Help with Sekonic L-358

[jasonjoo]

Hey folks,

I recently purchased a Sekonic L-358 light meter. I understand how to use the lightmeter to a certain degree, but I am getting readings fairly different from the readings from my EOS 3.

With the lumisphere, I am getting totally different exposure readings from the Sekonic and the EOS 3. I believe this is because the Sekonic is measuring the incident light and the EOS 3 is measuring the reflected light? Someone at the photo store said to always use incident readings. However, with the reflected light adaptor, I am getting similar readings from both the Sekonic and the EOS 3.

I'm unsure which option to use. Should I trust the light meter's incident reading and shoot my EOS 3 in manual mode and expose at the settings the meter spits out? Based on previous experience, I feel that the incident meter is overexposing the "scene" quite a bit than normal. I am metering objects from my desk, which is lit by a small desk lamp and a larger halogen lamp placed elsewhere in the room (the room is 12' x 13').

Also, the manual does not mention what FOV the meter is reading at. Is this not an important aspect when taking an incident exposure? The manual mentions that the reflected meter adaptor should read around 54º. Is this the same as the focal length (I'm guessing no!).

Sorry for all these basic questions. I admit, I've been spoiled with a digital camera. I understand the basics of exposure, but have never really thought about incident/reflected light. With my digital camera, I knew that if I metered off something black or white, I would compensate for it with +/- EV. Now with a Rolleiflex without light meter, I must depend on the Sekonic to give me exposure readings.

I'm sorry if my thought process is a bit... hard to follow. I hope I made some sense, but I haven't had much sleep lately due to exams

Thanks in advance,

Jason

 

[eddym]

I'm unsure which option to use. Should I trust the light meter's incident reading and shoot my EOS 3 in manual mode and expose at the settings the meter spits out?

Yes. Then if your negatives are overexposed, you should make adjustments to the exposure. But almost every time, an accurate incident meter, used properly, will give you the most accurate exposure. Of course, you have permission to try creative variations..

 

[Nick Zentena]

Are you adjusting the reflected readings to deal with the scene? White will read brighter then correct. Black darker. If you are the incident and reflected readings shouldn't be widely different.

 

[mahler]

Based on previous experience, I feel that the incident meter is overexposing the "scene" quite a bit than normal. I am metering objects from my desk, which is lit by a small desk lamp and a larger halogen lamp placed elsewhere in the room (the room is 12' x 13').

Couple of questions immediately come to mind then:

1. Are you metering for the correct part of your scene? Like you, I'm also sitting in front of my computer, in a room lit with a halogen lamp. I just took a spot reading of the brightest part of the room (the top of the halogen lamp), which registered at EV14 @ ISO 400, and the darkest part of the room (a dim corner), which registered at EV3.5: more than 10 stops difference. In the extreme case, if you set your EOS-3 to the EV3.5 settings and made a test shot around the halogen bulb, then of course the image will be way overexposed (and vice versa).
   
2. Development If you're developing the film yourself, are you overdeveloping it (e.g., too long, too hot, etc)?

I would suggest a couple of things while you're getting to know your spot meter: First, restrict yourself to a low-contrast area (e.g., an evenly lit section of wall in your room would do). Take your spot reading from there, and compare the exact same area using your EOS. I think you'll find a more even reading between the EOS and the Sekonic. Then you can move to a more contrasty area and practice correct spot exposures.

Secondly, if you have the time and inclination: Zone system tests. How much you want to do is of course up to you, but even exposing a single roll on an evenly lit patch of wall from pure black to pure white (using spot readings from the Sekonic), then developing the roll can be enlightening. At the very least, it will alert you to any adjustments you might need to make, both in exposure and development.

Hope this helps.

EDIT: Sorry Jason... just reread your post, and I just realized that your meter is incident-only. Same basic points still apply though, with respect to making sure your reading is taken from the proper part of your scene.

 

[Bob F.]

As in the past, you have to apply technique, adjusting your exposure to suit the conditions. It could be argued that an incident reading is most useful in controlled studio conditions where you have control over the lighting and that a reflected light reading provides more information in most cases. An incident reading tells you nothing about the scene in front of you. It does not know how dark the shadows are or how bright the highlights are. It tells you the exposure required to render a mid-grey tone in the scene as a mid-grey on the final print. If your scene contains shadow detail that you want to bring out you may well need to increase the exposure.

