Where do you point your Incident meter?

[richard_wrede]

<p>All of my incident meter owners manuals say "point the meter from the subject towards the camera (or equal if it's an inaccessible subject) and the Sekonic manual even says "if it is a distant landscape, point it at the sun, take a reading, point it level like your pointing it at the camera and take a reading and set the camera to the average reading of the two.<br>

I've been reading the article at JimDoty.com, <a href="http://jimdoty.com/learn/exp101/exp_inc_meter/exp_inc_meter.html"> http://jimdoty.com/learn/exp101/exp_inc_meter/exp_inc_meter.html</a> and he almost always points the meter at the Sun (or the light source).<br>

The theory of the Sekonic (and other meters) Dome is by pointing it at the camera, you get the shade (underside of the dome) and the light (top of the dome) and the Cell can average them to get a correct reading.<br>

What are your thoughts and experiences on the subject? Personally, I recently used my new Digisix2 Incident meter in full shade and in full light and in all cases the images came out great.</p>

[lex_jenkins]

<p>The only time I've aimed an incident meter at anything other than the conventional primary light source (sky, flash, indoor continuous lighting) was when the subject was in shade and the primary lighting source for the subject was reflected light from concrete. That particular scenario worked out fine because the concrete was very reflective and the film (Portra) handled the contrast well.</p>

<p>Regarding the incident diffuser, the only situations where I use the flat diffuser is to meter direct flash indoors where I want to exclude some of the effect of reflected room light. In some situations this can make a difference, usually when the flash is very close to the subject. Otherwise the dome usually works well enough for most situations.</p>

[dhbebb]

<p>At the lens (NOT the light source).</p>

[vrankin]

<p>It's been a long time (the seventies, TLRs and a Gossen incident light meter), but I remember the manual instructing to point the meter at the camera from the subject position.</p>

[craig_shearman1]

<p>I usually use the dome and point it at the camera lens.</p>

[SCL]

<p>Used them for 46 years. Always pointed them toward camera, or alternatively when I couldn't stand at the subject location, in similar light toward where the camera would be.</p>

[BrianS1664879711]

<p>There are good reasons for pointing an incident meter at light sources - PLURAL - when computing lighting ratios. But for most normal usage the process is to point the dome at the lens. JimDoty and a very few others give incorrect advise. Caveat: the meter must be in the same/similar light as the subject. Any good book on photographic exposure published since about 1940 can explain the various uses of incident light metering and the conditions when it works.</p>

[lex_jenkins]

<p>To clarify my comments, I'm presuming the primary desired light source coincides with the camera. In most cases the incident meter would be directed toward the lens. There are exceptions, such as backlighting when a silhouette effect is preferred, or strong side lighting.</p>

<p>There are rare situations in which an incident meter may not give the appropriate reading. For example, if the desired subject is a distance horizon in sunlight while the camera and meter are in shade or under heavy overcast, or vice versa. I've encountered this only a few times, including when photographing the north rim of the Grand Canyon which was under a heavy thunderstorm, while the south rim where I was standing was in full sunlight. I was using Kodachrome and just bracketed and hoped for the best. Other tricky scenarios include deeply shadowed urban downtown areas, where reflected light from the camera direction may give the conventionally "appropriate" exposure, but metering the overhead sky lighting may give the desired dramatic lighting with greater contrast and deeper shadows.</p>

[charles_h2]

<p>From my experience, there are too many factors (variables) in photography, to limit things to just one way. Metering for color is different than B/W. Also adjustments need to be made for film vs digital. Whether you point the meter towards the camera or the light source, you have to be aware if your shutter speeds are correct based on the reading. If one shoots film, the exposure is related to how the film is developed, which in the end, compensates for any over or under exposure.</p>

<p>The meter is a ballpark instrument. It gets you close, but you have to determine what you do with the reading, then compensate for what you want done with the highlights or the shadows. Some people like high contrast images, some like tons of shadow detail......</p>

[michaelmowery]

<p>When using multiple strobes in a studio setting aim at each strobe to set your lights. When everything is all set you can aim the meter at the the main light. Outdoors you can aim it at the camera. In the end it is all ballpark as Charles had said.</p>

[ellis_vener_photography]

It kind f depends on the effect you want with the exposure. For most conventionally lit portraits where I have a key and

fill, I point the top f the dome about halfway between the key

Ight/subject and subject/camera axis. For stronger modeling (biasing the exposure for the key light) I point it at the key

light. For flatter lighting I point it at the camera.

 

If I am using more than two lights. I'll set exposure using either of the first two methods (depending on the effect I want to

create) and then at the other lights and adjust their intensity and/or position, to best fit my idea of how the lighting should

look like for that portrait. Sorry I can't be less vague about that but I really do try to first go by how the light, subject, and

idea "feel" together and not by formulas and numbers, which are derived from an after- fact-analysis.

 

I encourage you to play and experiment, you can sometimes learn more by trying and failing, than by playing it safe.

[pete_s.]

<p><strong>Where you point it depends on what you want to meter.</strong></p>

<p>The lightmeter meters how much light is hitting the dome and express that amount of light in an equivalent exposure. It doesn't do much more than that. It doesn't tell you what the right exposure is for what you want to accomplish.</p>

<p>I agree with Ellis above. There is no simple answer. You need to point it where you need, to measure what you want. And perhaps you need to measure a lot of things in different directions. Then you can set the exposure on the camera to whatever you want to get the image you are visualizing.</p>

<p>If you point it at the (main) light source it will measure the light that comes from that direction together with whatever else little light that can hit the dome from other angles. That is technically the correct exposure for the subject but it may not be what you want.</p>

<p>If you point it towards the camera you are measuring the light coming from that direction. If the subject is side lit you will now technically speaking overexpose the brightest areas of the subject. But that that may be what you want.</p>

<p>For example, say you are shooting a bride standing in the shade. She is now only lit by diffuse light and reflections from nearby objects. It makes sense to aim the dome at the camera. And the bride will be properly exposed.</p>

<p>But lets say a part of her white dress is also hit be sunlight from behind and you don't want to blow it out. Well, then you need to aim the dome towards the sun and expose for that. Now you get the proper exposure for the sunlit parts but you are underexposing the rest.</p>

<p>So you decide to set up a strobe to light her. Now it logical to aim the dome at the strobe so you can adjust the strobe to the exposure you want.</p>

<p>Then perhaps you aim the dome at the camera to get the "average" exposure of the lights. But perhaps you don't want to average it out. Maybe you want it more dramatic look and keep the sunlight properly exposed while using the flash as a very directional second light to get a cross lighting effect, or a kicker of some kind. Or perhaps you dial down the shutter speed two stops to darken the background and sunlit parts and use the flash as your main light.</p>

<p>There are a thousand ways to light something and a thousand ways to point your light meter.</p>

<p>You asked<strong> "Where do you point your incident meter?"</strong><br /> My answer is<strong> "Everywhere I need".</strong></p>

<p> </p>

[bob_bill]

<p>Lots of answers. Mine is it depends on the method. Additive or source. If outdoors, for example, can't turn off the sun if used as a fill light. I take a dome out reading on the fill side towards the camera. I then turn on the main light and take an additive, ie sum of both fill and main, from the area illuminated by both, dome to camera again. This measures the actual amount of light on the shadow and main + fill for a ratio. The source method involves metering aimed at each light with the other light off off or dome down and any light from the other light that is on blocked with body or hand. That provides a ratio based on the intensity of each source. I use the additive as it works when ambient fill can't be turned off so it works in most cases. Source works fine in studio. </p>

[Uhooru]

<p>I was taught to point at the camera. Here's a quote from Jim Zuckerman from the Sekonic web site (http://www.sekonic.com/whatisyourspecialty/photographer/articles/how-to-use-a-handheld-meter.aspx)</p>

<blockquote>

<p>To use the incident mode, you select it on the meter and then hold the device in the light that is falling on the subject when you take a reading. If you and the subject are both in open sunlight, you can take a reading from where you’re standing, near the camera. However, if you are standing under the shade of a tree and your subject is being illuminated by direct sunlight, you must walk over to the subject–or at least into the sunlight–so that the meter detects the same level of light that is falling on the subject. <br /><br />When you are taking an incident reading from the subject’s position, the meter should be held so that the white dome faces the camera lens, not the light source. This ensures that the light strikes the dome exactly as it is falling upon the subject. For example, if you are photographing a face that is side lit, as with the young Indian girl in the photo below, the light must hit the meter from the side. Hence, the dome must face the lens just like the subject’s face does. By positioning the meter correctly, you will allow it to calculate the exposure correctly, regardless of the colors or the reflectivity of the subject.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>When I've used strobes in studio portraits, I would point the incident meter from the side where the light source was coming from towards the camera and test using that one strobe. I would then do the same for each other light pointing the meter towards the camera on the side where the light was coming from, one at a time. This allows you to calculate and control the lighting ratios on the subject for modeling the light to your design.</p>

