How Many People Use A Hand-Held Meter?

[BobNewYork]

Q.G. - FYI using a meter, spot, incident or in-camera, is NOT posing. They are each better than the other under certain circumstances. To make exposure decisions we need raw data. Different meters provide more accurate data under different conditions. An in-camera meter will not tell you if the brightness range exceeds your film and processing parameters - a spot meter will.

We are clever but human evaluations are relative - exposure meter's are absolute as are the limitations of film / processing / printing.

Bob

 

[Chuck_P]

And yes: a spot meter is the worst thing to use. (It really is!)

Ok, I'll bite. Why?

 

[Q.G.]

Ok, I'll bite. Why?

Quite simple: because it offers the most opportunities to get things wrong.
Unless, of course, you use it to take one single reading off a grey card.

'Integral', or large angle reflective light metering is harder to get wrong.

Incident light metering is nearly impossible to get wrong.


Mind you (not that you start believing this to mean that you will - inevitably - get things wrong more often using a spot meter): i have already said that if you know what you are doing, you can get things right with any type of meter.

But it is true that a spot meter offers more opportunity to get things wrong. So if you don't quite know what you are doing, stay away from spot meters, and get yourself an incident light meter.

 

[Q.G.]

Then why do I bother with it? There must be a reason...

So? What is it?

maybe it has to do with developing. Hope I haven't been duped...

The expose for the shadows, develop for the highlights thing?
A quite good thing it is indeed.

But not something requiring spot meters. We are quite good at recognizing high or low contrast scenes, and it's not High Art to decide what film to use when and how to process it.
And a (to some perhaps surprisingly) small choice of film and processing options covers all that needs to be covered.

 

[Ian David]

Q.G. - are you in the business of selling incident light meters?

Incident light meters are great. So are spot meters. It is very easy to get things right with a spot meter. If someone can manage a manual camera, they can manage a spot meter.

 

[Chan Tran]

But it is true that a spot meter offers more opportunity to get things wrong. So if you don't quite know what you are doing, stay away from spot meters, and get yourself an incident light meter.[/QUOTE

We must assume that everyone here knows what he/she is doing. Otherwise, don't get an incident light meter but simply put the camera on auto and matrix/evaluative mode. It would offers the fewest opportunity to get things wrong if you don't know what you're doing.

 

[JBrunner]

So? What is it?


The expose for the shadows, develop for the highlights thing?
A quite good thing it is indeed.

But not something requiring spot meters. We are quite good at recognizing high or low contrast scenes, and it's not High Art to decide what film to use when and how to process it.
And a (to some perhaps surprisingly) small choice of film and processing options covers all that needs to be covered.

Actually, no. Shooting sheet film offers a very wide range of processing options. Knowing precisely what place and fall are going to affect within the composition, and how I will ultimately develop and print the negative to achieve my intent is very valuable information.

I have a much higher chance of producing an average negative with an averaging meter, and I don't like average negatives. They are simply more work for less result in the end. Incident metering has its place, but dismissing a more precise tool simply because it takes more knowledge and effort to make use of it? I don't think so. To each his/her own, and if your comfort zone or work style makes one tool more appropriate, then of course it is "the better tool". Saying your tool or method is the best tool for everybody is provincial.

 

[Richjsn1]

Pentex Spot meter with my Mamiya RZ Pro II.

 

[Q.G.]

Actually, no. Shooting sheet film offers a very wide range of processing options. Knowing precisely what place and fall are going to affect within the composition, and how I will ultimately develop and print the negative to achieve my intent is very valuable information.

Sure.
I tried to resist, but i will now point out that 'even St Ansel' carried two films, with two processing options each.
He didn't do badly, did he?

I have a much higher chance of producing an average negative with an averaging meter, and I don't like average negatives.

You also have a chance to produce any other negatove using an averaging meter.
As mentioned before, it is not the meter that determines what you do with it.

The difference between the tools is not that one is more precise than the other.
The difference is in the length of the process you have to go through to arrive at the exact same result.

Saying your tool or method is the best tool for everybody is provincial.

Indeed. That was and still is my point.

So be careful when saying things like "more precise", "average negatives" and all that.

