This is why I never really depend on light meters

[fjrabon]

Zack Arias talked about light meters the other day on his blog. It's all stuff that I think people sorta kinda know, but seeing it all written out right there on one page, to me indicated why you really can't just get a light meter value, program your settings and roll with it today. I use light meters to get me in the ballpark, but after calibrating the LCD and knowing how to read a histogram, I use those more than the light meter as a 'final guide' to how I want things. Even after having a great Sekonic, pro level L lenses and a 5DIII, sometimes light meters are just off by 1/3 of a stop when you look at the image. Or a half stop, or on very rare occasions more. If a half stop of exposure variability isn't a big deal to you, then I guess, fine, eh whatever. You can probably just stop reading.

There are just way too many things in the chain that can be slightly off, that then add up cumulatively to your overall image being a bad exposure to just get out the Sekonic, see what it reads, and then set your camera and pop it.

Even after you take all the painstaking steps that Zack lays out about knowing every single lens you have, at multiple focal lengths and multiple apertures, knowing every body you have, knowing every filter you might use, etc, there are still too many variables that could be off by a half stop to just run with a light meter's readout.

Anyway, thought it was a great read for multiple reasons. Perhaps the biggest being the 'so you want to be a pro photographer, well here's the crud you gotta put up with...' aspect.

Photography Q&A -Ask Me Anything About Photography • Zack, I

 

[Robin_Usagani]

Yeah, I got drilled pretty hard a few months ago for saying you dont really need a light meter for a simple setup. Anyway, all of my shots I share, I usually use off camera flash and no, I dont use or own a handheld lightmeter. Do I want one? Yes. Will I use one? Probably if I use complicated setup.. maybe indoor. Do I think it is not necessary to use one on ONE off camera flash setup? Yes, it is not necessary. It is not that hard to dial your ONE flash to the right power without a light meter.

 

[Derrel]

I laughed at his improper use of the word "incidence" mode... there is no such thing as an "incidence"mode. The word "incidence" is a noun. The proper word is incident... There ARE,however, such things as incident-light meters. Meters that offer both incident- and reflected-light metering modes do NOT have a mode called the "incidence" mode.

"I use meters in the “incidence” mode 99% of the time. There’s basically two types of metering modes. Reflective and incidence. "

Maybe the guy ought to hire somebody who knows the proper terms.

Google the term "incidence light meter".

 

[ann]

that is why one tests their equipment.

 

[Derrel]

His conclusion was interesting: "I’m only touching on some of what a good meter can do. You can take several readings to find an average in a scene. You can figure out the ratio of ambient vs. flash in a mixed situation. You can add filter compensation into the mix. There’s a lot you can do with a meter beyond finding what shutter speed you should use at ISO 800 at f2.8.Is all of this overwhelming? Does it all sound like it’s too much of a pain in the ass? Get over it. It’s called professional photography. Be good at your craft. Begreat at your craft. Think a pastry chef trusts a new oven to be exactly 350 degrees when they set that on the dial? No. They test it. 350 on the dial might mean 380 degrees in the oven. You need to know that. You need to know your cameras. Your lenses. Your lights. Your exposure. Your screens and monitors. You need to test this ****. It’s boring and tedious and all of that. I know. It is. Get over it. Wait till you build color profiles for all your cameras, lights, and modifiers. Be a professional and do it. Don’t be another mediocre photographer. There’s millions of those. Don’t be one. Be great at what you do. Know what you are doing. Do the hard work to learn all this stuff. It’s worth it. It’ll save your ass one day."

Or....you can just f&&k around, and wing it off the back of the LCD. Shoot, chimp-adjust,Shoot, chimp-adjust,Shoot, chimp-adjust,Shoot, chimp-adjust,Shoot, chimp-adjust--ahhhh, NOW you have it figured out!!! Which is plenty accurate right? It's the professional way to do it! The wild-ass-guess,shoot,chimp-adjust method. It impresses the chit out of art directors and discerning clients!

 

[kundalini]

Zack Arias talked about light meters the other day on his blog. It's all stuff that I think people sorta kinda know, but seeing it all written out right there on one page, to me indicated why you really can't just get a light meter value, program your settings and roll with it today. I use light meters to get me in the ballpark, but after calibrating the LCD and knowing how to read a histogram, I use those more than the light meter as a 'final guide' to how I want things. Even after having a great Sekonic, pro level L lenses and a 5DIII, sometimes light meters are just off by 1/3 of a stop when you look at the image. Or a half stop, or on very rare occasions more. If a half stop of exposure variability isn't a big deal to you, then I guess, fine, eh whatever. You can probably just stop reading.

There are just way too many things in the chain that can be slightly off, that then add up cumulatively to your overall image being a bad exposure to just get out the Sekonic, see what it reads, and then set your camera and pop it.

Even after you take all the painstaking steps that Zack lays out about knowing every single lens you have, at multiple focal lengths and multiple apertures, knowing every body you have, knowing every filter you might use, etc, there are still too many variables that could be off by a half stop to just run with a light meter's readout.

Anyway, thought it was a great read for multiple reasons. Perhaps the biggest being the 'so you want to be a pro photographer, well here's the crud you gotta put up with...' aspect.

Photography Q&A -Ask Me Anything About Photography • Zack, I

B00l0cks.

 

[bhop]

Or....you can just f&&k around, and wing it off the back of the LCD. Shoot, chimp-adjust,Shoot, chimp-adjust,Shoot, chimp-adjust,Shoot, chimp-adjust,Shoot, chimp-adjust--ahhhh, NOW you have it figured out!!! Which is plenty accurate right? It's the professional way to do it! The wild-ass-guess,shoot,chimp-adjust method. It impresses the chit out of art directors and discerning clients!

