Best light meter-good for a laugh

[Sirius Glass]

APUG has had at least one member who consistently uses and recommends to others using Nikon F5/6 bodies in matrix metering mode to meter for 4x5 color transparency shots. They are his light meters for sheet film shooting. I've seen several others recommend something similar here on APUG.

When I need a spot meter for my Hasselblad, I use my Nikon F100 to check the brightest, darkest, and what I want to be 18% gray.

Steve

 

[TXinD76]

Do you understand?

Do you gents not understand? What that post says is that IF you are shooting with a DSLR, THEN you no longer need a flash meter when using off-camera strobes.

What part of that assertion don't you agree with? Do you yourself shoot with DSLRs using monoblocks or a pack-and-head system and yet still use a separate handheld flash meter? Are you acquainted with working studio professionals who shoot with DSLRs or medium-format digital backs and studio strobes and yet still use handheld flash meters for every shot? (I can actually understand using a meter to help set up complicated multi-light setups with careful ratios, but the example I used in the post concerned a single monoblock shot through an umbrella.) If you do, please name them. I'd like to contact them. I'd be curious to learn why they're doing it that way.

Mike Johnston

 

[Cheryl Jacobs]

First, we're not all gents.

Secondly, there are plenty of "working studio professionals" who still use handheld flash meters, Mike. I would suggest you pop over to www.ilovephotography.com (entirely child portrait photographers, almost entirely digital) and pose that question. You'll find more than you think. It's not necessarily a matter of "need", it's a matter of choice.

Live and let live. If you don't feel it's a relevant tool anymore, don't use it. It's silly, though, to think everyone will agree with you.

- CJ

 

[TXinD76]

...Oh, and by the bye, I was a custom black-and-white printer for years, I used to teach darkroom printing, I used to be Editor-in-Chief of a darkroom magazine, and I wrote more than 80 columns for the English Black & White Photography magazine. Photographs printed by me are in major museum collections all over the world. I have my Dektol-smelling credentials in order, thanks.

MJ

 

[Lee L]

Do you gents not understand?

Mike Johnston

Some don't understand how to read or keep an even keel, Mike. You've always struck me as able to do both.
Have enjoyed your writing for years.

Lee

 

[Cheryl Jacobs]

...Oh, and by the bye, I was a custom black-and-white printer for years, I used to teach darkroom printing, I used to be Editor-in-Chief of a darkroom magazine, and I wrote more than 80 columns for the English Black & White Photography magazine. Photographs printed by me are in major museum collections all over the world. I have my Dektol-smelling credentials in order, thanks.

MJ

Well aware. I don't think it's necessary to get your undies in a bunch over this one. Everyone's entitled to an opinion, and you are under no obligation to agree with them.

 

[TXinD76]

Cheryl,
Wait! ***I'm*** the one who's thinking everyone has to agree with me??? When did I ever say such a thing? I just came over here last night to find myself being called names, that's all I did. Anyone who reads my website knows that I bend over backwards to accommodate other peoples' opinions, methods, tastes, techniques, preferences, and so forth. I don't happen to know any photographers who still use flash meters; but that doesn't mean they're not out there, and it doesn't mean I might not have something to learn from them. I not only never said otherwise, I never *would* say otherwise.

And the "gentlemen" (I use the term loosely) I was addressing were the ones who were being childish (I use that term strictly, meaning "of, like, or appropriate to a child"). As far as I can see that did not include any females.

Mike

 

[Cheryl Jacobs]

Mike, there are plenty of contributors to this thread who believe their opinions to be golden. I don't advocate name-calling of any sort (hadn't even seen those posts before I replied, as I just skimmed the first page very quickly.) But the flavor of your article, to me, was a bit holier-than-thou toward those who chose to use handheld meters.

If that is not what you are trying to convey, that's good. There are plenty of photographers who could tell you their reasons for working with a handheld meter, but I'm absolutely not going to throw their names into the middle of a debate. Seems a bit unkind.

