Why use a light meter: somebody persuade me.

rawhead · Dec 19, 2012

So it seems like the summary of this goddamned thread is that I should keep all three!!!! LOL

Well, congrats, you've all persuaded me to hold onto these at least for a little while longer and learn a few things and use them a few times before anything else. Thanks a lot, and please, if there's more useful info that can be added here for me and posterity, continue to do so.

E. von Hoegh · Dec 19, 2012

One thing to keep in mind is that those meters are high quality professional grade gear, made specifically to give the proper exposure under a very wide range of conditions. The'yre worth having, and well worth learning to use.

Using a DSLR (which isn't calibrated for film) may work under some conditions, but is a makeshift at best. Besides, the meters are smaller and lighter - as well as being better at what they do.

JBrunner · Dec 19, 2012

Dslr= large clunky expensive breakable thing best used for what it is intended. I say this for a couple of reasons, the foremost of is that you are unlikely to learn a damn thing about exposure using one.

rawhead · Dec 19, 2012

E. von Hoegh said:
Using a DSLR (which isn't calibrated for film) may work under some conditions, but is a makeshift at best. Besides, the meters are smaller and lighter - as well as being better at what they do.

I understand the size argument, and as I've mentioned several times in the thread, it's a moot point for me, because whether I'm taking one of my MF cameras (today I walked around with a Norita 66 and Rolleiflex SL66E), I'll almost certainly take one of my digital cameras, *usually* the 5Dmk2. It's just the way I shoot. This is an important point of the thread; it's not about choosing between a dedicated light meter OR a DSLR; rather, the question is, would it be worth always carrying around a dedicated meter *on top of* my iPhone and 5Dmk2 (etc.), and in what situations would they be most beneficial, *despite* the fact that with the DSLR (and iPhone), there's the distinct advantage that I can quickly get a "preview" of the exposure via LiveView and actual taking of the shot.

Incident metering and extreme low light metering are what's really convincing to me so far. The spot meter I'm going to hold onto because of a comment up there somewhere about its utility for shooting LF, and especially exposure critical films, e.g., reversal. I've been shooting a lot of 4x5 reversal film lately and there are cases where I'm cursing myself for failed exposures

Jeff Kubach · Dec 19, 2012

Maybe one day you might buy a camera without a meter.

Jeff

TheFlyingCamera · Dec 19, 2012

Also, bear in mind that the DSLR is of limited value as a preview tool because the LCD on the back is still rather small and doesn't have the dynamic range or the color accuracy to adequately judge an exposure. What you see is NOT what you get especially if you're comparing it to transparency film. Because of the significant latitude of negative films, you can be off by a bit and still have a workable negative. Bear in mind that transparency films work more like (but not the same as) digital in the sense that if you blow out your highlights, you can't get them back. But the response curves are different, so don't judge your transparency exposure based on chimping. Shoot enough of your chromes and take notes on the exposures so that you develop a sense of what will work with that film.

Poisson Du Jour · Dec 20, 2012

If you knew a few things about the 5D MkII evaluative meter, its balance and weighting, you'd run quickly to a hand-held meter. It is accurate as an integral camera system, not a comparative one. You would be much better learning metering with something like the Olympus OM4 and its variants, coming to grips with multispot metering, hightlight and shadow bias, additive metering and subtractive metering. The MK III FYI uses additive metering as part of a large algorithm designed to respond to key image criteria (digital lightmeters can often now be calibrated as additive, subtractive or mean in their measurements). In other words, the camera is working as a system against you, not in your favour, only insofar as committing the image to film after accepting what the meter says is gospel. Certainly, they have no capacity to measure critical, individual luminances of a scene that is so much a staple of refined traditional photographic metering technique.