That's what i got from the link, and the OP..

I always depend on light meters if I don't want to waste time. It's stupid not to.. the catch is, I know how to use my experience to make adjustments when needed depending on the lighting conditions BEFORE chimping.

 

[Ysarex]

that is why one tests their equipment.

:thumbup:

Yep. I depend on all of my equipment right after I thoroughly test it.

Joe

 

[kundalini]

There are just way too many things in the chain that can be slightly off, that then add up cumulatively to your overall image being a bad exposure to just get out the Sekonic, see what it reads, and then set your camera and pop it.

Even after you take all the painstaking steps that Zack lays out about knowing every single lens you have, at multiple focal lengths and multiple apertures, knowing every body you have, knowing every filter you might use, etc, there are still too many variables that could be off by a half stop to just run with a light meter's readout.

I'll be the first to admit that I am far too lazy with post processing. Any photo that I have posted on TPFis the result in minimal post work. If you can't adjust your image in post by one stop, then there are larger issues you need to address. My Sekonic has always set a reliable base line exposure for me. It has always been true. The fact that I decide to go one way or the other after the reading has nothing to do with NOT relying on the information the light meter gave.

 

[Derrel]

A WAG is more-accurate than a light meter...is that the takeaway some people are getting from the article???

For those who have not heard the term WAG in a photographic context, it means wild ass guess...whereas in the British tabloid press and on the web, it means (hot) Wives And Girlfriends.

Sorry, but I will trust my Minolta flash meter over my own 38 years' experience when I need to KNOW the EXACT strength of a flash pop. And I'm a damned good guesser too...but the Minolta reads down to the tenth of an f/stop...all the excess precision and chit...and I mean, it takes like 5 seconds too...such a hassle!!!!

 

[Tee]

If ya wanna chimp and use the histogram then party on, Wayne! I like using a light meter and it has drastically sped up my workflow. Less time fiddling, chimping, and histograming. But then again, I'm practicing using 2-4 studio lights and when I'm paying for studio time, I'm not wasting it chimping and fiddling. Your OP reads like a manifesto against using light meters...or rather they are untrustworthy. I find this to be troublesome as many members are new (such as yourself and myself) and will swear off light meters when, in fact, a light meter may be what they need. Or perhaps you don't know how to use one?

 

[panblue]

A method for scenes lit by incident light using a reflective meter is to divide the shutter-speed
by ten (..from a 1950s Sekonic instruction manual). e.g, point the meter directly at window-light,
giving say 1/250. Expose for inside the room (light source out-of-shot) at 1/25. :thumbup:

I laughed at his improper use of the word "incidence" mode... there is no such thing as an "incidence"mode. The word "incidence" is a noun. The proper word is incident... There ARE,however, such things as incident-light meters. Meters that offer both incident- and reflected-light metering modes do NOT have a mode called the "incidence" mode.

"I use meters in the “incidence” mode 99% of the time. There’s basically two types of metering modes. Reflective and incidence. "

Maybe the guy ought to hire somebody who knows the proper terms.

Google the term "incidence light meter".

 

[Overread]

The thing is if the light meter gets you accurately to within 1/3rd or 1/2 of a stop of the correct exposure in a quicker time than chimping would then I would argue that the meter is actually being of great use. Yes you might make a final judgement call that the exposure can be adjusted just a little more once you see the histogram - however that means you've just taken 2 shots (one to chimp and one with the correction) instead of maybe 10 or 20 shots where you were adjusting lights each time - because you used the meter to set those lights in the first place.


I can see a great benefit to reduced chimp shooting. I'm not even thinking of the image it creates of the photographer, but simply the photographers workflow. Firstly taking lots of shots and chimping works, you can check the histogram and adjust without worries provided the light remains constant and the subject in place. However its a nightmare if you come to edit and you've dozens of wasted test shots - one can easily end up mixing up their test from their real shots and deleting in camera is always a slow process and one I aim to avoid (last thing I want to do is delete the wrong shot and put a card out of action for later restoration of the lost shot and that's if you notice at the time).


Sure not everyone uses an external light meter, heck I tried to justify one months ago and really couldn't get much of a justification for owning one for my kind of photography (over using the meter in the camera+some histogram chimping) - or at least not enough of a justification to invest in one at that stage.
If I were shooting studio lights and wanting good light balance then yes I can certainly see a need for a lightmeter.

 

[KmH]

Like a camera and lens, a light meter is just a tool, and learning how to use it effectively is as important as learning to use a camera and lens effectively.

Good light meters can and should be calibrated, and the good ones can measure light to 1/10 of a stop.

Three 3 types of light worth measuring - incident, reflected, and strobed.

 

[fjrabon]

Pretty sure I said I use the light meter to get within a third of a stop quickly, and then adjust with a bit of fine tuning after that. I don't know where I ever said that I'd just take a WAG right off the bat.

My big problem is a sort of complete trust some people put in light meters. I've seen people literally look at a bad exposure and just say "well, that's what the light meter said." That's what I was taking a position against. I think people don't realize how far off light meters can be in certain situations.

Direct quote from the OP:

"...why you really can't just get a light meter value, program your settings and roll with it today. I use light meters to get me in the ballpark, but after calibrating the LCD and knowing how to read a histogram, I use those more than the light meter as a 'final guide' to how I want things."

For any very serious number of shots with multiple lights I'd use my light meter every single time. I'd just make the final adjustments based on looking at the calibrated LCD and histogram.

Although, on the other hand I have talked to a pro who pretty much never uses a light meter... Joe McNally. ​