Do you use a hand-held light meter? Should I?

<p>I recently read something written by an authoritative portrait photographer who said that using a hand-held incident light meter would produce more accurate and more consistent exposures than using the reflective meter in your camera. What do you think? Do you use a hand-held meter? Should I?</p>

<p>I want to say that, while I'm not thrilled about having to mess with another piece of equipment, I am nevertheless open to the idea. I'm willing to go to a little extra trouble for better results. I use only primes. After a year-long experimentation with the alternatives, I'm backing to shooting in M mode again on the camera. I don't have autofocus tied to the shutter button on my camera; instead I use the AF button to focus only when I want to. On the other hand, I'm only interested in doing things "the hard way" when I am convinced it's better. So I do NOT focus manually, at least 97% of the time, because I've found that auto-focus works better for me than manual. I'd be happy to use my camera in full auto mode all the time if I could get the results I want.</p>

<p>So back to the light meter question. I kind of understand the advantage of an incident light meter. But at least at the moment, it seems to me that I am able to use my camera's reflective TTL meter effectively, by LOOKING at the scene I'm photographing and knowing when to accept a meter reading of +1EV (or whatever) as appropriate. In short, I generally manage to get well-exposed shots using the meters built into my cameras. I'm posting this question now to see if anybody can show me that I'm missing something, or that I could get even better results in some way by using a hand-held meter.</p>

<p>I'm also a little uncertain about how using an incident light meter works with a digital SLR camera, where you may want to expose to the right a bit.</p>

<p>If it matters: I shoot mostly portraits and weddings. (I am guessing you don't use an incident light meter if you are shooting mountain landscapes!)</p>

<p>Thanks in advance. </p>

<p>- Will</p>

<p>Oddly, I never trust multi-point in-camera metering. I recall my results with internal meters being more accurate with centre-weighted analog TTL systems from the early '80s.<br>

In answer to your question, yes, I always use an incident meter, and would do so for a landscape also, as it remains the only tangible way to expose for the amount of light present, rather than the reflective properties of the subject. Whether you are exposing film or a CCD it also makes no difference, other than the fact that the precision of metering seems much more critical in digital than on film, due to the limited dynamic range of 16bit images, and noise levels.<br>

Basically, what you do, is you take a reading of the light present, and that is your base exposure. However you can also do this in Manual and looking at your histogram, you should be able to figure out whether your exposure is within the camera's range. Using an incident meter just makes this process faster, as you may not need to take test exposures and look at the screen, fiddle, and pop again.<br>

t</p>

<p>Are you shooting film or digital? If you shoot film then a good incident light meter is very useful for your type of pictures. If you shoot digital then don't bother. In the time it takes to make an incident meter reading I can estimate exposure for the shot, take the test shot, evaluate and adjust accordingly. If you don't have time to make digital test shot you won't have time to make incident meter reading either. With that said, I do own and use all types of light meters.</p>

<p>I really don't see the advantage of using an incident meter with a DSLR, although I use one regularly for medium format and some 35mm film shooting. The instant feedback from the camera is a faster and more reliable way to get good exposure. It also lets you see exactly where you should be if you want to expose to the right in a shot you will PP. <br>

However, I do agree that for more <em>consistent </em>exposure results you should't let the camera automatically set exposure for each frame. I like to zero in on the ideal exposure for a subject and then lock it in the camera using either manual mode or exposure lock, and then shoot away.</p>

<p>If you subcribe to the exposing to the right technique then the incident meter is the wrong tool for the job.</p>

<p>Thanks for the quick replies!</p>

<p>@T Feltus: Thanks. I'm curious, how does one use an incident meter for landscapes? The way I understand it for portraits, I would walk over to (say) the bride, hold the meter up near her face (making sure I don't obstruct the light myself) and take a reading, then perhaps take a second reading off her dress, then set my camera based on those readings and go back and take the picture. But if I'm shooting Pike's Peak, I take it that you don't have to climb the mountain to get your reading. Do you just hold the meter up and figure out the ambient light reading where you're standing—making sure you're not standing in the shade of a tree or something?</p>

<p>@BeBu Lamar: Thanks to you as well. I'm shooting digital—Pentax DSLRs, to be precise. (It was Pentax, I believe, that introduced the first TTL meter in the Spotmatic, around the time I was first learning photography with Rolleiflex TLRs and bad light meters.) — You said you use light meters yourself. Do you use them with digital, and if you do, is it simply because you feel comfortable working that way or is there some other advantage?</p>