 

[TXinD76]

The only thing that really annoys me here is that someone has managed to find an old post of mine, ostensibly read it, and yet didn't understand what the point of it was. I was noting that Kenko had revived a light meter (the KFM-1100) that is either identical to or similar to one that used to be sold by Minolta (the Auto Meter V F, I think), and I was wondering how they expected to find enough customers for it to make it a viable product.

Frankly, I still wonder...I can't imagine they sell more than a handful of them, and I'm surprised, on checking on it now, to find it still available.

I never did like the most complex meters at the high end of the market. I used relatively simple Sekonics myself (the one with the swivel heads; a loose copy of a Gossen model that I think is discontinued).

I actually knew a woman who was the manager of a professional lighting store who lectured to pros on the use of the top-of-the-line Minolta flashmeter...this would have been in the late '80s or early '90s. She herself had to brush up on the meter's functions before every lecture, and she gave the lectures every three weeks! That still strikes me as the quintessence of an overly complex product, when the person who trains other people in its use can't even remember all of its functions over a three-week interval.

Of course, some people enjoy that kind of complexity. I'm just not one of them.

For film I had about six meters, including a Pentax 1-degree spotmeter and a fancy gold-encrusted L-398. The meter I like best now is the Voigtlander VC Speed Meter II, although it makes me wish Rolleicords had cold shoes.

Mike

 

[removed account4]

i think you hit the nail on the head mike
most things now ( even back then ) are overly complex.
"yeah it can do that, but i have no idea how to do it "

 

[Anscojohn]

Do you gents not understand? What that post says is that IF you are shooting with a DSLR, THEN you no longer need a flash meter when using off-camera strobes.

What part of that assertion don't you agree with? Do you yourself shoot with DSLRs using monoblocks or a pack-and-head system and yet still use a separate handheld flash meter? Are you acquainted with working studio professionals who shoot with DSLRs or medium-format digital backs and studio strobes and yet still use handheld flash meters for every shot? (I can actually understand using a meter to help set up complicated multi-light setups with careful ratios, but the example I used in the post concerned a single monoblock shot through an umbrella.) If you do, please name them. I'd like to contact them. I'd be curious to learn why they're doing it that way.

Mike Johnston

*********
I think the key here is to lighten up; and I do not mean exposure.

 

[phenix]

He says:
“I mean, light meters were never any fun to use. They added nothing to the experience of photography. They just existed to help you see in the dark.”

I say:
Well, that’s enough for me. And seeing in the dark is fan too.

 

[Vaughn]

Mike, I think the article was re-presented to the wrong audience, with the intended audience being commercial studio photographers. That and a couple things you wrote that you may have intended as jokes were taken seriously by the wrong audience, such as...

They (lightmeters) just existed to help you see in the dark.

That is a pretty silly statement...makes you sound like you have problems telling the difference between a light meter and a flash light.

I might be wrong, but it seems to me that if any species of photographic kit has been rendered 100% redundant—and hence, obsolete—by digital, it's light meters.

(Boldface is mine) This also sounds pretty silly to those using LF in the field.

So unfortunately this old article, though written as if it might apply to all photography, really applies to a narrow audience. So taken out of its proper context, you did unavoidably come off sounding a bit like an idiot.

I can understand that in a studio situation, using a consistance light source(s), that hand-held meters would just be an unused piece of equipment. Experience (coupled with the digital camera) would be a quick accurate way to work.

Vaughn

 

[Lee L]

When I need a spot meter for my Hasselblad, I use my Nikon F100 to check the brightest, darkest, and what I want to be 18% gray.

Steve

That's my point. In the context of using DSLR as "polaroid" for studio flash with no need for an external meter when you're judging from what is in essence the final product, this practice draws ridicule on APUG for bypassing a flash meter. But in the context of using a (D)SLR as light meter for film photography, it always passes with little to no comment on APUG.

