I was asking a serious question here. I grew up using the meter in my camera, or occasionally the luna pro, or some other meter. Once I learned about the histogram I was blown away by how much more information it gave me. It's the difference between a scalar and a vector, the light meter just gives you a single number, but the histogram gives you a lot more information across the whole range, and in each color channel. Not only that, you don't have to worry about reciprocity, not being able to see the meter in the low light, you get pretty much exactly what the sensor is seeing (modulo jpeg processing, a huge gripe of mine).
People seem to have taken my question as a challenge to their adulthood or something. I seriously don't see what light meter will get you that a little creative work with the camera and histogram won't. On May 14, 2012, at 7:44 PM, Bruce Walker wrote: > On Mon, May 14, 2012 at 10:08 PM, Mark Roberts > <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> Bruce Walker wrote: >> >>> Bob and Darren have actually said all that needs to be said in defense >>> of using a meter, and nothing more needs to be said, so here I go ... >>> >>> You're in the studio. There's seamless setup, the model has come out >>> of makeup and hair and is raring to go. The studio costs $50 an hour. >>> So does the model. The lights are setup: a couple on the background to >>> blow it to white, two on the model. >>> >>> Larry: I'l take a test shot. >>> Model: okay. >>> L: POP >>> L: hang on, I'm checking the histogram. >>> L: ... >>> L: hmmm. I think that's underexposed. Let me fix that. >>> L: POP >>> L: hang on, I'm checking the histogram again. >>> L: Um. That might be overexposed. Shit, there's a huge spike at the >>> right. WTF? >>> M: I think my lipstick is smeared. <exits left> You are also assuming that when setting up the lights, you don't have anybody to stand in place for a couple of minutes while you adjust the lights, and take a few test shots to check the exposure. Which is right up there with doing the whole expensive shoot, and afterwards finding that every shot of the white dress is blown out because you never checked the histograms or blinkies. Or, taking photos of flowers and finding that the blue channel, or the red, is completely blown out, because the meter averages all of the colors together. >>> >>> Versus: >>> >>> Bruce: I'm going to meter the light. >>> Model: okay. >>> B: POP >>> B: f/8 >>> B: okay, Shel, I want you to pout. Great! Now smile. Super! ... My experience has more often been along the lines of.. The big light is 6 feet away, I'm shooting through an umbrella, ISO 80, let's try f/16. POP hmm, looks like I'm have a stop under. I've actually been boggled by the number of times that I'll do a SCWAG on the exposure, and nail it dead on. >> >> Of course, Bruce, in a studio situation, that only applies to the very >> first shot. After that you've got the exposure nailed and you just go >> on. I think Bill's example of using the meter to get lighting ratios >> is the real advantage of an incident meter here. Serious question: Rather than spending $BIGNUM on a light meter, why not get an ExpoDisc, or the equivalent, and use the the camera? > > Definitely, that's one of the big advantages. But there's more. > > The histogram is fooled entirely by the scene as it's showing you > what's reflecting from it. If the scene is a white dress against a > white backdrop, or a largely black business suit against a black > backdrop, I wish you good luck histogramming that. I dunno about you, but my K-5 isn't glued to the tripod that's nailed to the floor. If I've got a tricky situation I have to histogram, I'll just carry the camera over close enough that it pretty much fills the screen, take a photo and look at the histogram. > > The meter OTOH tells you the correct exposure for the light actually > hitting the scene. Put your meter under the model's chin, pop your > lights, read off the exposure, set it and you are done. It doesn't > matter the clothing or skin colour, the textures, the backdrop, > nothin'. You may have issues with hotspots in the scene or areas that > are too dark, but that's lighting design. You need to add reflectors > to get fill into too dark areas or add gobos to solve hotspots, but > that doesn't alter the basic exposure. I'm confused here. Because if I set up the lights, and I have two scenes. One of which has a black backdrop, perhaps cut velvet so there is subtle details in the dark, and a model wearing dark clothes, and a hat, with their face in the shadow. The other has white cut velvet, and a blond, fair skinned model, wearing a white satin dress with white lace and embroidery, I'm going to need to expose the scene completely differently, even if the incident meter says the same thing with the same lights. I'll want to adjust the exposure to get as much detail, and as little noise, on the sensor/in the raw file, and then I'll process the the final image to be as light or dark as I want the final image to be. > > Anyways, this is one of those "you get it or you don't" issues, and > can't be resolved to everyone's satisfaction here. I bought a digital > flash meter and use it regularly after completely fscking up too many > frames to count. I'm a happy camper now because when I work, I design > my lighting and I carefully measure to get the results I want. One could write a pretty damned comprehensive book on photography, and particularly lighting, with just the stuff that I don't know. That's why I'm asking, what does the meter tell you, that you won't get by looking at the three color histogram, possibly of detail shots, and possibly of a strategically placed grey card, or shooting through something like an expodisc? And, for what it's worth, I wasn't suggesting bracketing as a solution, but more as a backup. There are many times that it just won't work. It is, however, pretty damned cheap insurance, when you're shooting static scenes with a digital camera. Also, the workflow that Doug describes is pretty damned close to what I do a lot of. Take a SCWAG of the exposure in a situation, check the test shot, correct it until it's right, and use that until something major changes. -- Larry Colen [email protected] sent from i4est -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List [email protected] http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