<p>I have one, and use it sometimes. Especially when dealing with somewhat complex flash lighting situations, or when the subject matter is oddly reflective (very, or not at all), an incident meter is a huge help in getting things right, and quickly so.</p>

<p>Thanks also to Rick and Matt.</p>

<p>@Matt Laur: You raise a point I was wondering about—flash. It's been a long time since I last used a handheld meter, and I have never used a meter to meter for flash, although I'm aware it's possible. But how does it work? I don't see how you can both hold the meter by the bride's face AND be somewhere else to press the camera shutter. And does the meter have a "flash mode" where instead of reacting to the ambient light, it reacts to—and saves its response to—a sudden spike in the light?</p>

A light meter is really for when you have time to pose everybody, in which case you'll probably also have other gear on hand (lights, namely). If you spend the time to set up lights, you're packing enough gear and thinking ahead enough that a light meter can be a real boon to your productivity and consistency. However, if the light is rapidly changing, or if you are moving from one zone to another frequently, or if you are taking lots of candid shots, the light meter will only get in your way.

 

Another way to look at it: If you're setting up for a 1-off shot, then it will take the same amount of time to shoot 1 or 2 test shots and make some adjustments vs making reading with an incident-light meter. This is the beauty of instant-gratification digital workflow. If you're setting up for a session of maybe 50+ shots, and the lighting will be the same for every shot, then you might take the time to nail down your light reading and dial in the settings manually for the entire session. This will allow you to rapid-fire the entire session without having to ever chimp to make sure the exposure is right. You will know that each and every shot will look great.

<p>In a studio setting using strobe lighting, would I need to fire the strobe to have the meter correctly calculate the light that will fall on the subject?</p>

<p>To William Porter: I shoot mainly film and rarely digital. When I shoot digital I learn to judge exposure looking at a review image on the LCD screen, compensating for the LCD brightness and other differences. What I usually do is to use the camera on manual. Estimate the exposure. Take the test shot. Peek at the LCD and see if the exposure is what I want. Like I said I have to mentally compensate for the differences of the camera's LCD and a calibrated monitor. Then I would make any adjustment if needed and make the final shot. Using a light meter often actually taught me how to judge exposure without a meter quite accurately. More than 80% of the time my initial estimate is what I use for the final shot. With film I also use the meter for flash but then again with digital there is no need. A test shot with the digital tells me more than a meter can. I even use a digital camera to preview flash lighting effect before I shoot with film.<br>

I do use the various light meters, refective, incident, spot, flash, color etc... for other purposes than to take pictures. One thing is to plot the response curve of a particular digital camera. Another is to check the T stop value for lenses at various aperture. I love light meters as well as just about any measurement instruments and found that although I don't use them often in actual picture taking, they are very helpful in teaching me how to shoot without a meter including with film.</p>

I would do if I could to nail the flash settings and lighting ratio but practically it just doesn't work.

 

I use Nikon CLS and meters just won't work with this system due to the pre-flashes. On top of this there is no way of triggering my SB800s remotely from the meter if unless I use the pocket wizard system and buy a very expensive radio addon. Using a sync cord etc. just takes far too long and is too much hassle, I'd rather just use the histogram and lcd.

<p>William: There are a number of ways to deal with holding the flash meter near your subject's face while testing your setup. I use a Sekonic L358, with the $49 add-in module that allows it to act as a Pocket Wizard transmitter. That way it can trigger my lights (which are rigged with PWs). So I just hold the meter up, press the metering button, and everything works in a second.<br /><br />There are also some cool new toys like Paul Buff's CyberCommander unit, and the various CyberSync triggers and receivers he makes to go with it. The CC unit acts not only as a light meter with wireless triggering of the lights, but it's also a full-on remote control that allows you to adjust the power of each light remotely, or to meter them individually (to check ratios, etc). Very slick.</p>

<p>Matt, does the Sekonic add-on module you mentioned work only with Pocket Wizard brand transmitters, or does it (for example) have a hot shoe that could trigger any radio trigger transmitter? I use FlashWave 2 triggers (excellent, cheaper than Pocket Wizards, and pretty compatible with nearly any brand of camera).</p>

<p>It's a PW-specific thing, William. But: the Sekonic (and probably most every flash meter) does have a simple PC connector on it, and you could run a short PC cable from it to a $10 hot-shoe adapter with a PC connector in it, and place your transmitter there. The meter will trip whatever you've got mounted therein - including a radio trigger.<br /><br />That's not quite as elegant, of course, but it will work. I'm picturing the judicious use of some adhesive velcro or something similar!</p>