 

[Q.G.]

We must assume that everyone here knows what he/she is doing. Otherwise, don't get an incident light meter but simply put the camera on auto and matrix/evaluative mode. It would offers the fewest opportunity to get things wrong if you don't know what you're doing.

Quite right.

 

[JBrunner]

You also have a chance to produce any other negatove using an averaging meter.
As mentioned before, it is not the meter that determines what you do with it.

I prefer not to leave things to chance. Averaging meters make determinations. Spot meters give unbiased information about specific things. Better decisions can be made with more precise information.

 

[IloveTLRs]

Recently I've been trying to go without a meter. I feel like it's a crutch when shooting B&W.

 

[JBrunner]

Recently I've been trying to go without a meter. I feel like it's a crutch when shooting B&W.

Rock on. St Edward didn't need no stinkin meters!

 

[Thomas Bertilsson]

Sunny 16 never fails, so I use it when the angle of the sun is such that I need my crutch.

The less you use the meter, the better you become at judging. Takes a bit of film to get there, though.

 

[Chuck_P]

O.G.

Your're pushing some poor advice IMO (I can't say it any better that what Jason said). Any new folks listening in need to know the pitfalls and positive aspects of each: wide area reflective metering, incident metering, and narrow angle reflective spot metering. I think it's highly pretentious of you to continue your line of rationale, but it's your right to do so.

 

[Wade D]

I use an old Sekonic L-86 meter that I bought in 1971. Still works great.

 

[benjiboy]

I do have four cameras with TTL metering, but can't help feeling sometimes It's a bit like painting by numbers, and if I use a hand held meter, think about the exposure before setting the camera and don't let the camera do the thinking for me I have contributed more to the final result.

 

[BobNewYork]

benjiboy I do have four cameras with TTL metering, but can't help feeling sometimes It's a bit like painting by numbers, and if I use a hand held meter, think about the exposure before setting the camera and don't let the camera do the thinking for me I have contributed more to the final result.

I hear you. I think it's really a question of getting to know the shortcomings of each meter and then using the appropriate meter for your particular requirements. TTL is invaluable for such things as street shooting - but it can get fooled under some conditions. Incident is great for many situations, but again it's not useful for a distant subject where you can't place the meter appropriately - the spot meter comes into it's own here. At the end of the day are you happy with your results? If so you're doing it the right way IMHO. I'm not so sure that it's the journey in photography, but the destination that's most important.

Bob

 

[benjiboy]

I hear you. I think it's really a question of getting to know the shortcomings of each meter and then using the appropriate meter for your particular requirements. TTL is invaluable for such things as street shooting - but it can get fooled under some conditions. Incident is great for many situations, but again it's not useful for a distant subject where you can't place the meter appropriately - the spot meter comes into it's own here. At the end of the day are you happy with your results? If so you're doing it the right way IMHO. I'm not so sure that it's the journey in photography, but the destination that's most important.

Bob

Well said Bob, I agree entirely It's having the knowledge and experience to recognise the situations that would fool TTL metering.

 

[Jean Noire]

This has been an interesting thread to read.
One thing concerns me is why is this a poll?
It is interesting and informative to discus the merits, or otherwise, of hand held meters but asking for numbers is collecting raw data and smacks of market research. Is this the case? If not why do you want numbers?
Regards
John.

 

[BobNewYork]

Pssst, John - Have I got a meter for you !!

 

[Jean Noire]

Pssst, John - Have I got a meter for you !!

don't need one thanks
Just like to know why some-one wants figures.
regards,
John

 

[David Nardi]

I think there's really no other choice for LF shooters. Especially those that shoot on color transparency film like I do.

The Sekonic L-558 has worked flawlessly for me every time. It's a great way to keep all your values in check as the light changes. Hand-held meters are so useful that I don't even trust my built in camera meters anymore.

David

David S. Nardi Photography
www.davidnardi.com

 

[Chan Tran]

I used to have a meter even when I don't have a camera. Meter and camera are not related.

 

[BobNewYork]

Chan Tran

I used to have a meter even when I don't have a camera. Meter and camera are not related.

But isn't a meter without a camera a bit like having a.....Ah, never mind!