Which light meter do you use?

[The goblin]

Hi all

I work on an airfield that got turned into a rally track for a weekend last month. I spent an hour stealing tips off one of the photographers who swore by using a light meter!

I've been toying with the idea of investing in one ever since.

I've read through a few threads about light meters and I'm aware that it's horses for courses. My question here isn't to buy one or not it's which one do you recommend?

I've been looking at the Polaris digital meter
http://www.warehouseexpress.com/buy-polaris-digital-meter/p1007261

Although I've seen a lot of people raving over the Sekonic L-358. But at nearly £100 more is the extra expense worth it?

I don't have any studio kit at the moment, but I'd like to go that route eventually.

Thank you in advance for any tips.

 

[fixedimage]

The one in my camera?

I have a Weston for when I'm using a camera without a meter and used to have a spot meter when I had a Mamiya 645 but if the camera has one that works why go elsewhere?

Your 7D will be able to do spot and average metering, the one you linked to and the Sekonic can only do average (might be an adaptor to make them do spot metering).

In the studio they are definitely handy for setting up your lights but hardly essential if you shoot digital.

 

[The goblin]

The one in my camera?

...but if the camera has one that works why go elsewhere?

Yes, this makes total sense and something a few people have said. But I guess that opens up the old question of why do some people with fancy DSLR's like the 7D and better use meters?

I have learnt that what my camera says and the resulting image don't always match. A few nights ago whilst trying to catch the kids I looked at what the camera was saying and to get it 'apparently' exposed correctly I had to slow the shutter speed right down, but the result was almost blown out never mind blurry!

Am I doing something wrong?

 

[Harvey_nikon]

you could have upped the ISO instead of lowering the shutter.

Personally, unless I was shooting a lot of studio work I doubt I will invest in a light meter, just use the camera one.

However, you can't just rely on the camera, you need to understand how it works, you need to be able to understand the histogram and you need to know what confuses the light meter.

Snow for instance, due to being really white tricks the camera in to thinking there is loads of light so you actually have to add positive exposure yourself to make it come out right

the correct answer whether you are using a light meter or the camera is:

equipment + knowledge + experience = capturing the correctly exposed shot and the style you want it

 

[EOS_JD]

The camera measures light reflected off the subject you aim at. It tries to average the scene at 18% grey.

The light meter measures the light falling ON your subject.

THe camera meter (no matter the camera) is fooled by very light (white) or dark areas (white snow for example - all your shots would be way under exposed). But this is where the skill and experience of the photographer comes in. You should be able to quickly see that the subject is very light and fooliong the meter or is backlit and the meter again is fooled so you need to add exposure compensation or that the subject is dressed in black and you need to subtract some EC.

A light meter at an event can give you an accurate meter reading for the light you are standing in and that may help. Bt it should be a very quick job to do that without a meter.... Check the histogram.

You could as a cheap alternative use a grey card. Take a shot of the grey card in the light you are shooting in and adjust the exposure so that the histogram shows the peak in the centre. Quick and easy (and sorts your white balance out at the same time).

I agree with the above. Understand HOW to meter first. Understanding exposure is the key to taking great images.

Just noticed Harvey saying much of what I've just written lol

 

[The goblin]

Thank you, when I started this thread I wasn't truly convinced whether or not a light meter would help or be another gadget I would be confused by! You hear a lot of togs saying they wouldn't be without one and lots more saying they're a waste!

Understand HOW to meter first.

I understand the basics, how to get whites white with over compensation and blacks black and so on. But throw some back lighting and some flash into the mix and I get confused!

equipment + knowledge + experience = capturing the correctly exposed shot and the style you want it

I understand the equipment, my knowledge is limited and I need more experience!

I understand now that the reason my 'correctly' exposed test shot was wrong as it tried to lighten the dark sofa!

I'm off to start something new about understanding histograms!

 

[Harvey_nikon]

Don't forget you can switch to spot metering as well as matrix depending on the type of image you are taking. Someone on a light/dark background I would use spot and just make sure the subject is spot on, screw the rest

 

[markmullen]

I use a Gossen Variosix F2 with spot attachment, ideal for taking multiple spot readings of a scene without having to recompose when using a tripod.