It's also interesting (at least to me) to note that Mike Johnston has been a member of APUG longer than the people ridiculing him, taking his writing out of context, and calling him names in this thread.

With regards to John's admonition to lighten up, seemingly directed at Mike, I'd say the admonition is misdirected. Mike is trying to clarify and provide context. He's not the one calling people names and presuming to say good riddance to anyone on behalf of "the world of analog photography".

BTW, just to be clear, I don't think there's any reason to assume that the OP was indicating an attitude of ridicule regarding Mike's article.

Lee

 

[mark]

The only thing that really annoys me here is that someone has managed to find an old post of mine, ostensibly read it, and yet didn't understand what the point of it was.

I assure you that I read the article, and that I reread the article, because at first I honestly thought you were joking. I understood what you wrote, and found it funny. Still do.

 

[Ian David]

...Oh, and by the bye, I was a custom black-and-white printer for years, I used to teach darkroom printing, I used to be Editor-in-Chief of a darkroom magazine, and I wrote more than 80 columns for the English Black & White Photography magazine. Photographs printed by me are in major museum collections all over the world. I have my Dektol-smelling credentials in order, thanks.

MJ

I may be wrong, but I didn't read the Dektol-smelling comment as directed at you, Mike. I think Bob may have been responding to John and referring to someone else who sometimes get a bit excited about obscure metering tangents...
Ian

 

[Ed Sukach]

The last thing I would do is ridicule Mr. Johnston (or anyone else, for that matter). His reputation - I remember Camera and Darkroom (in fact, sorely missed) is, in my book, impeccable.

However, I can understand the reaction from *some* here on APUG. One must consider the often seen attitude of *some* (being kind here ... ) of the d*****l persuasion who INSIST!!! that chemical/ analogue photography is dead, and do not hestitate to squeal that all who disagree are idiotic dolt - Luddists who simply do not have the capacity to understand that fact!

Reading that article was a surprise to me - truthfully, it did not "sound" like the Mike Johnston I remebered reading in C&D. That Mike Johnston was considerably more tolerant of those who approached the process 'from different angles' - but hey - we all change and some harden - over time.

Do I personally disagree with the idea that exposure meters are totally useless? Yes, I do. One great use is in conserving the amount of polaroids in the studio, along with simply saving time - not waiting for "instant" processing.
Could I replace my flash meter with a DSLR? Only by making numerous exposures, and trying to extrapolate to what an "incident" exposure would be ...

As you can see, the search for one of us here who actaully DOES use a flash meter, especially in the studio, is over.

Mr. Johnston is certainly entitled to his opinion, together with his choice of words and syntax to indicate its strength. It may take a bit of self discipine to listen to/ read it (Amaretto flavored innertube held between ones teeth may be useful) but, If we are to "test" our opinons against those of others in search of truth - we gotta do it.

 

[BobNewYork]

I may be wrong, but I didn't read the Dektol-smelling comment as directed at you, Mike. I think Bob may have been responding to John and referring to someone else who sometimes get a bit excited about obscure metering tangents...
Ian

It was actually just a throw-away line somewhat in-synch. (so I thought at the time) with the OP. Mike, I'm really sorry if you took it personally - it wasn't meant to be.

Mea Culpa

Bob H

 

[Chan Tran]

I used my exposure meters (can't afford the light meters) to measure light. Not neccesarily for photography purposes.

 

[MattKing]

An instructional course needed

I'm wondering if there is anyone out there who:

1) shoots digital in colour and black and white;
2) shoots black and white film (primarily negative film, but transparencies would be good too);
3) shoots colour negative film; and
4) shoots colour transparency film, and

would be able to put together an illustrated article that shows how s/he approaches a subject with a wide range of tones/colours, with an eye to communicating:

a) the strengths and weaknesses of each recording media; and
b) the different approaches to obtaining satisfactory exposures.

