Best light meter-good for a laugh

[mark]

I have lost my newest light meter, so I typed into google "best light meter" and came up with this. I found it very humorous.

Please note that I am not posting this as a way to bash digital. I just thought it funny

http://theonlinephotographer.blogspot.com/2007/04/light-meters-c-2007.html

 

[hoffy]

ummm, yeah....

 

[2F/2F]

News flash: The person who wrote that article is an idiot, a moron, and a dolt. The follow up comments are laughable as well. I will never cease to be amazed how technically inept so many supposed professionals on the Internet are, and by the ways in which they work. Goes to show you that making a living in photography has about 1% to do with technical matters. Good riddance from the world of analog photography!

 

[Ian David]

More bulky cr*p to carry around? Yes please!

 

[John R.]

Humorous is right! To the point of the comments being almost hysterical.

 

[Anscojohn]

Digit-hel crapola. Never replace my Leudi, dontchaknow!! Not to mention a candle and a grease spot in a juice can.

 

[Poisson Du Jour]

What are they trying to get off their backs in the blog comments that follow the article?
It's all a lot of pretentious, chest-beating, tongue-slapping piffle, v.i.z.:

You are entirely right. Light meters are completely useless, and were only marginally helpful even with film. All of us pros always leaned heavily on polaroids. Contrary to what one may think, the more lights and the more complicated the lighting set up, the more useless a light meter is.

I can't believe anyone buys them, but even more curious to me is that on any forum on any given day, someone will vehemently defend their use. It is almost like saying digital is as good as film. It drives some people crazy.

The facts are the facts, though. I don't know any pros who bother with light meters.

I know some amateurs who say it is important to use a light meter to impress the models.

Oh, come on! Not obviously a working professional!
As the OP said at the start, "good for a laugh". My bloody oath it is. Fit for the garbage.

 

[Anscojohn]

I know some amateurs who say it is important to use a light meter to impress the models.
******
First Model; Wow, look at that Leudi he has!
2nd Model: You should see his grease spot in the juice can!
Together: A REAL semi-professional photographer!!

 

[Lee L]

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.

Mike Johnston has been around photography as a magazine editor, equipment reviewer, and writer for decades, but has never made a living as a shooter, and admits that he may not be cut out for it. He sometimes uses hyperbole to make his points, but anyone who's read him over the years will know that he's not what you'd call dogmatic or inflexible in his thinking. He also puts his prejudices up front, and has things to say worth thinking about.

If you read what he says in the article then some of the responses here either assume he's lying about what he's seen in studios, or that he didn't admit that he may be missing something in his approach to thinking about light meters when doing digital photography, which is what the article is about. It's not about film photography. It's about not needing a light meter when you have instant digital feedback when shooting digital.

Lee

 

[Vaughn]

I know some amateurs who say it is important to use a light meter to impress the models.
******
First Model; Wow, look at that Leudi he has!
2nd Model: You should see his grease spot in the juice can!
Together: A REAL semi-professional photographer!!

Assuming the photographer is male...

Vaughn

PS...what I got from the article was -- understanding light is not important, understanding the histogram is.

 

[EASmithV]

Can someone please explain the grease spot and juice can thingy?

 

[Poisson Du Jour]

Can someone please explain the grease spot and juice can thingy?

Eugh—.... I fear....

 

[Anscojohn]

Can someone please explain the grease spot and juice can thingy?

************
Quote on:
One of the most common photometers is that of Bunsen, which consists of a screen of white paper with a grease-spot in its center. The lights to be compared are placed on opposite sides of this screen, and their distances are so adjusted that the grease-spot appears neither brighter nor darker than the rest of the paper, from whichever side it is viewed. When the distances have not been correctly adjusted, the grease-spot will appear darker than the rest of the paper when viewed from the side on which the illumination is most intense, and lighter than the rest of the paper when viewed from the other side. The intensities of the two lights are to one another as the squares of the distances from the screen at which they must be placed in order that the grease-spot may appear neither brighter nor darker than the rest of the paper. Quote off

I remember an article in an old photo mag about how to use this principle with a part of a brown paper bag and a juice can. That's all I remember. Perhaps other dinosaurs can help. And they may remember a Leudi, also

 

[Poisson Du Jour]

!! :munch: !!