Diapositivo · Dec 20, 2012

rawhead said:
Incident metering and extreme low light metering are what's really convincing to me so far. The spot meter I'm going to hold onto because of a comment up there somewhere about its utility for shooting LF, and especially exposure critical films, e.g., reversal. I've been shooting a lot of 4x5 reversal film lately and there are cases where I'm cursing myself for failed exposures

Spot metering can be VERY useful for slides.
Besides browsing the Exposure section of this fine forum, I suggest to pay a visit to:

http://www.spotmetering.com/

The final answer doesn't change: keep the three of them

EDIT: the site is not really rich of information. Better browsing the forum.

Chuck_P · Dec 20, 2012

almost 60 posts, I wander is the OP persuaded yet..........

removed account4 · Dec 20, 2012

light meters are just extra bulk to carry around
just get rid of all 3 of them, make some $$ buy some film
and practice reading the light so you don't need a meter.
i have 3 meters and never use any of them, and have them
"just in case" i have a tricky situation. endless meter readings
are a waste of time.

TheFlyingCamera · Dec 20, 2012

John- I haven't heard anyone in this thread talking about going into a Zone System twilight zone of endless metering before taking an exposure. Three or four readings are all that's needed in a tough situation, one or two in an easy one. Of course, knowing how to read a scene is a big help to know what to point the meter at in the first place. But you can scan a scene, pick out what you want to be the brightest highlight with detail, the darkest shadow with detail, note the range of stops, and calculate your exposure and development scheme based on the range. That's of course assuming you're trying for a 'fine art' landscape shot where that kind of tonal placement is critical. If you're shooting fast moving action, get a good incident reading and play Ron Popeil with the rotisserie oven - set it and forget it. Just keep aware of changing lighting conditions to know when to take another reading.

removed account4 · Dec 20, 2012

having a spot meter and an incident meter and camera with a meter, and digital camera with a meter, phone with a meter
metering 3 or 4 times, or whatever, its all the same thing. it is not hard to notice the light, know what shadows or brightness
needs more or less light and using one's head to figure out what to put the camera instead of being oblivious to it ...
equipment is just a distraction.

DWThomas · Dec 20, 2012

Heheh, well, I like some semblance of precision (it's an obsessive/compulsive leftover from an engineering career) and I now own three d!git@l cameras as well as a small gaggle of light meters. But here's one consideration, the whiz-bang super cameras will happily choose fractional f-stops and shutter speeds I won't find on my SQ-A or Perkeo II, etc. I suppose on at least one camera that could be partially worked around with aperture or shutter priority, but there's another complication.

I have two meters that I currently use; a Gossen Digisix which does incident and reflected measurements and is less than half the bulk of a typical computer mouse; e.g., a hell of a lot smaller than my EOS40D, even without a lens. You set a ring to the EV reading and can then read a dozen or more speed/aperture combinations at a glance. There is a flash metering version of the Digisix, but I shoot flash about 3 shots a year! I also have a Sekonic L508 which does 1 - 4º spot, incident (and flash), that's more of a handful, although light. I wouldn't give up either of those meters. And I can't recall ever using an alternate technology camera as a meter, I find it too cumbersome waving two cameras around at once! (But that's me)

Bill Burk · Dec 20, 2012

I agree jnanian, at one point it gets silly. You do not need so many options when common (use of vision) sense could do as well. I don't want to detract at all from your valid point that you don't need to use meters... I just like them and will address the idea of using them.

I find using an external meter creates better pictures from any camera. I often leave the battery out of the (e.g., OM-1) camera to keep me from being distracted by a match-needle that is difficult to interpret. I'd rather use a Master II with Zone System sticker, hold my palm in the light and set the pointer at Zone VI... than use a center-weighted measurement.

An evaluative metering system or an automatic camera, even a high-end top-of-the-line one, takes each scene individually. I don't know any that regard the "set" of photographs that you are taking at the same time. Two shots adjacent with slightly different compositions --- SHOULD --- have exactly the same exposure to look good presented next to each other.

You can use Manual.

Make up your mind what that scene exposure should be. Once you make the decision, use the same setting or two (e.g., one for shade - one for sun) for all the shots in the general vicinity.

