Which Light meter is better?

[gsgary]

I still use my minolta 4 and spot attachment when shooting digital, i can take a reading of the shadow area and it will give me a setting to give shadow detail also i can take 2 readings and it gives me a very good average when there is a high dinamic range

 

[2WheelPhoto]

I like my 358, use it all the time and it works GREAT for triggering strobes.

I also use the function of it balancing the ambient/strobe ratio for outdoor on location shots.

Makes you enjoy watching photogs out doors with strobe popping a few shots, chimping, popping a few, chimping, and then still wondering if its "spot" on hehehehe

 

[Risbill1]

Just food for thought.
spot metering for portrait photography | Laurence Kim Photographer
How to use spot metering for portraits

Thanks, I will read it.

 

[unpopular]

But reflective metering is affected by what the person is wearing and the tone of there skin so if they are wearing something particularly reflective your readings may make there face too dark.

As counter-intuitive as it may sound, this is exactly the strength of reflective metering. Spot metering allows you to make a reading, and from that reading adjust exposure according to how that region ought to be rendered relative to a middle grey starting point. So in this hypothetical situation, lets say you have a pail-skinned model wearing a bright white, finely pleated dress. Properly exposed, the model's skin would be +2ev above 18% reflectance, and this is what the incident meter would tell you. If i spot metered her skin, I would need to increase exposure +2ev, kind of a pain; after all, you just take the reading off the incident meter and plug it into your camera, right?

But what an incident meter doesn't tell you is that the dress is +4ev above 18% reflectance - which with my a350 is about one stop above latitude. If I exposed at +2ev, placing the model's skin one stop under my maximum exposure latitude, then the dress, which is two stops brighter than the skin, would be placed at one stop above my maximum exposure, causing it to blow out.

In this case I would ideally adjust the lighting if I could, or if not I would expose at +1ev and not +2ev, ensuring that the dress is not overexposed, at the expense of rendering her face slightly too dark - but not so dark that she appears under-exposed or could not be fixed in post.

Incident metering tells you the correct exposure, but without considering what the camera is capable of. Incident metering assumes that the whole latitude of the scene is renderable, and that no compromise must be considered.

In practice, though, it's more likely going to be shadows that plug up rather than super-bright dresses on Scandinavian models blowing out.

 

[Risbill1]

But reflective metering is affected by what the person is wearing and the tone of there skin so if they are wearing something particularly reflective your readings may make there face too dark.

As counter-intuitive as it may sound, this is exactly the strength of reflective metering. Spot metering allows you to make a reading, and from that reading adjust exposure according to how that region ought to be rendered relative to a middle grey starting point. So in this hypothetical situation, lets say you have a pail-skinned model wearing a bright white, finely pleated dress. Properly exposed, the model's skin would be +2ev above 18% reflectance, and this is what the incident meter would tell you. If i spot metered her skin, I would need to increase exposure +2ev, kind of a pain; after all, you just take the reading off the incident meter and plug it into your camera, right?

But what an incident meter doesn't tell you is that the dress is +4ev above 18% reflectance - which with my a350 is about one stop above latitude. If I exposed at +2ev, placing the model's skin one stop under my maximum exposure latitude, then the dress, which is two stops brighter than the skin, would be placed at one stop above my maximum exposure, causing it to blow out.

In this case I would ideally adjust the lighting if I could, or if not I would expose at +1ev and not +2ev, ensuring that the dress is not overexposed, at the expense of rendering her face slightly too dark - but not so dark that she appears under-exposed or could not be fixed in post.

Incident metering tells you the correct exposure, but without considering what the camera is capable of. Incident metering assumes that the whole latitude of the scene is renderable, and that no compromise must be considered.

In practice, though, it's more likely going to be shadows that plug up rather than super-bright dresses on Scandinavian models blowing out.

Well you obviously know more about this than I do because I don't look at ev scales which is probably just my inexperience or never needing to measure that way. In my work I don't think I need to be quite that precise although I could be wrong. Maybe if I were shooting magazine covers or something like that.

As I said earlier you have given me something to think about but I still think buying any unit that has been out of production for 10 years does not sound like a good idea, at least not for me.

 

[unpopular]

Well you obviously know more about this than I do because I don't look at ev scales which is probably just my inexperience or never needing to measure that way. In my work I don't think I need to be quite that precise although I could be wrong. Maybe if I were shooting magazine covers or something like that.