<p>I put the meter on tripod at the location where I want to measure the light. Set the meter in non cord mode then I can fire the flash at camera or flash position.</p>

<p>Thanks, Matt. Sounds like the PC cable-to-hot-shoe-adapter kludge would work fine.</p>

<p>I pulled out my meter today to try with my strobes, and it really saved me alot of time over messing with exposure settings. It only took a few seconds to do. With my meter (a JTL), I don't have to use any cords. I just set it, place it next to or on top of my subject, and fire the strobes.<br>

I shoot tethered and can see my work as I go, but when I used my meter it was spot on with the first shot. It's going back into my bag! I shoot primarily food, by the way.</p>

 

<p>William, </p>

<p>A hand held incident meter, especially a flash meter, can be invaluable. But, it is only a tool. The question is whether it is the right tool for you. I get the feeling from your posts that you are not shooting in a studio with studio lighting, but are shooting with a flash on camera or on a bracket. In those instances, the TTL meter of your camera will be just fine. Where the flash meter shines is in the studio when you want very precise lighting, and very precise lighting ratios. Go back and check the article by the "authoritative portrait photographer" and see in what kind of situation he is shooting. The incident meter is great for balancing the subject and background lights, adding the right amount of fill, etc. But it is not that great when a bride is waling down the aisle. </p>

<p>Allen, thanks for the input.</p>

<p>I shoot in a variety of situations. I wasn't expecting to start using a light meter at weddings—well, I can imagine using it for the first group portrait test shots, but not much otherwise.</p>

<p>But where I thought I MIGHT find it useful would be in portrait sessions where I'm not rushed and where I'm really trying to do the Best Job Possible, not just the best job possible in a hurry. I have done a lot of portraits on location or in places like the Dallas Arboretum, where I may be using fill-flash, may have a reflector or two. But I now also have a small and basic home studio, and I am starting to have clients come by here. So far I'm only using flash units, radio triggered, with umbrellas, soft boxes, etc. as necessary. The flashes are all on their manual controls, but getting the light right is still for me a matter of guess, test, revise. Doesn't help that I have different brand flash units (Metz, Pentax, Nikon) with different guide numbers, so the power settings (1:1, 1:4, whatever) aren't equal on the different brands. The Pentax AF 548 FGZ outputs less light at 1:1 than the Metz 58 AF at the same power setting.</p>

<p>How do you meter the light coming from different sources? Would I turn the key flash off momentarily to meter the fill flash? Or just block the one flash for a moment? Or simply hold the meter in a different side of the subject's face or body?</p>

<p>And what sort of info would I get, exactly, from a meter, if I was testing flash output? I believe the meter reads the lighting and outputs settings for aperture and shutter speed. (If I am correct, the ISO is something I would punch into the meter.) Can you control the meter so it doesn't suggest a shutter speed faster than my sync speed? And how would I manage two or more different meter readings? I'm guessing I'd meter the key side of the subject's face (or whatever), get settings like f/4 and 1/180th sec, then meter the fill side, get a reading like f/8 and 1/18th sec, and be able to conclude that I had the 1:4 ratio between the two sides that I was trying to achieve. Is that right, or am I close, or am I completely off base?</p>

<p>William you're quite close. A flash meter or a multi function meter that has a flash mode always measure flash in shutter priority mode. Some simple meter would assume that your shutter speed is always 1/60 or so but most modern meters allow you to set the shutter speed you want before making a measurement. After the measurement the meter will display the aperture. Most modern meters also making the measurement for the entire duration you set as your shutter speed. For example if you set your shutter speed of say 1 sec. it would measure the flash burst and then continue measuring the ambient light for the entire 1 sec. duration and give you a reading that is the combination of both flash and ambient. Many of these meters also tell you the percentage of flash vs ambient light. You must however choose a shutter speed that is within the sync range of your camera as the meter doesn't know this.<br>

for lighting ratio you would use a flat diffuser (with the Sekonic you just have to retract the spherical diffuser) and aim the meter at the main light make a reading and then the fill light and make another. You will then compare the 2 readings and figure out the lighting ratio.</p>

<p>I shoot outdoors using a multi flash (up to a dozen) set up, often placing lights at different distances. My subject (trains) aren't even there yet when I am setting up so I can't really use LCD screen/histogram. A flash meter is the fastest, most precise way for me to get the exposure set in advance so I'm ready when the train rolls by at 45 mph.<br>