A reflected meter can be pointed at the shadows to get a shadow reading and at highlights to get more information to allow you to adjust exposure (and optionally development too if shooting b&w) accordingly. A spot-meter is the best tool for this of course.

In general, using an incident meter requires that it be placed in the same light as the subject with the sphere pointing in the same direction as a line between the subject and the camera. In a studio this means putting the meter next to the subject and pointing it at the camera. Your meter's manual will probably show other more subtle techniques used in the studio but that is not an area where I have any experience - I use a spotmeter pretty much universally...

If shooting landscapes, you can usually just hold it at the camera and hold it aligned in the same direction as if you were pointing it from the subject to the camera (assuming of course that the sunlight is the same at the subject location as it is at yours).

Good luck, Bob.

 

[jasonjoo]

Eddy, I'll be shooting both slide and print film, and understand that slide film is not as flexible as print film is when it comes to setting the exposure. I won't be developing my own film for the time being. I am going up to Yosemite this coming week and will be shooting both slide and print film and will have the film developed at a pro lab.

Nick, I believe most cameras take the reflected reading correct? If so, then when I use the meter to read reflected light (I have to switch out the white lumisphere for a clear panel) then regardless of adjustments, the meter and camera should have similar readings, and this was the case for me. I'm just wondering why the incident readings were so much different.

Mahler, when I was taking readings with both the light meter and the EOS 3, I was pointing them at the same object at about the same distance. I thought since I had a wide angle on my EOS 3 (17-40mm), I thought the camera was getting different readings than the light meter. The manual doesnt mention what the FOV of the light meter is when reading in incident, but says that it is 54º with the reflective light meter adaptor. Also, I will not be able to use the L-358 as a spot meter for the time being, because it would need a special adaptor. I don't have time to purchase one now.

Bob, like I mentioned just a few lines above, I will not be able to use the L-358 as a spot meter. When taking exposure readings for a large scene, like lets say from Tunnel View at Yosemite, how would I take readings for the shadows and highlights in this scene? I believe the FOV of the lightmeter is 54º, and while I don't know what the registers to in focal length, mathematically speaking, that is still a good chunk. Using the incident readings would be hard to get especially in any landscape photo (which is what I'll be doing in Yosemite ).

Yikes, all this light meter stuff is quite overwhelming. I naively thought that it would be something so much more simpler. More like, turn the meter on, point it at the scene, take the reading, and adjust my camera to that reading. I DO understand the basics of exposure. And I do know how to compensate for readings made on dark subjects or light subjects, but I have no idea why this light meter is throwing me off.

For starters, when I take an "incident" reading of my computer monitor or light bulb (the meter pointed directly into the bulb), I was really expecting really high shutter speeds at ISO 400 and f1.8. However, I was getting much more slower readings. When using the meter to read the reflected light, things were more "normal" and was only off by +0.3EV.

Thanks for taking some time to help me out. I must sound like a bumbling idiot!

Jason

 

[eddym]

Eddy, I'll be shooting both slide and print film, and understand that slide film is not as flexible as print film is when it comes to setting the exposure. I won't be developing my own film for the time being. I am going up to Yosemite this coming week and will be shooting both slide and print film and will have the film developed at a pro lab.

Which film you shoot really doesn't matter, except that slide film has a narrower tonal range than negative (also known as "latitude"). Proper exposure is important for both; but the nuances are different. Transparency film can take more underexposure than negative; negative film can take more overexposure than transparency. My advice to adjust your exposure according to the results applies the same to either.

Yikes, all this light meter stuff is quite overwhelming. I naively thought that it would be something so much more simpler. More like, turn the meter on, point it at the scene, take the reading, and adjust my camera to that reading. I DO understand the basics of exposure. And I do know how to compensate for readings made on dark subjects or light subjects, but I have no idea why this light meter is throwing me off.