In reality it can be very fast and simple, I often stick my arm out the door of the car... Hold the incident dome in the direction for a reading and take one reading and use it for the whole shoot. Other times I will use spot, read shadow and take that reading (placed on Zone II). So the choice of Spot and Incident is very practical and gives you two fast options.

Dali · Dec 20, 2012

jnanian said:
equipment is just a distraction.

But its main goal can also be to reassure the user as the anxiety is no more the practice but the choice of the equipment to use. This thread is a clear example. All meters the OP makes reference to are valid tools but you have first to know what to do with them (i.e., what is their added value). If you can't answer this very question, the best is to get rid of them. No need to post a thread for that, just a little introspection is required.

BTW, I agree on your comment even if a meter (a simple meter, not a spot meter nor a digital camera or a phone as a meter) can be useful, indoor for instance.

Take care.

cliveh · Dec 20, 2012

The best form of light meter is a digital camera, as it allows you to see pictures instead of numbers.

rawhead · Dec 20, 2012

CPorter said:
almost 60 posts, I wander is the OP persuaded yet..........

As I commented above, I *have* been persuaded... for the time being. I'm keeping all three, and actually learning using them before I make my final decision.

There may be some confusion regarding how I use my digital camera as a light meter; I don't look in the view finder (or the top panel LCD) and take the readings I see as gospel. Rather, I have LiveView on so that I can get a pretty good, if not perfect (as was pointed out above by Poisson Du Jour) preview of the scene were I to shoot at those settings.

To me, being able to see the preview, along with, if I so choose, a histogram of the image, *is* a significant advantage of the "DSLR as a light meter" approach. The point of this thread is really about that: if I learn & master the external, dedicated light meter, will I be able to constantly choose the same or better exposures than relying on LiveView/Preview to choose my settings?

Let's say there is someone skilled in the art, who knows lights, shadows, Evs & film latitudes.

One day, he's equipped with a lightmeter (or two). The following day, she's equipped with a mid-to-high end DSLR. In both cases, the final products will be what gets shot on 4x5 Reversal film. Which of the two days will produce more consistent, good results?

Another argument I found intriguing above is the one about learning the skill; i.e., that I would be learning so much more if I used dedicated light meters to "learn about light". Very fair, I can see how that could be, and I'm willing to take that to heart. I'm still wondering, though, once I *have* learned what needs to be learned, is the "DSLR-as-light-meter" approach always, necessarily, the inferior choice?

Pioneer · Dec 20, 2012

Bill Burk said:
In reality it can be very fast and simple, I often stick my arm out the door of the car... Hold the incident dome in the direction for a reading and take one reading and use it for the whole shoot. Other times I will use spot, read shadow and take that reading (placed on Zone II). So the choice of Spot and Incident is very practical and gives you two fast options.

I use that very technique. I walk out the door with a folding camera and my little Sekonic, slide the dome in place, take my incident reading, and that is the "reading" unless things change drastically. If the subject is in the shade I drop two stops, maybe three if it is real deep shade. If I am out for a long walk I may double check along the way but it rarely changes much. Usually it works great and when I develop my film it all comes out with the same exposure. Of course, if it is wrong...it is all wrong!

cliveh · Dec 20, 2012

Bill Burk said:
I often stick my arm out the door of the car... Hold the incident dome in the direction for a reading and take one reading and use it for the whole shoot.

Bill, have you thought about getting out of the car to give you more options in terms of distance, angle and composition?

E. von Hoegh · Dec 20, 2012

rawhead said:
As I commented above, I *have* been persuaded... for the time being. I'm keeping all three, and actually learning using them before I make my final decision.

There may be some confusion regarding how I use my digital camera as a light meter; I don't look in the view finder (or the top panel LCD) and take the readings I see as gospel. Rather, I have LiveView on so that I can get a pretty good, if not perfect (as was pointed out above by Poisson Du Jour) preview of the scene were I to shoot at those settings.

To me, being able to see the preview, along with, if I so choose, a histogram of the image, *is* a significant advantage of the "DSLR as a light meter" approach. The point of this thread is really about that: if I learn & master the external, dedicated light meter, will I be able to constantly choose the same or better exposures than relying on LiveView/Preview to choose my settings?