 

[EOS_JD]

I understand the basics, how to get whites white with over compensation and blacks black and so on. But throw some back lighting and some flash into the mix and I get confused!

Back lighting is pretty much fooling the camera in the same way snow does. The camera sees the extra light in the scene and exposes for that instead of seeing the light falling on the subject.

Place a subject in front off a bright window. Take a shot. Your subject will be under exposed as the camera will see the light from the window. Now add some EC (anmount will be determined by the brightness of that light) . This will over expose the background but should leave your subject looking better exposed.

Or you could just add flash to light your subject.

in a rally situation though flash may not be close enough to help and you just have to over expose the background.

Just look at the scene and think about what the camera is seeing.

With a meter in that situation you just point the meter from the subject back to the camera so that your meter isn't affected by the back light.

 

[Icee]

I use an old Polaris light meter that I have had since my film days.

 

[fixedimage]

The camera measures light reflected off the subject you aim at. It tries to average the scene at 18% grey.

The light meter measures the light falling ON your subject.

THe camera meter (no matter the camera) is fooled by very light (white) or dark areas (white snow for example - all your shots would be way under exposed). But this is where the skill and experience of the photographer comes in. You should be able to quickly see that the subject is very light and fooliong the meter or is backlit and the meter again is fooled so you need to add exposure compensation or that the subject is dressed in black and you need to subtract some EC.

A light meter at an event can give you an accurate meter reading for the light you are standing in and that may help. Bt it should be a very quick job to do that without a meter.... Check the histogram.

You could as a cheap alternative use a grey card. Take a shot of the grey card in the light you are shooting in and adjust the exposure so that the histogram shows the peak in the centre. Quick and easy (and sorts your white balance out at the same time).

I agree with the above. Understand HOW to meter first. Understanding exposure is the key to taking great images.

Just noticed Harvey saying much of what I've just written lol

That's presuming you're using an average metering mode on the camera and taking an incident reading with the meter when you could just as easily be using spot metering on the camera (which I suppose is still being 'averaged' to 18% grey but spot mode does mean you can be a lot more accurate about what is being averaged) and taking a reflected reading with the meter.

I'm really not a fan of using a stand alone meter for a few reasons, the way I work means I have to take reflected readings not incident and with taking refelcted readings with a standalone meter it's hard to know exactly what the meter is 'seeing' whereas with a camera that has ttl metering you have a far better idea of where the measurement is coming from.

One of the simplest explanations I read of metering and averaging etc was in Adams' The Negative and he talks about shooting two horses in a field, one is black and one is white. If you were to take a spot reading from the white horse you would get a much shorter exposure (for a given iso and aperture) than if you took a spot reading from the black horse and if you took an average reading you'd get something about the middle.

There's another example of filling the frame with a wall painted in black and white chequers and you take an average reading and say you get 1/60th @ f5.6 and iso 100, if you then painted all bar one of the white squares black then you took another average reading you'd likely get something like 1/15th or 1/10th @ f5.6 iso100 which would over expose the remaining white square.

In other words, you have to know how to meter, what to meter, when to meter and why.

 

[EOS_JD]

when you could just as easily be using spot metering on the camera (which I suppose is still being 'averaged' to 18% grey but spot mode does mean you can be a lot more accurate about what is being averaged) and taking a reflected reading with the meter.

You can use your camera like an incident meter. Shoot a grey card and at the location of your subject. If using Av or the like it should expose it correctly if you fill the viewfinder with it.

I'm really not a fan of using a stand alone meter for a few reasons, the way I work means I have to take reflected readings not incident and with taking refelcted readings with a standalone meter it's hard to know exactly what the meter is 'seeing' whereas with a camera that has ttl metering you have a far better idea of where the measurement is coming from.

I don't get that really? Take meter, point at lightsource & click, job done.

In other words, you have to know how to meter, what to meter, when to meter and why.

Or just use a light meter and click - exposure done. Of course you do need to have a little knowledge to know how to use the meter. A light meter does not see the white/black squares. t only measures the light falling on it so a correct exposure would be given whether all white or alkl black or a mix. You should get the same reading.