Well, actually it is simpler... if you use an incident meter. With a slight variation in what you said, all you have to do is turn the meter on, POINT IT AT THE CAMERA FROM THE POSITION OF THE SUBJECT, take the reading, and set the camera. You can actually take the reading from the camera position AS LONG AS THE SUBJECT IS IN THE SAME LIGHT AS YOU ARE. Don't meter the light falling on the sunny side of the street and take a picture of the shady side. With an incident meter, you are metering the light FALLING ON THE SUBJECT, not the light reflected from the subject, so your reading is not affected by the lightness or darkness of the subject. Light tones will be light and dark tones will be dark. It's that simple.

For starters, when I take an "incident" reading of my computer monitor or light bulb (the meter pointed directly into the bulb), I was really expecting really high shutter speeds at ISO 400 and f1.8. However, I was getting much more slower readings. When using the meter to read the reflected light, things were more "normal" and was only off by +0.3EV.

I don't really understand what you are saying. How are you taking an incident reading of your computer monitor? Do you mean you are reading the light coming from the monitor or the light falling on the monitor from another light source? In other words, which way is the bulb pointing?

The thing you have to remember about reflected light meters is that they all think the world is medium gray. If you point it at a black sheep, the sheep does not magically become gray, but the meter thinks it did. And if you take a picture of that sheep at the reflected meter reading from it, the sheep will be gray in your picture, not black. Ditto for a white sheep. So when you meter with a reflected meter, you have to be careful to meter something gray, not something white or something black. If you meter something other than gray, then you have to adjust your reading by how much darker or lighter it is than gray.

With an incident meter, you read the light, not the reflection.

 

[Tim Gray]

Grain of salt: I don't have a meter other than what is in my camera.

I think the way this meter is designed to be used is incident. Think of it this way. You are shooting a scene that consists of somebody sitting in a chair 10 feet a way from you. The light illuminating the scene is behind you. You would point your camera at the scene and take a reading as normal. This meter reading makes whatever you pointed your camera at 18% gray.

To take a reading with your meter, you should walk over to where the person and the chair are, and point your meter towards your shooting position. This meter reading makes 18% gray 18% gray. Distance from the light source does play a factor here due to 1/r^2.

Outside, in landscape type shooting, you can probably get away with pointing the meter away from the scene from the camera position, because the distance between you and the scene is nothing compared the distance between you and the sun.

That being said, I would imagine incident metering is pretty much useless for anything other than, "In this light, what is the appropriate exposure for making an 18% gray card come out as 18% gray on film." That is a bit different than making the scene 18% gray if you think about it. So, if you want to make sure some part of the scene is well exposed that is below 18% gray (or in dark shadows), you will have to adjust from the reading.

I would also imagine that in tricky lighting situations (indoors for example) you are a lot better off using reflected metering in your camera. One minute a subject might be 10 feet from a light and the next he might be 3. You would either have to constantly compensate your exposures, or take a new reading every time the subject moves closer or further away from the lighting. In this kind of situation, I would take the spot metering in your Eos 3 any day.

Incident metering sounds like it would be great for walking the streets or something. Take a reading and just go with it until the lighting changes.

 

[Bob F.]

Yes, I know you don't have a spot-meter, I just mentioned it in passing as the best solution for the kind of metering I mentioned. The simplest way to use a meter in reflected mode is to simply point it at the scene while pointing it down somewhat to avoid getting too much sky in the reading in the case of negative film and point it at the horizon or slightly up for slide film. How much? Only experience can tell you that unfortunately...

My suggestion at this stage as you do not have much time to test is to take your camera with its built-in meter and use it as a sanity-check against your hand metering.

Have fun, Bob.

 

[gr82bart]

believe this is because the Sekonic is measuring the incident light and the EOS 3 is measuring the reflected light?

Should I trust the light meter's incident reading and shoot my EOS 3 in manual mode and expose at the settings the meter spits out?

Yes and yes. Pretty much what everyone else said.

One thing I hope you are doing is: when taking an incident reading with the dome, you are placing the meter at the object/subject with the dome pointing at the light source (or camera depending on the exposure effect you want) ?

Regards, Art.

 

[jasonjoo]

Just to clarify, I was point the dome towards my computer monitor because I wanted to expose for the monitor, not the amount of ambient light reaching the monitor. The ambient light in my room was far less "brighter" than the monitor itself, so I figured if I were to expose FOR the monitor, I should have pointed the dome towards the monitor and not the camera. Is this the right thought process?

