This is why I never really depend on light meters

[Ysarex]

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.
​

The histogram on the camera LCD is derived from the camera/software processed JPEG and as such does not represent the sensor raw capture. I'll take my meter reading, my assessment of the lighting condition and the sensor raw capture and swat down anything the camera software produces all the time and every time.

Joe

 

[unpopular]

That article is a bunch of gibberish.

 

[gsgary]

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.

Its hard to chimp on a film Leica

 

[pgriz]

That article is a bunch of gibberish.

I respectfully disagree. The basic message of the article was to test your equipment, so that when you take a reading, you will know what that translates to in the final image.

As for using the handmeter (or not), it gives me an additional bit of information about the light, specifically the light intensity hitting the spot that I'm metering. The camera light-meter tells me what happened to the light after it was reflected/modified by the subject. Depending on the tonality of the subject, and the artistic intent of the image, I may choose a setting that should allow me to achieve the look I'm going for. But that is based on my having tested my equipment, and my knowing how the readings and histogram data relate to the final image, which was the point of the article IMO.

 

[Robin_Usagani]

Got to love TPF. Even an established photographer get drilled here.

 

[fjrabon]

Got to love TPF. Even an established photographer get drilled here.

Yeah, I mean I understand pros can be wrong about things, but I'd love to have seen one of the posters here walk on a set and rail Joe McNally for not using a light meter when he was the only staff photographer for Time. Or when he was shooting a product ad for Nikon.

 

[Tee]

Ummm....I'd bet a dozen donuts, a pint of blood to the Red Cross and Robin's triplets that a light meter has graced Joe McNally's hands in the last 30 years. Only a newb would be bold enough to question him without rationally realizing that this guy has years upon years of years of deckplate level experience. I don't hold any negative towards Zack Arias and his article (in fact, I've referenced him as someone to study) but rather to your original post with the underlying theme that light meters aren't as cracked up to be as everyone makes them. You made your point and I'll respect that but I also made mine. Getting within 1/3 stop using a light meter and having to painstakingly move the command dial a whopping one click to the right or left does not mean the light meter failed.

I also think we should look at the two sides of camps people are on. In my very informal and observational thoughts, I've found that those who work primarily with speedlights don't use light meters while those working in studios or using studio lights on location do use a light meter. I truly feel that influences our thoughts.

 

[unpopular]

My problem with the article is as follows:

1) I am very opposed to SOOC.
2) He does not seem to understand the difference between f-stops and t-stops
3) The ISO does not "permit 1/3 stop" of "wiggle room" for f-ratio. That would be a ridiculous tolerance suggesting that over the last two centuries lens manufacturers haven't figured out how to actually determine their exit aperture. This I've never heard of before and clearly shows an embarrassing misunderstanding of f-ratio and it's limitations.
4) He's stuck using digital as if it were slide film and doesn't appreciate or seem to clearly understand reflectance metering
5) His calibration method is wonky, imprecise and completely unscientific - and then has the audacity, in typical Arias fashion, to go on a patronizing diatribe about "getting over being lazy".
6) He doesn't answer the OP question about "controversial" meter reading, an issue which has never been controversial in the past. This question would have been an excellent segway into lighting ratios - that is, if Arias is even aware of the concept.

In Arias' biography I've read that he got into photography because it was an "Easy A". Well. I think that says a lot here.

 

[Tee]

BTW, in your talking with McNally did he explain the technical reasons why he doesn't use a light meter? Hint: has something to do with the CLS system.

 

[unpopular]

Got to love TPF. Even an established photographer get drilled here.

Yeah, I mean I understand pros can be wrong about things, but I'd love to have seen one of the posters here walk on a set and rail Joe McNally for not using a light meter when he was the only staff photographer for Time. Or when he was shooting a product ad for Nikon.

When you have Time Magazine paying for your set, you can afford to chimp around all day. But with all seriousness, I have no doubt that photographers as proficient as McNally can intuitively predict light accurately enough to not use a meter - especially with flash photography where the distance from the subject is determined without atmospheric concerns.

 

[fjrabon]

BTW, in your talking with McNally did he explain the technical reasons why he doesn't use a light meter? Hint: has something to do with the CLS system.

It's partly CLS and partly he just doesn't feel they're needed in the digital era very often. Even when he goes full manual he rarely uses them. He admitted that he probably should use them a bit more than he does, but he called it mostly a pure preference thing these days, regardless of if you're using SB 910s or Rangers.

I never meant to imply that light meters aren't useful. I just don't personally like them being the final word. I use a D24 and 4 IL2500s 3-4 times per week. You can meter them once, take a few minute break, adjust NOTHING and meter them again and get a half stop difference. And this is full bore indoors, so it ain't ambient.