Kent in SD</p>

<p>

<p >"But where I thought I MIGHT find it useful would be in portrait sessions where I'm not rushed and where I'm really trying to do the Best Job Possible, not just the best job possible in a hurry. I have done a lot of portraits on location or in places like the Dallas Arboretum, where I may be using fill-flash, may have a reflector or two. But I now also have a small and basic home studio, and I am starting to have clients come by here. So far I'm only using flash units, radio triggered, with umbrellas, soft boxes, etc. as necessary. The flashes are all on their manual controls, but getting the light right is still for me a matter of guess, test, revise. Doesn't help that I have different brand flash units (Metz, Pentax, Nikon) with different guide numbers, so the power settings (1:1, 1:4, whatever) aren't equal on the different brands. The Pentax AF 548 FGZ outputs less light at 1:1 than the Metz 58 AF at the same power setting." </p>

<p > </p>

<p >William, This is exactly the situation where a flash meter is most useful. On my meter, I will set a specific shutter speed into the meter (along with the film speed). The meter will give me readings in f/stops. For example, if I am shooting at EI 200 at 1/125 a second, the meter will tell me to use f/16 for proper exposure. If I turn down the power setting on the light, I might get f/8. Turn it down more, and I'll get f/5.6. I'm speaking in generalities here. My meter actually reads in .10 increments.</p>

<p > </p>

<p >In the studio, I will start with the main or key light. I will adjust the strength of the light to get a reading on it of say f/11. If this gives me adequate depth of field, that becomes the base exposure. I then will position the fill to get the effect I want. I will then shut off the main light and measure only the fill light. I adjust the strength of the fill to desired intensity. Say f/8. What the meter does is it allows you to carefully adjust the ratio between the main and fill. The ratio is measured in stops. You know there is a one stop difference in the main and the fill. It doesn't take very many exposures to determine the effect on the final photograph of a one/two/three stop difference between the main and fill. Then I will measure the background, adding as much light as needed to the main and fill. If the background receives the same amount of light as the subject (has the same f/stop reading on the meter), it will turn out the color and tone of the background. Less light and it will be darker, more light and it will be lighter. Using the flash meter, you can set the amount of light on the background precisely. </p>

<p > </p>

<p >I generally test out my lighting set ups before the model arrives. All I have to do is to reposition the lights at the predetermined settings to get the effect I want. A quick check of the set up is all that is needed during the shoot. This is a very general description of the process. I recommend that you consider a general portrait lighting book which deals with lighting ratios to give you a head start. </p>

</p>

<p>Allen, thanks for the excellent follow-up. I'm pretty familiar with the text-book ratios and I manage to get what I want or pretty close. But as I said, I do it partly by drawing the experience I've been acquiring and partly by guess, test, adjust, rinse, repeat. To be honest, I'm not devoted to any exact ratios. I mean, I start with an idea that I might like, say, a 1:2 ratio (key:fill) but I am not too worried about the numbers, and once I get something that looks like what I think I want, I stop. Sometimes I want dramatic contrast, sometimes I want very little contrast. The question for me is, would using a light meter help me get what I want more quickly. Sounds like it might. And I would, I suppose, enjoy getting a more precise awareness of what I'm doing. </p>

<p>So my question now is, does anybody have a recommendation regarding a particular model of meter? Or can you tell me what options I should at least be considering? I know that Sekonic isn't the only maker, although they seem to be the gold standard. I say that just because I hear them named more often than anything else. Looks like many of the models cost $250-$300 or more. Is there a less expensive model that I could use that would work for somebody who's new to meters? Sort of a starter model? Since I'm not sure whether I will actually stick with it, I'd prefer not to spend so much. There's a good used camera equipment store here in Dallas and I might visit them and see what they've got; but it would help me to know what I should be looking for.</p>

<p>Thanks again to everybody for your answers to my questions. I've found this a very valuable thread.</p>

<p>Will <br>

<br /></p>

<p>ok, so here is the deal - My strobes are a collection of Pentax, Promaster and Sunpak. If I could afford a Metz, I would have one of those too. My triggers are Chinese ghetto full power, on/off types. Im just starting to use ambient and strobe light together. Will a meter be better than shoot and adjust? Amazon sent me a 10% off offer on a Sekonic L358. </p>

<p>Anyone got advice?</p>