It sure would have been nice to have my digital camera still. THen I would be able to do some test shots with the light meter and see how it would affect the final image in camera. Can't do this with film, well especially because I don't have the time right now.

Thanks again guys for your help. Hope I'm not giving you guys any headaches!

Jason

 

[MattKing]

Jason:

I use the incident mode on my meters a lot.

The incident meter measures the light falling on the meter. If you place the incident meter at the subject's position, and point it generally toward the camera, it will measure how much light is falling on the subject. The reason that the incident meter uses a dome (and the reason you don't have field of view numbers for your meter in incident mode) is that the meter measures all the light falling on that side of the subject, even if it is coming from a number of different directions.

If you have a large, diffused light source (such as a cloudy sky) the light coming from the side, or above, or below may have a large affect on the exposure.

In contrast, when you use the meter in reflected mode, you are measuring how much light is reflecting back off the subject. That reading is greatly affected by the subject itself. Dark subjects reflect less, so the meter will suggest something that will tend to lighten them. Light subjects will reflect more, so the meter will suggest something that will tend to darken them.

The L-358 can be used in either mode.

If the subject is reasonably evenly lit, I tend to measure the light in incident mode, and then gauge whether or not to adjust my camera exposure based on my observations of the subject and my experience. Basically, I look at the subject and estimate whether or not I want to give more exposure, because the darker portions of the subject are of most interest, or less exposure, because the lighter portions of the subject are of most interest.

If the subject is lit unevenly (e.g. part is in shadow, and part isn't), I'll take at least two incident readings, so as to determine how much light is hitting each part. I'll then choose my final exposure, based on which portions of the subject are of most interest to me, favoring either the exposure suggested by the shadow reading, or one of the other readings instead. This is a bit trickier, because usually you want shadows to appear as shadows, just a little lighter than they might otherwise turn out. Having some idea about the Zone system and how it works is useful here.

I think I prefer the incident mode because it allows me to separate my thinking into two parts - first I use the meter to help me measure and consider the light intensity and quality, and then I use my observations concerning the subject's tones and reflectance.

Matt

 

[Anscojohn]

I try to keep things simple as possible. For general photography, I carry a grey card and meter it in the same light as the subject. I find, also, a meter reading taken from the palm of my hand (in the same light as my subject), plus one stop for actual exposure, works for 99 44/100s percent of the time. Dinosaur that I am, I still use a Weston Master V. My Gossen Luna-Six has a spot meter attachment but i rarely use it.

 

[MattKing]

Just to clarify, I was point the dome towards my computer monitor because I wanted to expose for the monitor, not the amount of ambient light reaching the monitor. The ambient light in my room was far less "brighter" than the monitor itself, so I figured if I were to expose FOR the monitor, I should have pointed the dome towards the monitor and not the camera. Is this the right thought process?
Jason

Jason:

This only works in incident mode (i.e. with the dome) if you are using the monitor as a source for light, rather than as the subject of the photograph. If you point your incident meter toward the monitor, your meter measures how much light is coming from your monitor.

You might do this, for instance if you were trying to take a photograph of someone's face while they were working at the computer, where the light illuminating their face came from the monitor itself.

You wouldn't use the meter this way if you wanted a photograph of the monitor itself.

Matt

 

[HerrBremerhaven]

Just to add to the already informative posts, I have been using an L-358 almost four years. It has been incredibly reliable, and I find that I can trust it implicitly. Sekonic have a great classroom on-line for metering:

http://www.sekonic.com/classroom/classroom_2.asp

Once you get use to thinking about the light falling upon a subject, then you are thinking correctly for incident reading. Of course, you can still adjust a bit over or under exposure. You could also bracket a roll of film, while taking many notes, and see how your technique and metering coincide. I did a bracket test when I first got my L-358, and that was the start of me trusting this meter, intead of the camera.

Ciao!

Gordon Moat Photography

 

[Bob F.]

Just to clarify, I was point the dome towards my computer monitor because I wanted to expose for the monitor, not the amount of ambient light reaching the monitor. The ambient light in my room was far less "brighter" than the monitor itself, so I figured if I were to expose FOR the monitor, I should have pointed the dome towards the monitor and not the camera. Is this the right thought process?