 

[fixedimage]

I don't get that really? Take meter, point at lightsource & click, job done.

Point at light source? For a reflected reading?

I can't walk up to my subject and take an incident reading from the light source when I don't want my subject to know they are being photographed so I take an average reflected reading.

I find that doing this can be quite hit or miss as the reading can change quite drastically depending on how you hold the meter, point it slightly down it sees more ground/pavement etc which is quite dark, gets less light and gives you a longer exposure, point it slightly up and it picks up the sky and gives you a much shorter exposure.

Hold it straight and you're still not too sure how much ground it's seeing and how much sky it's seeing - I don't know how wide my meter 'sees', it might see like a 50mm lens or it might see like a 15mm lens and without knowing what is being averaged it's hard to judge how you should interpret the reading. Whereas if your using the meter in your camera you have the viewfinder to show you what is being averaged.

I could take an incident reading from, say, my hand if it's in the same light as my subject but that's hardly accurate.

Or just use a light meter and click - exposure done. Of course you do need to have a little knowledge to know how to use the meter. A light meter does not see the white/black squares. t only measures the light falling on it so a correct exposure would be given whether all white or alkl black or a mix. You should get the same reading.

Remember I'm talking about reflected readings, not incident. You still think you'd get the same reading?

 

[The goblin]

Fixedimage I like that explanation with the horses and the chequered wall!

I tried taking some photos this evening using spot metering, I think I had a better success rate! If I get a chance I'll try and upload some tomorrow.

 

[fixedimage]

Fixedimage I like that explanation with the horses and the chequered wall!

I tried taking some photos this evening using spot metering, I think I had a better success rate! If I get a chance I'll try and upload some tomorrow.

I wish I had come up with it but credit needs to go to Mr Adams.

The Negative is really a very good read and still very relevant in the digital age as a lot of it deals with things like this and dynamic range (possibly more of a concern now than then).

You can get it for a pound or two on places like Amazon, eBay and Abebooks now.

Be warned though, if you shoot old film cameras and use a handheld meter reading The Negative will make you want a spot meter and that's an itch that can be expensive to scratch!

 

[bryan elliott]

I use a Sekonic 758DR is the mutts nuts, although probably over kill for most requirements

 

[simonblue]

A rather batter Minolta flash meter III,but still going strong

 

[EOS_JD]

Point at light source? For a reflected reading?

An external light meter takes an INCIDENT reading - NOT a reflected one like your camera does.

I can't walk up to my subject and take an incident reading from the light source when I don't want my subject to know they are being photographed so I take an average reflected reading.

You can take an incident meter reading from the area you are shooting in. Doesn't have to be that exact (depending on the lighting). Even then you could wealk to the point your subjects are in and take a reading. Then go back to camera position and carry on shooting. So long as the light doesn't change you're fine but I appreciate that may not be ideal in more changing conditions.

I find that doing this can be quite hit or miss as the reading can change quite drastically depending on how you hold the meter, point it slightly down it sees more ground/pavement etc which is quite dark, gets less light and gives you a longer exposure, point it slightly up and it picks up the sky and gives you a much shorter exposure.

Don't point to the ground - point towards the light that is lighting your subjects. that doesn't mean point straight up either unless your subject is looking up!

Hold it straight and you're still not too sure how much ground it's seeing and how much sky it's seeing - I don't know how wide my meter 'sees', it might see like a 50mm lens or it might see like a 15mm lens and without knowing what is being averaged it's hard to judge how you should interpret the reading.
Whereas if your using the meter in your camera you have the viewfinder to show you what is being averaged.

It's not averaging anything. It is measuring the light falling on the spot that you meter at.

I could take an incident reading from, say, my hand if it's in the same light as my subject but that's hardly accurate.

You are getting mixed up - you can NOT take an INCIDENT meater reading from your hand - that agan would be a REFLECTED reading.

What you may be thinking is just click the meter from where you stand - that is an incident reading from where you are. If you are in the same light as your subject you will get an accurate reading.