Let's say there is someone skilled in the art, who knows lights, shadows, Evs & film latitudes.

One day, he's equipped with a lightmeter (or two). The following day, she's equipped with a mid-to-high end DSLR. In both cases, the final products will be what gets shot on 4x5 Reversal film. Which of the two days will produce more consistent, good results?

Another argument I found intriguing above is the one about learning the skill; i.e., that I would be learning so much more if I used dedicated light meters to "learn about light". Very fair, I can see how that could be, and I'm willing to take that to heart. I'm still wondering, though, once I *have* learned what needs to be learned, is the "DSLR-as-light-meter" approach always, necessarily, the inferior choice?

Maybe if I explain my lightmetering evolution. I should make it clear that I don't own a DSLR, and haven't used one enough to say so. I did play with viewing histograms on a Sony digipoint&shoot I had.

I started out using a pre WW2 Weston and a Kodak 35 rf camera, a very very basic camera with a very good f3.5 lens. I used Kodachrome 25 ( about a 5 stop scale) and High-Speed (ASA 160) Ektachrome for existing light, so I had to learn to use the meter properly to get good resuts, (it is a reflected-light only meter).

As time went on I got auto 35mm SLRS and didn't use a handheld meter very much. Then I got an OM-4 and fell in love with the spotmeter.
When I moved into LF cameras aroung 1987 or so, I naturally bought a Pentax spotmeter and learned the zone system. I metered evry scene, placed my mid-tone... and discovered that I could do almost exactly the same things with my ancient Weston and it's calculator dial. What I couldn't do with the Weston was meter inaccesible parts of the scene, and having the spotmeter meant I could do all the metering from one spot.

By now I had a LunaPro and liked it's wide range. I also had a Weston Master III with an Invercone for incident readings and liked the fact that it didn't use batteries. So for the past 20+ years those have been my meters, the Weston mostly unless I forsee having to meter low light values. If I have to take a meter on a trip it's the LunaPro as it's the most versatile. I haven't used a spotmeter in a long time, but that's just my way of working. I'll use one if I think I need it, say if I decide to make some 8x10 chromes again.

Using a meter and having to think about where you want detail in the scene can give you a very good feel for what is the correct exposure. I use 4x5 and 8x10 cameras, and cannot afford to waste film - even black and white film.

One thing I would not do is meter a critical scene with a DSLR. Transparency filn is too precious to waste, and I don't think a DSLR with a meter designed for a sensor is an appropriate tool - I'd use my 75~ year old Weston first, at least I know how that will respond. I use my newer Weston with transparency film regularly, with utterly satisfactory results.

cliveh · Dec 20, 2012

I have had conversations with photographers using a digital camera in a studio who are more interested in the histogram than the image!

Chuck_P · Dec 20, 2012

If a person is competent with a light meter it becomes quite the simple task to use one effectively in quick time, regardless of how many readings one actually takes.

AndreasT · Dec 20, 2012

If you have a light meter you can at last get rid of your Iphone.

JBrunner · Dec 20, 2012

cliveh said:
The best form of light meter is a digital camera, as it allows you to see pictures instead of numbers.

By that logic the best literature is a comic book

removed account4 · Dec 20, 2012

JBrunner said:
By that logic the best literature is a comic book

yep , the walking dead is pertty amazing

Why use a light meter: somebody persuade me.

rawhead

E. von Hoegh

JBrunner

Moderator

rawhead

Jeff Kubach

TheFlyingCamera

Membership Council

Poisson Du Jour

Diapositivo

Chuck_P

removed account4

TheFlyingCamera

Membership Council

removed account4

DWThomas

Bill Burk

Dali

cliveh

rawhead

Pioneer

cliveh

E. von Hoegh

cliveh

Chuck_P

AndreasT

JBrunner

Moderator

removed account4

Why use a light meter: somebody persuade me.

Moderator

Membership Council

Membership Council

Moderator

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency