Money and Style

gizmo2071 · May 9, 2007

I can accuratly read the light with a constant light source, but not with monolight flash blocks.
Thats where i'd use a flash meter or trial and error with a digital camera, but it's more accurate to read the light with a flash meter for exact areas and to get all my flash's sync'd to the correct ratios.

I also use flash meter's for film, regardless of if lights are in the same position as they were when I shot the digital shot, my dslr reads light slightly different to my slr, so i'd prefer to get an accurate light reading for both of the cameras.

newrmdmike · May 9, 2007

ah-ha! now i see. although i'll probobly never own one, when it comes to ratios and light positions i just use what looks right to me, not numerically correct ones.

roughing in lights would be like what a famous photog would have his assistants do before a shoot, or what we all do before a shoot with lights where you put them in a rough location before the subject is there to be shot, then only minor adjustments need to be done.

eravedesigns · May 9, 2007

Well. I really wanted a light meter so I coudl just get accurate readings. I have used them at school and it just makes things a lot easier for me. When I get another light ratio will come in handy too. Light meters to me seem more accurate and I can get different readings that are more specific to just my strobe or bounced light. I also will be able to measure light more specifically in certain areas instead of my lens taking in only certain amounts of light (depending on what lens is on and how wide it is)

Wolff · May 10, 2007

I think the harsh lighting works for the mood you're going for. The only thing I'm really iffy on is the cropping. It seems like the there should be either less of all of the right leg showing.

shorty6049 · May 10, 2007

doesnt a light meter also measure the light hitting a subject instead of the light reflected by it? (not sure how this is an advantage, but it must matter somehow right?)

tr0gd0o0r · May 10, 2007

doesnt a light meter also measure the light hitting a subject instead of the light reflected by it? (not sure how this is an advantage, but it must matter somehow right?)

Good light meters actually do both of these. Have you ever noticed that white little dome over the sensor? With most, this can slide away and leave the lens directly exposed. One of these positions measures reflected light while the other measures refracted (I think that's the right term), thought I'm not exactly sure how this works.

gizmo2071 · May 10, 2007

It's called "incident" light.
Reflected light meters read how much light is going into the camera from the subject and incident meters read how much light is hitting the subject.
All in-camera meters are reflected meters.

shorty6049 · May 10, 2007

refraction is the bending of light when passing from one medium to a different more or less dense medium

eravedesigns · May 10, 2007

shorty6049 said:
refraction is the bending of light when passing from one medium to a different more or less dense medium

LOL Physics! And for cameras lenses we want and low index of refraction.

d1a1s1 · May 10, 2007

gizmo2071 said:
It's called "incident" light.
Reflected light meters read how much light is going into the camera from the subject and incident meters read how much light is hitting the subject.
All in-camera meters are reflected meters.

OK, how is this possible? The meter is ONLY capable of reading light that its receiving. How could the light meter possibly read how much light the subject is receiving, unless of course the light meter is in the same spot as the subject. I suppose a meter could estimate how much light the subject is receiving by calculating every factor that effects light reflecting from the subject and removing it. Right?