I have been doing more studio shooting but I have been using my light meter less. Is this the case with anyone else? Using the histogram and pretty much knowing a pretty general idea what settings work for my lights power and position, I pretty much keep the meter in the bag. Has anyone else sold theirs? Anyone still use theirs and why?
I still use my to get the ratios I want within a one or two checks and I know the results will be spot on when it's time to PP. I use the histogram but it takes a little longer and the ratios can still be slightly different than I initially wanted.
light meters are great-in studio, why not use one? agree with cordell, it's tough to chimp ratios-you can do it without a meter, of course, but life is so much easier with one IMHO
I use a meter. While I can get by without one, it takes longer and is less accurate than just using a meter in the first place. I find that I save time and can set up my lights faster and with less fuss, and that makes a difference on location, when I usually don't have enough time (or as much as I'd like, anyway ).
Every setup is different for me, especially when shooting on location. A light meter is indispensable. Why would I want to fire and chimp 5 frames for every head I setup or move when I can take one or two meter readings instead?
My L-358 Sekonic with a radio trigger is more convenient than chimping for the initial set up of studio lights before shooting, especially for balancing background and accent lighting to key and fill which is difficult to gauge by eye.
Once "in the ball park" I put the meter away and rely on the over-exposure warning and a textured highlight target (e.g. white terry towel) to tell me how the camera is exposing the scene and my brain to tell me whether the lighting set up "by the numbers" is appropriate for the age and gender of the subject and the intended mood / message.
I will also use the OEW to judge how evenly a background is illuminated by opening the aperture until it starts to clip first to evaluate so I can locate the hot spots. The OEW is also quite useful for checking and balancing foreground / background exposure to avoid clipping the background.
The histogram is more useful for showing underexposure in highlights and shadows. A gap on the right indicates highlights are under. I'll raise exposure until the towel highlight proxy starts to clip in the OEW then back off 1/3 stop. Testing has shown me that correlates to optimal exposure in the RAW. If I see the curve running off the left side I know more fill is needed.
If there is a tool available I will use it for the job it is best suited for. I have found that the OEW in camera playback, correlated to previous results with testing, is the best predictor of correct exposure in the RAW file I see on screen.
I never work without a meter. Wouldn't dream of it. I always trust the meter over my own eyes. I only refer to a histogram on setups with very striking highlights. I examine the histogram to make certain that I've collected all the highlight detail without clipping - but if you use a meter, this rarely happens.
You should note however that a meter is only accurate if it has been compensated to the camera being used.
Even in manual mode the ISO of the camera controls its sensitivity. It is rare that camera ISO will match that of a meter. As a result if the f/8 indicted by the meter when correct metering technique is used for exposure (i.e. point dome at camera - fire all lights) the resulting file is not correctly exposed. Those not aware of the need to calibrate meter to camera will apply a "Kentucky Windage" solution to the problem, changing the way the meter is pointed until the direction the meter reading is taken (e.g. pointing it at the key light) produces accurate exposure.
The need to compensate meter to camera isn't unique to digital. The true speed of film varies from batch-to-batch and is seldom exactly what is marked on the box. One of the first tests for setting up the Zone System is to find the ISO speed which produces the desired shadow density on the negative. Since exposure of digital is most critical in the highlights the best way to compensate the meter is to shoot a bracketed series of exposures of a test target containing a textured highlight. Visual inspection of the texture in the towel on the PC screen at 100% in the RAW file will reveal very precisely the point at which overexposure begins to occur:
With my L-358 / Canon 20D combination I find that the meter reading from the L-358 produces a file in the camera which is about 1/3 stop overexposed. That occurs because the true ISO of the camera when set to ISO 100 is actually around 125. The bracketed exposure at f/6.3 shown above, produced a more accurate rendering of the test target that the nominal meter reading of f/5.6. On the L-358 pressing both ISO speed buttons allows a 1/3 stop Exposure Compensation Override to be entered, changing the display to f/6.3 (I set mine to 1/3 stops like the camera). Meter now is compensated to camera and meter readings, taken per manf. recommended technique (i.e. point meter at camera) are accurate over any range of lighting ratios. The compensation doesn't change the factory calibration of the meter, it just applies an override in the same way EC in Av mode overrides the default zero EC guess of the camera metering.
I know there are people who swear by any number of non standard metering techniques, and in practical terms just about any of them will work if used consistency. But I view a meter like I do a hammer: a tool designed in a certain way to perform specific ways which produces its best results when used as designed. The reason an incident meter has a dome instead of a flat surface is to average the light from all directions in front of the subject, simulating how it will reflect back into the camera. Sekonic who makes the meter tell us the correct technique is to point the meter at the lens to take the exposure reading. The reason the dome retracts is because that is how Sekonic designed the meter to produce accurate reading of light levels in absolute terms of foot-candles / lux / EV values. Best results with a hammer are obtained by hitting the nail with the heavy end. Best results with an incident meter are obtained over a range of lighting ratios by pointing it correctly at the camera to measure exposure AND compensating it to the true ISO of the recording medium.
It is also worth noting the portrait ratio convention of H:S where S is a constant value of 1 is based on the assumption even "neutral" fill is being used to illuminate both sides of the face the same. For example, two lights, equal in all respects, placed at the same distance with fill over the camera and key light off axis produce a 2:1 ratio per the portrait ratio convention:
H:S
1:1 even fill
1:0 equal but overlapping key light
===
2:1 H:S ratio -- 2x more light reflect from the highlights than the shadows
If key light is 1-stop brighter (2x fill) the ratio becomes 3:1
H:S
1:1 even fill
2:0 overlapping key light 2x brighter than fill
===
3:1 H:S ratio -- 3x more light reflect from the highlights than the shadows
So the portrait ratios inferred from making incident readings are actually expressing the amount of light the two lights, which are assumed to be key overlapping even fill, will reflect.
I wouldn't be without my L-358. Every event has a different setup, different lighting arrangements and I certainly wouldn't trust the exposure of 300+ portraits to guess-work. Not when I can buy a light meter for a few hundred dollars.
I almost always use one to figure out a base line & set my primary light. then I tweak fill/etc from there using the camera. I also use it as my primary tool when trying to balance existing light. Find that much easier then using the camera.
I use a 358 with a PW radio module, so that makes it super convenient.
I use an incident meter for EVERY setup, indoors or out, studio or location, flash, available light or a mix. Have for over 30 years. The on camera LCD is quite a nice tool, but using the meter negates the need for chimping for exposure verification. In some lighting scenarios the visual readout and histograms can lie to you, the measurement of the actual light falling on the scene, is what it is and removes the guesswork.
I use one too....I'm sure chimping will do for some people, but the light meter will give me an EXACT result. Maybe I'm not experienced enough to do chimping yet
As far as calibration is concerned, I found out the hard way it IT a necessity. Did a calibration just recently and now it's just perfect.
).