...

Jason

Nope. For the reasons already stated by others. That would work (sort of) if you were taking a reflected reading, but not an incident one.

"Incident" in this context means the light incident upon (i.e. "falling" on) the subject*. So no, not the light being emitted by the subject or reflected by it. Just get the idea fixed that you are measuring the light falling on (incident upon) the subject and it should become clear.


Cheers, Bob.


* incident, a.1 II. 7. Falling or striking upon or against; acting upon anything from without. esp. of light: Falling or striking upon a surface often in photographic contexts. Const. upon. - OED

 

[jasonjoo]

Well do I feel smart! Thanks for clearing that up guys. I guess I was trying to make an incident reading to be like a reflected reading. I have one more night to do some more "testing" before I'm off for my trip, but seeing as it may rain while I'm in Yosemite, I just may learn how to use my meter in my hotel room

Thanks again guys, I appreciate your time and help!

Lets hope for some snow

Jason

And thanks for the link Gordon! Checking it out right now...

 

[Tim Gray]

Yeah, just to beat a dead horse , the reading you were taking would be great if you were taking a picture of a subject (a person) sitting in front of the monitor at the same location that you were metering from. In other words, a picture of someone illuminated by the light of the monitor...

 

[jasonjoo]

Thanks Tim

So then, if I needed to expose for the monitor itself, or lets say a bright neon light, I would have to take a reflective meter reading as opposed to the incident reading correct?

 

[eddym]

Just to clarify, I was point the dome towards my computer monitor because I wanted to expose for the monitor, not the amount of ambient light reaching the monitor. The ambient light in my room was far less "brighter" than the monitor itself, so I figured if I were to expose FOR the monitor, I should have pointed the dome towards the monitor and not the camera. Is this the right thought process?

No. The meter now thinks the monitor is the light source and is giving you a reading for a subject illuminated by that source. This should give you a picture of a totally white monitor screen... as if you took a picture of a light bulb, but exposed for an object lit by the bulb.

To take a picture of the monitor, you need to meter the screen with a reflected light meter. BUT this will result in placing the monitor screen on Zone V, which is medium gray. Is your monitor screen gray? Probably not; so you would need to adjust the reading to make the screen appear as it does to your eye.

Do you have a Kodak gray card? You should get one, it's a very valuable tool. If you have one, place it next to your monitor screen and take a reading off it, and another reading off the screen. Set your camera for the reading from the card, and the screen should look "normal" in a photo.

 

[HerrBremerhaven]

. . . . . .

So then, if I needed to expose for the monitor itself, or lets say a bright neon light, I would have to take a reflective meter reading as opposed to the incident reading correct?

If only the monitor, or the light, fills the entire frame, then you can take an incident reading of the light coming from the monitor. If you want the computer screen edges, the keyboard, or any other parts of the computer in the final image, then you need two meter readings to balance it out.

What you would do is rotate the head of your L-358 towards the monitor. Then take a reading. Then press the AVE./∆EV button, rotate the head of the L-358 away from the computer monitor, and take another reading. You should now have two dots on your display. Your correct exposure (like for transparency film), will be between those two readings. Depending upon which reading you expose closer to will determine how much the monitor affects exposure, and how much the light falling upon the computer affects exposure.

You basically have two light sources when you are photographing a computer or television. In a daylight lit room, the daylight will be much stronger than the monitor, so you would bias towards the daylight reading. In a dark room, with mostly the monitor visible, the monitor will provide most of the light, so bias towards that reading.

If you have time, or are not sure, then bracket shots (on transparency film) between the two reading. If you are shooting negative film, then any reading between the two should get you close enough.

Same applies for photographing neon lights. If you only want the neon lights, and everything else in the image dark or near black, then you bias towards the reading from the neon lights. It is still incident reading, though this time the light going towards the camera, and not that falling upon the subject.

It probably sounds counter-intuitive. If you take the time to run a roll of transparency film through a bracket test with one set-up, then you will get a better feel for this. Afterwards you should be able to handle any artificial light situation.

Anytime you are in a hurry with a set-up, either shoot negative film, or expect to bracket a few shots. The best looking exposure might not always be the technically correct reading.

Ciao!

Gordon Moat Photography