Remember I'm talking about reflected readings, not incident. You still think you'd get the same reading?

Regards my last post in reference to your example, you would not get the same reading when measuring the squares. The light meter would provide an accurate reading straight off the bat. The camera's reading would need to be compensated for (either + or -) depending on what the prevelant tones were. That is why the light meter is easier to use.

Regards what you state above it seems you confuse both?

Let me say though that NEITHER is wrong. So long as you know what you're doing. I find that an external meter is more accurate and quicker but that's maybe just me.

Remenmber also that the histogram is a visual check and can be a very powerful exposure tool.

 

[EOS_JD]

Fixedimage I like that explanation with the horses and the chequered wall!

I tried taking some photos this evening using spot metering, I think I had a better success rate! If I get a chance I'll try and upload some tomorrow.

It is and you just have to be accurate in what you meter and know how to compensate for measuring lighter or darker tones.

Ideally you want to spot meter a mid grey tone from your subject in the right light.

 

[Mahoneyd187]

I use a 758D, spot and incident meter depending on time and whether the shot is static and/or staged. I never liked anything other than spot metering on my dslr anyway. Why not grab a second hand meter, a 308S will do, crack on with it, see if you like it, if not, sell it and lose little/nothing on it.

 

[fixedimage]

An external light meter takes an INCIDENT reading - NOT a reflected one like your camera does.

You can take an incident meter reading from the area you are shooting in. Doesn't have to be that exact (depending on the lighting). Even then you could wealk to the point your subjects are in and take a reading. Then go back to camera position and carry on shooting. So long as the light doesn't change you're fine but I appreciate that may not be ideal in more changing conditions.

Don't point to the ground - point towards the light that is lighting your subjects. that doesn't mean point straight up either unless your subject is looking up!

It's not averaging anything. It is measuring the light falling on the spot that you meter at.

You are getting mixed up - you can NOT take an INCIDENT meater reading from your hand - that agan would be a REFLECTED reading.

What you may be thinking is just click the meter from where you stand - that is an incident reading from where you are. If you are in the same light as your subject you will get an accurate reading.

Regards my last post in reference to your example, you would not get the same reading when measuring the squares. The light meter would provide an accurate reading straight off the bat. The camera's reading would need to be compensated for (either + or -) depending on what the prevelant tones were. That is why the light meter is easier to use.

Regards what you state above it seems you confuse both?

Let me say though that NEITHER is wrong. So long as you know what you're doing. I find that an external meter is more accurate and quicker but that's maybe just me.

Remenmber also that the histogram is a visual check and can be a very powerful exposure tool.

Stand alone meters can take incident, reflected or both reading depending on the design of them.

My Weston does both. The spot meter I used to have only did reflected.

When you take a reflected reading with a meter like the Weston it averages everything (in its field of view) to mid grey. When you take a reflected reading with a spot meter it averages everything in the spot to mid grey.

Regarding the wall, when 50% is black and 50% is white and you take a reflected reading with a meter like my Weston it gives an exposure that would make the scene average out to mid grey. No one part of the scene need be mid grey but the average would be. If you then painted the wall so that 90% was black the same exposure would not average to mid grey so the exposure is changed which would blow the white.

Re metering from my hand, if I was in the same light as my subject I could take either incident reading to know what light was falling on my subject( in this case I wouldn't actually need my hand, using my meter in incident configuration and pointing at the light source would suffice) or reflected using my hand to measure what is being reflected back from my subject ( in this case my hand would need to be orientated in the direction to the light as my subject).

 

[Mahoneyd187]

It doesn't need to be a spot meter to take a reflective reading even. The cheap as chips 308S Sekonic can take reflective and incident readings....not spot, granted, that's why I bought the 758D.

http://www.sekonic.com/Products/L-308S/Features.aspx

 

[EOS_JD]

Stand alone meters can take incident, reflected or both reading depending on the design of them.

My Weston does both. The spot meter I used to have only did reflected.

When you take a reflected reading with a meter like the Weston it averages everything (in its field of view) to mid grey. When you take a reflected reading with a spot meter it averages everything in the spot to mid grey.

