a grey card if you have a light meter.

What you can do (without a meter) is ask the subject to hold a grey card. Take a shot of the card in the subject's light then addcomepensation until the line is bang in the centre (you should just get pretty much a single line in the histogram). Try it with a sheet of white paper. This time you want the white paper to be white so you add compensation so that the histogram sees the paper as white without clipping.

If you want to see how the light meter works, give me a shout and you can nip round to mine after work (you still in HIT Park)? I can show you the L358.
Click to expand...

Jim, I am still at HIT Park, would be great to take you up on that as we will probably go with the popular L358 ...
 
paul williams said:
Don't really understand what sort of studio doesn't have a light meter available and included in the hire cost - it is as essential as the lights themselves! Similarly I would expect a one brand light set-up with all the 'usual' modifiers ready and waiting - unless thing have change since I last hired, but that was indeed many, many years ago. :thinking:

Paul
Click to expand...

Garry Edwards said:
I agree, it's reasonable to expect any hire studio to be fully equipped, and there should certainly be a meter.
Click to expand...


I agree completely, but at the same time I can't help thinking its worth buying and taking your own, just cause then you have that essential relatively cheap bit of kit your all familiar with
 
paul williams said:
Don't really understand what sort of studio doesn't have a light meter available and included in the hire cost - it is as essential as the lights themselves! Similarly I would expect a one brand light set-up with all the 'usual' modifiers ready and waiting - unless thing have change since I last hired, but that was indeed many, many years ago. :thinking:

Paul
Click to expand...

TBH I have never asked as it is a tool we need to purchase anyway. I suppose after setting the same studio up for over 50 years he does not need a lightmeter ! And at £17 per hour with a two hour minimum for a well equipped large studio in Glasgow city centre I am not complaining !
 
Gary, the link you posted points to says:

"And that started some discussion, with different people expressing different views, so I thought it might be a good idea to demonstrate why the laws of physics proves that the meter needs to be pointed towards the camera (which sees the actual amount of light reflected towards it, not the amount of light that the meter sees when it’s pointed directly at the light."

So, the meter is pointed towards the camera and not the light, as such, and not the subject?
 
chphotos said:
Gary, the link you posted points to says:

"And that started some discussion, with different people expressing different views, so I thought it might be a good idea to demonstrate why the laws of physics proves that the meter needs to be pointed towards the camera (which sees the actual amount of light reflected towards it, not the amount of light that the meter sees when it’s pointed directly at the light."

So, the meter is pointed towards the camera and not the light, as such, and not the subject?
Click to expand...
Yes, for all the reasons already given in the other thread - which everyone except one person got.
Basically, if you point the meter from the subject position towards the camera position, the meter is going to be at the same angle to the camera as the camera is to the subject, so will measure the light that the camera will see.

In most lighting arrangements, with most subjects in most situations, taking a reading to the key light will give a false high reading, resulting in underexposure.

But as I also pointed out in that thread, most flash meters are fitted with a dome receptor that measures light from 180 degrees, and because of this there is often very little difference in the actual reading whether you measure to the light or to the camera - but whether that actually works or not depends on all sorts of factors.

And no, we don't normally point the meter towards the subject. That's a reflective reading, which relies on the assumption that the subject will reflect around 18% of the light that falls on it, which is usually a false assumption. We measure incident light instead - light incident upon (reaching) the subject, it's usually much more accurate.
 
testbloke said:
Jim, I am still at HIT Park, would be great to take you up on that as we will probably go with the popular L358 ...
Click to expand...

PM sent mate
 
Garry Edwards said:
Yes, for all the reasons already given in the other thread - which everyone except one person got.
Basically, if you point the meter from the subject position towards the camera position, the meter is going to be at the same angle to the camera as the camera is to the subject, so will measure the light that the camera will see.

In most lighting arrangements, with most subjects in most situations, taking a reading to the key light will give a false high reading, resulting in underexposure.

But as I also pointed out in that thread, most flash meters are fitted with a dome receptor that measures light from 180 degrees, and because of this there is often very little difference in the actual reading whether you measure to the light or to the camera - but whether that actually works or not depends on all sorts of factors.

And no, we don't normally point the meter towards the subject. That's a reflective reading, which relies on the assumption that the subject will reflect around 18% of the light that falls on it, which is usually a false assumption. We measure incident light instead - light incident upon (reaching) the subject, it's usually much more accurate.
Click to expand...

Again, good advice. Thanks
 
Garry Edwards said:
I agree, it's reasonable to expect any hire studio to be fully equipped, and there should certainly be a meter.

Let's not start this again;) But you point the meter at the subject, not at the light source.
Click to expand...