 

[Ross Chambers]

News flash: The person who wrote that article is an idiot, a moron, and a dolt. The follow up comments are laughable as well. I will never cease to be amazed how technically inept so many supposed professionals on the Internet are, and by the ways in which they work. Goes to show you that making a living in photography has about 1% to do with technical matters. Good riddance from the world of analog photography!

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

 

[Ian David]

Hmmm, I dunno, Ross. There have been more embarrassing displays on APUG than this one...
I don't think Johnston is an idiot, and often what he writes is worth a read. However, he does firmly imply in the article referred to in the OP that even film users should probably just carry around a DSLR rather than a light meter. That is a pretty controversial idea, and bound to excite comment on an analogue forum, even if the article is a couple of years old. For mine, my camera bag is heavy enough already.
Ian

 

[hoffy]

Man, I think you are reading too much into it IanDavid.

I very much agree with what Ross has said

 

[Ian David]

You can just call me Ian if you like...
I am not really reading anything into it. I just read the words and drew the obvious implications. But, hey, it is not super-important. It is just an old article stating someone's opinion, to which they are entitled.
Ian

 

[Andy K]

The poster who wrote the following below the article hit the nail on the head:

" Let's face it, there's been an explosion of DSLRs sold with unprecedented numbers of people getting into "serious" photography. Where's the explosion in amazing photographs?"

 

[removed account4]

andy - seems like that person is a realist!

====

what's wrong with this thread is that no one here has gone off on a long winded tangent
"explaining" the history and construction of the light meter, selenium cell and lcd screen
dropping as many names as possible, references to old pre-war german photo manuals and magazines,
and uploading pdf filescans of advertisements in edwardian photo annuals ...

maybe that is coming on page 6 ? :confused:

 

[BobNewYork]

I used to like him - if he's the same guy who did battle with Fred Picker years ago ! learly the man needs to get out more and smell the Dektol

Bob H

P.S. - and as for variant meter construction............kidding

 

[Jeff Kubach]

Interesting article, gives light to what has happen to photograph in the last few years!

Jeff

 

[bsdunek]

Sounds to me like he never really learned to use a light meter. And "You didn't know how the exposure was going to look until you had the film developed, so you set the camera based on the light meter."??? I can hear Ansel rolling over now!
I agree that the image form the dicam shows what the photo will look like, but I have a pretty good idea what my film will look like too. Not that I haven't been mistaken. That little screen on the back of the camera may not look like the 11 X 14 print either. Still takes some work and experience, IMHO.
To each his own.

 

[wclark5179]

"....takes some work and experience, IMHO."

Sure does.

On my first class I took with Monte Zucker, a few years ago, I was amazed that one of the first ideas, he said was that he was going to learn as much as his students. Didn't make any difference to him, film or digital capture, it's equipment and much more goes into creating photographs than equipment. He did make the transition to digital because of many reasons. His photography never suffered because of digital capture versus film. I was amazed at how simple his stuff was and how great his images he made. He was my mentor and coach.

 

[Cheryl Jacobs]

I couldn't resist adding a reply on the blog. In the course of my workshops over the last four or five years, I've converted MANY digital shooters to handheld meters. The bottom line is, it doesn't matter how good the in-camera meter is if the operator doesn't understand how it works, and most of the professional shooters I've taught do not. They have no idea why the camera is exposing the way it is; they're just assuming it must be right. That's fine when you're shooting in soft, even light, but it doesn't work so hot in backlit situations. The camera simply can't read your mind. It doesn't know what you want the picture to look like.

Add a handheld meter, and people suddenly begin to understand exposure, and realize it's not nearly so complicated as they thought. It's amazing how much more fun it is to shoot when you're not "hoping" the exposure is OK.

- CJ