Is this possible?

Matt

 

[2F/2F]

News flash 2:

Mike Johnston is an informed and generous commentator and photographer who--unlike some around here--covers the analogue and digital worlds with equanimity. He wrote a valuable column for the UK Black & White Photography journal for years without encountering the unsubstantiated hysteria above.

He single handedly runs his site and is trusted by many manufacturers to deliver objective reviews.

As with APUG, Photonet, LF Forum I have learnt from him as well.

The childish display by APUG members on this subject is embarrassing.

Ross

I don't know (or care) who he is and what he has done. I made my judgment and comments based on this one article, and I feel fine about doing so. They were "exaggeratory" and a good deal humorously intended. They are obviously such, because I would not use those terms in an actual forum for academic debate, but the point behind them stands. If you are going to write such an ignorant article, you should expect a strong, and less-than-academic, response, and a hefty degree of judgment.

 

[JBrunner]

I use my meters a lot, for film, video, motion picture, and digital. If I'm popping about, in camera meters are fine. Many of the studio shoots I do are complex enough that I want the versatility of a hand held meter. Even though I get "instant feedback" from the D thingie, I don't care to drag my camera all over set, and the instant feedback even including the histogram, doesn't give me all the info regarding ratios, etc in specific places. 99% of my d pictures never see the inside of PS, nor would I want it that way. They get converted and color corrected, and that's it, and that is all most ever need. I'm a photographer, not a graphic artist/computer geek.

That said, picking one article out of literally thousands and crucifying Mike for it is completely out of context. I have followed Mike for years, and he has plenty of good things to say that are worth reading. I don't always agree, but I do more often than not, and even when I don't, it isn't because his reasoning is unsound, it just doesn't agree with mine. I'm happy to see him posting here, I just wish it wasn't in response to a bums rush. Mike has and does promote all kinds of photography.

I read the article in question, and I understand the point. For certain kinds of photographers it may ring true. For me and my circle, it doesn't, for a variety of reasons. I'm fine with that the way it is. I can quite happily dismiss it as not applying to me, without ridicule, and I'm at a loss to understand why that is difficult for some. IMO in-camera meters were around long before digital. I believe it has more to do with the present attitude and work flow (fast, fast, lots of shots, fix it later) That isn't good r bad, just a way of working that has caught on for the moment.

If you don't agree with someone, present some reasoning in a constructive and well thought out manner, and you may garner at least respect, despite disagreement. I find that to be the prevalent character of APUG, despite missteps like this thread.

I'm going to leave it open for discussion of the actual practicality of hand held vs in camera metering. If it degenerates, I'll send it down.

 

[Perry Way]

I never did like the most complex meters at the high end of the market. I used relatively simple Sekonics myself (the one with the swivel heads; a loose copy of a Gossen model that I think is discontinued).

I have two Sekonics. The swivel head incident meter with the white globe, man that is an awesome analog meter. Love the fact that you don't have to spend extra money on batteries. That is just way awesome. And it works fantastic. It's also like having an analog watch, it keeps your mind working, and that is part of the enjoyment of photography for me. How am I going to be able to capture this scene best? (not that I'm any good at this artform consistently haha!)

The other Sekonic I have is older, and it's fair to say it's a spot meter, or .. well.. as best as a spot meter could be back in the day. And it still works like a champ as well. I use both.

 

[PeteZ8]

I use a light meter even on digital. Just because something "looks" ok on a 3" LCD, perhaps in the glaring sun, and my histogram doesn't show any spikes or gaps, doesn't mean I have made a good exposure. A histogram and a thumbnail image does not tell me the ratio of light, only that I have it. That's fine if you shoot nothing but outdoor landscapes and your only goal is not blowing out the sky, but it doesn't tell me how many stops are on one side of a portrait to another, or how much fill I need, or how under or over exposed my relevant subject is to the rest of the scene.