I think you might have misinterpreted the article; if you read what the article actually says you will see the following near the end:

I think that this demonstrates the importance of pointing the flash meter towards the camera and not the subject
 
Last edited:
BlueBall said:
I think you might have misinterpreted the article; if you read what the article actually says you will see the following near the end:

I think that this demonstrates the importance of pointing the flash meter towards the camera and not the subject
Click to expand...

Ah yes, sorry, I miss-typed it.
As I wrote the article, I think it's clear that I didn't misinterpret it:LOL:
 
Garry Edwards said:
Let's not start this again;) But you point the meter at the subject, not at the light source.
Click to expand...

If you don't want to start the debate again, then why bring it up?, both of the tests carried out are very un scientific and biased, my lightmeter is calibrated to my camera and I point it at the light source, afterall how can you properly meter profile lighting when the meter is pointing at the camera.

And there were 3 of us who all do it correctly lol, me, Matty and Gary hill :p
 
bryan elliott said:
If you don't want to start the debate again, then why bring it up?, both of the tests carried out are very un scientific and biased, my lightmeter is calibrated to my camera and I point it at the light source, afterall how can you properly meter profile lighting when the meter is pointing at the camera.

And there were 3 of us who all do it correctly lol, me, Matty and Gary hill :p
Click to expand...
It isn't a debate, it's fact. If you and your friends don't understand the basics then I'm sorry - for you.
 
Garry Edwards said:
It isn't a debate, it's fact. If you and your friends don't understand the basics then I'm sorry - for you.
Click to expand...

Garry I think it's unfair to promote your way as the only way. What about the many fellows and well respected photographers who promote pointing the meter at the light source?

One of my favourite photographers
http://www.frankdoorhof.com/site/2011/08/about-the-light-meter-in-a-quick-overview/

I’m always told to meter towards the camera
I know, but trust me… that’s wrong.
When you meter towards the camera you’re metering light that comes from the camera… and although some light setups work great that way, most don’t especially in todays fashion work. You can do the test very quickly yourself. Setup your light straight above the camera on let’s say 2 mtrs, now meter towards the camera and it should be perfect, however now start moving the light more and more to the sides (keep exactly the same distance), when you meter towards the camera the value will go down, however when you meter towards the light it will stay constant, and that’s correct because the inverse square law dictates that light at the same distance will stay the same in value, and also when you shoot your model you will see that metering towards the light source is the only right way.
Click to expand...

For most there probably isn't a huge difference and my style of photography is very basic so doubt it would make a huge difference either way.
 
Last edited:
Garry Edwards said:
It isn't a debate, it's fact. If you and your friends don't understand the basics then I'm sorry - for you.
Click to expand...

I take offence to your post here Garry, i do it the way I've been trained to use it, very simple, so I'm not going to change that, again how can you get an accurate reading from a key light that's in profile lighting position, from what you say the meter will be pointing in the opposite direction and how could you meter a hair light, again because your light meter will be facing the wrong way, just doesn't make sense to me!

I actually dont care for your answer and you can point it to the moon if you like, I always point to the light source and get the info required to make my choice, and always get a correct exposure. So how can that be wrong?

Also remember that you represent lencarta and anything you might say, write or do does have an effect on there sales!
 
Originally Posted by Garry Edwards
It isn't a debate, it's fact. If you and your friends don't understand the basics then I'm sorry - for you.
Click to expand...
Garry I think it's unfair to promote your way as the only way. What about the many fellows and well respected photographers who promote pointing the meter at the light source?

One of my favourite photographers
http://www.frankdoorhof.com/site/201...uick-overview/
Click to expand...

Quote:
I’m always told to meter towards the camera
I know, but trust me… that’s wrong.
When you meter towards the camera you’re metering light that comes from the camera… and although some light setups work great that way, most don’t especially in todays fashion work. You can do the test very quickly yourself. Setup your light straight above the camera on let’s say 2 mtrs, now meter towards the camera and it should be perfect, however now start moving the light more and more to the sides (keep exactly the same distance), when you meter towards the camera the value will go down, however when you meter towards the light it will stay constant, and that’s correct because the inverse square law dictates that light at the same distance will stay the same in value, and also when you shoot your model you will see that metering towards the light source is the only right way.
Click to expand...
I think we all know that there are a lot of talented people out there who do things a certain way because it suits their style, or because it produces the results that they like, - or, perhaps, simply because they don't understand the basic physics - and that's fine, even though it doesn't make them right.

For most there probably isn't a huge difference and my style of photography is very basic so doubt it would make a huge difference either way.
Click to expand...
Sometimes, the results can be identical or so close to identical that there's nothing in it, for example if there is a key light and an on-axis fill.

Sometimes, the results from measuring to the light can be way out - 2 stops, 4 stops or even more. It depends on the position of the light in relation to the subject, the reflectivity (or otherwise) of the subject but, mostly, on how much of that light, when reflected off of the subject, goes towards the camera.