Yes I see that and agree. Sorry if I picked that up wrong.

Regarding the wall, when 50% is black and 50% is white and you take a reflected reading with a meter like my Weston it gives an exposure that would make the scene average out to mid grey. No one part of the scene need be mid grey but the average would be. If you then painted the wall so that 90% was black the same exposure would not average to mid grey so the exposure is changed which would blow the white.

I agree - But why would you not just take an incident reading? Whether you take the reading from your light meter or your camera (in average/matrix metering) both would look to average the scene. The incident reading would take a reading of the light falling on the wall.

Re metering from my hand, if I was in the same light as my subject I could take either incident reading to know what light was falling on my subject( in this case I wouldn't actually need my hand, using my meter in incident configuration and pointing at the light source would suffice) or reflected using my hand to measure what is being reflected back from my subject ( in this case my hand would need to be orientated in the direction to the light as my subject).

I agree and you would also need to add/subtract an appropriate amount of exposure depending on the tone of your hand. Dark skin will reflect a lot less light and would over expose your subject in the same was as the black wall.

An incident reading would be quicker but I can see the merits of both and use both.

 

[JSER]

Weston Euromaster, have had mine 30 years, also a W Eoromaster 2

I have used and owned Minolta flashmeters but end up with the WM

 

[fixedimage]

Yes I see that and agree. Sorry if I picked that up wrong.

Not a problem.

I agree - But why would you not just take an incident reading? Whether you take the reading from your light meter or your camera (in average/matrix metering) both would look to average the scene. The incident reading would take a reading of the light falling on the wall.

Well the wall is a 'for example'. In the case of Adam's work his 'wall' might have been a mountain several miles away. In my case (street type photography) the wall might be somewhere that I'd draw attention to myself or might be somewhere I can't go, through window and into a building etc.

I far prefer to use a spot meter as then I can meter and place the important parts of the scene where I want them on a zone scale and then can check whether I'll be retaining density in the highlights and detail in the shadows.

I agree and you would also need to add/subtract an appropriate amount of exposure depending on the tone of your hand. Dark skin will reflect a lot less light and would over expose your subject in the same was as the black wall.

An incident reading would be quicker but I can see the merits of both and use both.

I do have to admit that I haven't really used my meter to measure incident much, I might start trying to do this a bit more if I'm shooting with a meterless camera.

 

[Spiritflier]

I use a Kenko KFM1100... I got it quite cheaply a couple of years ago and find it invaluable when I'm shooting film and off-camera flash!

I rarely use it when I shoot digital but it's handy if I'm scouting a location for a shoot.

 

[EOS_JD]

Well the wall is a 'for example'. In the case of Adam's work his 'wall' might have been a mountain several miles away. In my case (street type photography) the wall might be somewhere that I'd draw attention to myself or might be somewhere I can't go, through window and into a building etc.

I think we would agree there is no single answer. In your new scenario's I agree with your method. THe landscape may need more than one spot exposure reading to get an accurate one to use or to take more than one exposure.

I far prefer to use a spot meter as then I can meter and place the important parts of the scene where I want them on a zone scale and then can check whether I'll be retaining density in the highlights and detail in the shadows.

No argument but again it just depends what you're shooting. In some cases spot, in others a different method or an incident reading....

I do have to admit that I haven't really used my meter to measure incident much, I might start trying to do this a bit more if I'm shooting with a meterless camera.

Even with a camera with a meter and you don't want a reflected reading the meter makes it easier. You can always take a shot of a grey card though in the light you are shooting (which provides an incident meter reading from your camera)!

I think we are agreeing here

 

[fixedimage]

I think so!

I really like using a spot meter and the zone system, makes it really easy to ensure you expose the part of the image you consider most important the way you really want it and if you know the DR of the film you're using (or your sensor I suppose) you can quickly check what the highs and lows will look like.

Kinda regret selling my spot meter actually but I did get a good price for it.

 

[EOS_JD]

We are probably looking at different spectrums here as I use mine mostly in portraiture/weddings. Athough spot can be useful I prefer metering with an incident meter and expose for the highlights.