lightmeter or in-camera-meting for DSLR?

[geert_de_keyser1]

When I only shot film I almost always measured my light with a

lightmeter: incident light mostly for color and spotmeting for black

and white (or incident when things had to be done quickly). Not

because one is beter then the other necessarily. A long time ago I saw

james nachtwey working like this and I just got used to it, liked it,

got better results and stuck with it. When I switched to DSLR for my

color work in press, reportage & corporate I read on more then one

occasion that the readings from a lightmeter (18% neutral grey) might

not be the best choice for digital. I've been doing some tests lately,

using them both and I've found that they differ slightly indeed. I was

wondering what other people's experiences were? I shoot Eos 1DIIN by

the way.

[m3rdpwr]

While I am just learning, I am taking a "Creative Lighting" Course.

 

I've learned how to properly use a Histogram and compensate properly.

(Something you can't really do with film.)

 

Also, I've learned to use "Sunny 16" which has helped my outdoor shots. (No camera reflective or incident meters needed at all.)

 

My retired photography teacher doesn't seem to use his incident meter any more.

 

I had concidered buying a light meter, but after learning above techniques, I decided not to.

 

Anyway, just my two cents...

 

-Mario

[peter_white2]

For most applications, the camera's meter will get you close enough, and a hand-held meter will get you no closer. You can use a test shot which you then evaluate with its histogram to make your final exposure. The histogram will tell you far more about correct exposure than any meter can.

[jim_larson1]

That, and a quick review of critical image areas for localized over/under exposed portions. Instant image review is very, very powerful.

 

Also, when in doubt, you can generally shoot multiple exposures with different settings.

[jeff_b2]

There are still many situations where I prefer a hand held meter. Studio strobes require it. Landscape compositions are often easier when I can leave my camera locked in position and move around with a separate meter.

<p>

There are just as many times when I depend on the in camera meter. Sports and candid shots require speed and flexibility not possible with a hand meter. Sometimes just getting the shot is more important than a perfect exposure.

<p>

Some basic testing of your digital camera will show you how best to utilize the built in meter. Take some controlled exposures of different scenes using all the metering modes to see how the camera responds. Then you will know what the camera is thinking. It is no different than film. A little testing goes a long way.

<p>

Calibrate your camera's meter. See what exposure setting on your camera yields an image of a gray card that is actually 18% gray. You may find that you need to shoot with exposure compensation set slightly up or down on your camera to get the results you want.

<p>

One gadget that is always with me is an <a href="http://www.expoimaging.net/">ExpoDisc</a>. This allows you use your cameraﾒs TTL incident meter as an ambient meter! The ExpoDisc creates perfect white balance color references for a scene. It is also an ideal tool for testing your digital sensor's dynamic range and calibrating your TTL meter's response.

[digitmstr]

You can use the in-camera meter as reliably as you could a hand-held one.

 

Because of habit, I use hand-held for "serious" shoots but, whichever meter I use the camera is in MANUAL mode 99% of the time (unless the lighting is constantly changing every minute).

 

In short, there is no difference in taking readings between film or digital. As with film, you still have to take into account the "latitude" of the medium.

 

Provided you got great results with film you should get the same with your DSLR. Your meter reading will translate perfectly on your DSLR, I know this from experience. For example: I use a Sekonic flashmeter in the studio and the same meter gave the same results (using the same strobes) on my MF cameras as it now does with my 5D. THere is absolutely ZERO difference (i.e. the exposure is the same on DSLR as it was on film, no more no less). I can speak for the two Canon DSLR bodies I have used (10D/5D) and can tell you that their sensor is correlating perfectly to each ISO value, just as in film.

[rdkirk]

My tests proved to me that placing the histogram spike of an 18 percent card just to the left of the center of the Canon histogram (about 1/3 stop) resulted in a correct exposure of the card. Placing the spike directly in the center produces about 1/3 stop overexposure.

 

That would prove correct the folk who have said for a long time that meters are calibrated to correctly reproduce 12 percent gray. I never believed it before--but then I was always working with negative materials before, and those were perfectly happy with 1/3 stop overexposure.

[lovcom_photo]

It seems silly to use a dedicated light meter if one need only take a test shot...no film to waste....check the histogram to determine if Exposure Compensation is required.

 

Unless I'm missing something, I see NO NEED for a hand held meter...the histogram is the last word anyways.

 

And if one has a true spot meter, why not use that?

 

The Light Meter Is A Cool Toy.

[digitmstr]

>>the histogram is the last word anyways.<<

 

Not really, the photographer is, or should be.

 

But, there is NOTHING silly whatsoever in using a meter. Photography and light haven't changed because of digital. I don't even look at the histogram, I don't have to. I meter a scene and expose the way *I* want to, making adjustments based on the meter reading. I can shift for shadows, highlights, or whatever. All based on my meter reading and I know what I am getting even before I press the shutter.

 

In fact, I can work with the LCD off altogether. Good habits are never "silly", IMO.

 

But, I see your point that if one doesn't have a meter at all it could still be possible to get a good exposure by using the histogram. I just wouldn't trade one for the other.

[lovcom_photo]

Giambi, no, wrong...the last word on the exposed image is in fact the histogram. In the film arena, there's no LCD, no histogram, so one had to often rely on a light meter, and/or the in-camera spot meter.

 

Between film and digital, true, light has not changed, but that is the wrong metric, the wrong analogy.

 

What has changed is technology, the advent of the historgram, the LCD.

 

Even in the film days, often photogs relied on Poloriod backs to take pre-pictures to judge exposure.

 

You don't look at the histogram? Most peculiar. So how are you going to know if the highlights are blown? What information will a light meter give you that the histogram won't? The light meter is not going to show you the distribution of the shadows, the mid-tones, and the highlights. The light meter is not going to tell you how many stops of exposure compensation to use...sure indirectly it will, but what is better then the histogram to insure against clipping, blocking of the shadows, lack of contrast? It won't tell you this as well as a histogram, nor will it do so as fast.

 

Using a light meter is fine, and it can be helpful, but it won't tell you anything that the histogram won't, and it just adds one more unnecessary step to the digital capture of the image.

 

No added value.

[lb-]

"No added value."

 

for you dan.

 

you are not the last word on photographic tools and how to use them.

 

calling a light meter a "cool toy" does not reflect well on you.

[alfred_maragh]

I used to always use a light/flash meter when shooting film especially with multiple strobe studio set ups. When I shifted fully to digital, the meters became redundant for me. I set my camera monitor brightness to the level that gives me the luminosity closest to the actual prints and gauge everything from that. So, I set up my lights, do two or three test shots, look at the monitor and check the histogram. I can then get the perfect setting for the particular lighting set up. Can't imagine that a flashmeter would do a better job! BTW, if you shoot with studio set ups very often you may reach the stage where the shooting parameters can be easily predicted with any set up.

[lovcom_photo]

Lucas, tell that to Alfred, a recent respondant on this thread, and to the many, many thousands of pros that no longer rely so much on hand held light meters since going digital.

[lb-]

dan, please read my post again.

 

I have no problem with you or anyone else not finding an incident meter useful in your

work. I simply ask that you do not denigrate or put down those that do. It serves no

positive purpose and frankly you come across as rather insecure.

 

you are obviously very passionate about equipment and technology which is great but try

to understand that there is more to photography and more to how someone may use their

photographic tools than just technology.

 

This is not the IT world.

 

a photographer may simply be more comfortable using an incident meter based on

decades of experience and habit. who are you to tell them that there is "no added value"

and their preferred tool is a "cool toy"?