I'm really just saying there are too many variables to see the reading, set it, pop it once and trust that's right. You gotta check your images (both LCD, histo and blinkies) and/or bracket.

We have this one photographer who turned in some images that were off a full stop, when the scene had a really wide dynamic range to begin with. His excuse? "That's what the light meter told me!" That's all I'm railing against.

 

[unpopular]

We have this one photographer who turned in some images that were off a full stop, when the scene had a really wide dynamic range to begin with. His excuse? "That's what the light meter told me!" That's all I'm railing against.

If it was a full stop off, chances are he wasn't using the meter properly.

 

[fjrabon]

If it was a full stop off, chances are he wasn't using the meter properly.

Yeah, I'm guessing he metered in the wrong spot. Which sure, the biggest issue with light meters is often pure user error.

 

[unpopular]

A light meter simply reads the amount of light relative to a reference value. Provided the meter does this in a reliably way, then the meter is going to be accurate, period.

From here, we have ISO, shutter speed and transmission. The shutter speed is going to be pretty accurate, todays shutters are electromagnetically driven by accurate electronic timings. Curtain failure is going to be more likely before timing failure. So that leaves ISO and lens transmission.

I say transmission because it differs from f-ratio, at least in the real world. With a pinhole of infinite thinness, exit diameter and focal length are going to directly correlate with transmission, and in an ideal world with perfect lenses that transmit 100% of their light f-ratios would also directly correlate. But in reality, optical systems are inherently non-linear, and still photography lens manufacturers typically don't guarantee that f-stops directly correlate with transmission. Some motion picture lenses do, and you'll pay extra for this, and if you pay extra for this feature, then your t-stop lens will directly correlate with the meter reading, period, every single time, provided that the t-stop scale is accurate. But that is why your cheap-o $2000 zoom doesn't cost $20,000, because it's NOT a Zeiss CZ. Of course, you don't have it on a camera that costs $5,000/day for the privilege of using, either.

But this has nothing to do with international standards tolerances or any other celebrity photographer mumbo-jumbo. It's just the limitations of f-ratio not accounting for the lens' physical characteristics which determine how much light is actually being transmitted. If you REALLY want to determine the t-stop, you can. Set up an incident meter at the rear focus distance from the lens flange in such a way that stray light cannot interfere, and meter through the lens in such a way to read each f-stop (a film camera might be handy), make not of the change in EV on each reading, looking for units greater than or less than one whole number. With a zoom lens, you'll have to do this for ever 10mm focal length or less.

That might be a bit impractical. But ISO inacuracy and gamma correction will not influence the measurement.

And then there is Gamma Correction. Which, unless you're familiar with the subject and have the ability to adjust it, kind of throws the whole calibration issue on it's heal, making the whole issue considerably more complicated - because the camera is completely blind. And this is why Adams invented the zone system in the first place, only to have it's concepts thrown under the rug by kids like Arias.

 

[Derrel]

BTW, in your talking with McNally did he explain the technical reasons why he doesn't use a light meter? Hint: has something to do with the CLS system.

McNally is also a walking,talking,video-shooting Nikon-sponsored ADVERTISEMENT for Nikon's Creative Lighting System (CLS) multi-speedlight, TTL metering and flash control system. He is the fellow who shows how one can use four, or five, or six, or even is it eight??? $589 Nikon speedlights. He is the face of Nikon's entire TTL speedlight promotion network. He is PAYED to show people how NOT to use a light meter, and to demonstrate how to rely on NIKON'S TTL light metering and Nikon's TTL flash metering.

Joe McNally's job is to encourage people to buy 3 x $589, or 4 x $589 in Nikon speelight set-ups,and to demonstrate the capabilities of NIKON TTL-controlled speedlight systems. Joe's job is to show people what NIKON's equipment can do. In the videos I have seen, he even shows how he will shoot flash shots with the camera's shutter speed being regulated in an automatic mode, controlled by that awesome Nikon light metering...something that NO OTHER professional shooter, or serious amateur, typically espouses. I've never heard of a single *serious* shooter who felt that allowing the shutter speed to be controlled by a camera's automatic metering mode, was the "normal" way to work with flash illumination. Ever. Buuuuuut...Joe does it all the time in the videos he produces for NIKON...the ones where he does his Nikon-sponsored "how-to-do-it" videos. And I think I know ***exactly** why he does what he does. That NIKON TTL multi-speedlight remote commander Creative Lighting System is awesome, ain't it!!!!

(This message brought to you by Nikon, and the Nikon Corporation and Nikon speedlights, NIKKOR lenses, and the new Nikon D800, D800e, and the amazing new Nikon D600 and the incomparable Nikon D4.)