Probably all that's needed for any reasonable person to accept 'my way' (which of course isn't 'my' way at all) is for someone who can draw to make up one of those lighting diagrams and draw on it to show WHY measuring light that isn't going to reach the camera can't give a meaningful reading.

Now, I can't draw - any volunteers?
 
I'm definitely not an expert in this, but I do have some basic understanding of physics. I can see arguments both ways, to the camera and to the light.

As far as I can see, metering to the light gives you the amount of light falling on the subject. It does not tell you anything about how much of that light is reflected to the camera as that will depend on reflectivity, incident angle of light and shape of the object being photographed.

Metering to the camera (with the lumisphere up) meters for all light in front of the object being photographed. It simulates the effects of where the light is placed in front of the object and simulates - to a certain degree - a 3D shape. It won't tell you what the worst possible case of lighting will be (e.g. a mirror that reflects the light directly into the camera) but will give you an average indication of an average 3D object with varying reflectivity for lights that are forward of the lightmeter.

Which ever one you use, you still need to interpret the results depending on the subject being photographed. I'd also be willing to bet there are cases of where Garry has metered towards the light as he knows that most of the light is going to get reflected into the camera.

As for:

Frank Doorhof said:
When you meter towards the camera you’re metering light that comes from the camera
Click to expand...
I've seen this a few times and it winds me up no end. It is just not true - not even close. When you meter towards the camera, you are metering the light that hits your subject from in front of the meter. That's ANY light coming from in front of the meter. Whilst it may well be a clever one-liner put down for the "meter towards the light" enthusiasts it's just plain wrong.
 
The way I see it is like this

The light meter is a measuring tool, just like a ruler. or a pair of scales. Sometimes with measuring tools the skill is figuring out what to measure.

Example... If you have a seesaw pair of scales, you don't need to know what is on each end to get a meaningful result from it - when the weight of the objects is the same, the scales are balanced.

What Garry is suggesting is just like vectors and forces in physics, he is in essence measuring the resultant force at a specific angle... or in light terms "the amount of light contribution from all the individual lights at a specific angle". As the lights in a studio setting are often at angles to the subject, and as there are usually multiple lights this measurement needs to be done as the final measurement, to get your exposure right.

Fictional figures coming up...
If we are talking mass weight and motion... If you have 100J of energy hitting an object at 45 degrees, and 100 J of energy hitting an subject at 120 degrees you wouldn't expect to measure 200 J of energy pushing the object at 82.5 degrees, neither would you expect the object to move away from you at 90 degrees with a force of 200J

The bit that people are not grasping is that in my example, 200J of energy hits the object, but from the observers point of view, if you only measured the way the object moves away from you transversely, you might only figure that 90J of energy hit the subject

I said the light meter was a measuring tool, and like the scales and the ruler, it can be used to measure things in different ways, that's where the confusion sets in. Forgetting all the individual light measurements, the measurement we want to know as a photographer shooting a subject is either how much light is falling on it (from the cameras point of view) or if we are using the camera to meter... how much light is arriving from the subject (from the cameras point of view)
 
It is computed that eleven thousand persons have at several times suffered death, rather than submit to break their eggs at the smaller end. Many hundred large volumes have been published upon this controversy: but the books of the Big-endians have been long forbidden, and the whole party rendered incapable by law of holding employments. During the course of these troubles, the emperors of Blefusca did frequently expostulate by their ambassadors, accusing us of making a schism in religion, by offending against a fundamental doctrine of our great prophet Lustrog, in the fifty-fourth chapter of the Blundecral (which is their Alcoran). This, however, is thought to be a mere strain upon the text; for the words are these: 'that all true believers break their eggs at the convenient end.'
Click to expand...

Srsly, there's no need for satire any more.
 
Who made you god Mr Edwards, certainly what I see on your site doesn't I will stick with some far more respected Fellows than yourself and what they say. I will carry on metering the way I do. It works for me.
So please don't try and tell me I don't understand the basics, my real world mentors tell me I do...
 
GDHphotography said:
Who made you god Mr Edwards, certainly what I see on your site doesn't I will stick with some far more respected Fellows than yourself and what they say. I will carry on metering the way I do. It works for me.
So please don't try and tell me I don't understand the basics, my real world mentors tell me I do...
Click to expand...

Hi Gary, just looking on your website, some great shots btw :) Spotted a little typo "PPeople often spend months, even years", it's the first part under weddings on your prices page.
 
.
 
Last edited:
GDHphotography said:
Thanks Mark, needs an update :)
Click to expand...

No worries, always something to do in this game :)

Garry Edwards said:
Thanks, I really do need to seriously update the Photolearn website.

BTW, it isn't my business site, which is under a different name entirely. It's just the site I use to sell my Photolearn tutorials and videos.
Click to expand...

Hi Garry, wrong Gary/Garry this time, meant GDH, there are too many of you with similar names ;)
 
duty_calls.png
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top