As I said earlier you have given me something to think about but I still think buying any unit that has been out of production for 10 years does not sound like a good idea, at least not for me.

Not sure what 10 year old unit you're talking about, I agree though that buying old meters can be problematic.

---

First of all 1ev=1 "stop". I don't like giving examples in stops because it sounds so close to f-stops, and can be confusing for people.

There really isn't anything "wrong" with incident metering, it's straightforward, doesn't require any compensation and is pretty idiot proof - well, maybe not "idiot proof" but it's easier than reflective metering which requires compensation. And no, you don't really see a lot of "pros" using a spot meter in the studio.

I do still think a combo meter is a good idea, but really, all you need is what you're going to use. If you've never used a spot meter, then there is no sense in starting now. Using a spot meter really does require that you look at exposure very differently. Just keep in mind what I've posted here, and the link gryph posted for future reference in case you find yourself in a situation where a spot meter might be useful.

 

[Risbill1]

I was refering to the Sekonic L-508. While I am sure it is a great meter, since it has been out of production for some time it would be hard to find parts should I need them. Thanks for the information and since you all seem to know alot about the subject I have one other question. Why are there so many "pro's" that get paid alot of money for there work that do not use a light meter of any kind and say the one in the camera combined with the histogram is plenty good enough? Do they know something about exposure that we don't or are there clients and themselves just not that concerned with tonal range and exposure accuracy?

 

[unpopular]

I don't think you see this a lot with pros who use flash, it's a lot faster to use a meter than to snap and check, snap and check, snap and check. Clients don't have that kind of time, even if you think you do.

On the other hand, the histogram and preview is the most informative meter available, provided that it accurately reflects raw data. Even with film, photographers relied on polaroids to act as a preview, and took several meter readings, way more than we would today with digital, to act as a "histogram".

Nevertheless, as a result, I think there is a valid argument that handheld meters are becoming obsolete, simply because the feedback in camera is so revealing and fast. On the other hand, like I said, adeptly using a meter is faster - especially an incident meter.

I'm not terribly experienced with studio lighting, and I no longer have a flash meter. Kludging about does "work", but it takes time:

I did this without a meter, and I don't think it'd be much better if I had one. Of course, my model didn't have anywhere to go, either. Perhaps if I had more studio experience I would have had a better idea what the exposure should have been relative to where the lights were placed, but for most of us starting out, it's going to be pretty hard to predict. You're going to rely on trial and error a lot, and your paying clients don't have the time for you to fiddle around with lights just to get an initial exposure.

 

[Risbill1]

I don't think you see this a lot with pros who use flash, it's a lot faster to use a meter than to snap and check, snap and check, snap and check. Clients don't have that kind of time, even if you think you do.

On the other hand, the histogram and preview is the most informative meter available, provided that it accurately reflects raw data. Even with film, photographers relied on polaroids to act as a preview, and took several meter readings, way more than we would today with digital, to act as a "histogram".

Nevertheless, as a result, I think there is a valid argument that handheld meters are becoming obsolete, simply because the feedback in camera is so revealing and fast. On the other hand, like I said, adeptly using a meter is faster - especially an incident meter.

I'm not terribly experienced with studio lighting, and I no longer have a flash meter. Kludging about does "work", but it takes time:

I did this without a meter, and I don't think it'd be much better if I had one. Of course, my model didn't have anywhere to go, either. Perhaps if I had more studio experience I would have had a better idea what the exposure should have been relative to where the lights were placed, but for most of us starting out, it's going to be pretty hard to predict. You're going to rely on trial and error a lot, and your paying clients don't have the time for you to fiddle around with lights just to get an initial exposure.

I agree. My photos always turn out pretty much the way I want them but the whole reason I started looking at meters is the time savings. I could take several minutes to get my exposure right and that is with only one strobe add in a second or third and well you can see where I am going. I could get by with a vary basic light meter but some of the features like flash percentage and others made me look to the more expensive units. I feel the need less and less to have a spot meter since as you said the histogram will tell me if I am clipping anything. A few basic tests with my camera that I found in the article at Laurencekim.com thanks to gryphonslair99 and doing a little research on my cameras sensor and how to read the histogram and get the most contrast possible without clipping highlights or shadows I think I will be fine without one for now.

Thanks again for everyones help. I did not expect to get this much response to my post and I will deffinately hang around this site for a while.