 

[Uhooru]

<blockquote>

<p>You need to point it where you need, to measure what you want. And perhaps you need to measure a lot of things in different directions. Then you can set the exposure on the camera to whatever you want to get the image you are visualizing.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>This sounds good, but actually, at least using studio strobes, typically, its not just setting the camera's exposure. Its a matter of setting the lights to create the effects you want. The camera is set at only one aperture and shutter speed for the shot. Its changing the lighting that creates the effects. The incident meter is a way to measure the light as it strikes the scene in different places and to establish the ratios, or relative strength between them and then set the lights to create the final. In order to do this, you need to aim the meter at the lens. <br>

If you are shooting outdoors with just the sun as your source, if you and the subject are in the same light you can meter at the camera, but you need to aim the meter at the camera. Then you can decide how you want to set exposure, however, using a spot reflective meter is probably better in that situation if you want to move your tonal scale around.</p>

[rodeo_joe1]

<p>Jim Doty obviously never takes backlit shots!</p>

<p>The "correct" use of an incident meter is as stated in the user manual; point it back at the camera from the subject position. Unless you're using it to read lighting ratios, when it <em>should</em> be pointed at each light source in turn (with the other lights switched off, or at least shaded from the meter). You should also swap the dome for a flat receptor when measuring ratios, if the meter allows. Or retract the dome in the case of some Sekonics.</p>

<p>Sekonic's method of landscape measurement seems very elaborate for no good reason. If the landscape is in the same light as the camera, then it's perfectly OK to simply point the meter back at the camera from the direction the lens is looking. Sekonic's weirdo method adds nothing to that, and still won't account for, say, the camera being under cloud and the landscape in full sunlight, or vice versa.</p>

<p>But, as others have said, a meter reading is only a guide and should be modified according to the desired end effect. Sometimes a wet finger stuck in the air is as good an indication of exposure as any.</p>

[pete_s.]

<p>I took the time to actually read the article on Jim Doty's webpage. He says:</p>

<blockquote>

<p>It's your choice where to point the white dome. Just don't fall for the advice that you should "always point the white dome at the camera". That won't always give you the exposure you want.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>He also goes on and says:</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Where you point the dome depends on which side of your subject you want to be normally exposed. For me, that usually means I point the white dome at the primary (brightest) light source.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I couldn't agree more. If you just point the incident meter at the camera without knowing what you are measuring there are many situations that will give you an exposure that will not give you the image you want. As long as you understand what you are measuring nothing is wrong or right. For me I usually point it at the primary light source (just as Jim Doty and many others) because that is what I want to measure and base my exposure on.<br /><br /></p>

[pete_s.]

<p>Also if you wanted to give a recommendation how to use the incident meters that works reasonably well in most scenarios and is simple, it would be just what sekonic is doing - aim it at the camera.</p>

 

[bob_bill]

<p>An incident light meter gives us our handle, 18% grey. It is the "1" in our ratio, eg 3:1. Basing your exposure on the light coming from the main doesn't take into consideration the additive nature of main and fill on the diffused areas that probably usually should start at 18%. If the fill is on camera or nose axis, some fill is hitting the same area as the main. I think there was a recent post on getting too hot skin tones and this could be why. The dome is curved to represent how light is received on the surface of the subject. I believe it should be held in an area where both main and fill hit on the main side and pointed at the camera as that is what the camera sees and should be set to that reading to get the diffused, ie, if there is where you want accurate tonality, at 18%. If I use the source method instead of the additive method to establish ratio, I still take a final reading for the aperture reading this way. This is a method taught by Brooks Institute instructors. </p>

[Uhooru]

<p>Bob that makes sense, and it would follow that to change the ratios, you change the lights and re-meter as you said.</p>

[pete_s.]

<p>Bob, if you have a 3:1 ratio and only measure the main light by itself then as you said the fill light will add to the exposure when you have all lights on.</p>

<p>However, main light + fill light @ 3:1 ratio will only account for an exposure increase of about 1/3rd of a stop. So all you have to do is stop down the exposure on the camera a third stop from what the meter says when you measured the main light by itself. So no need to take a final measure will all lights on really.</p>

<p>Another point I'd like make is to think about two scenarios:</p>

<p>1 - A dramatic high contrast side lit shot. For instance like <a href="http://tomassobekphotography.co.nz/gallery3/var/albums/People/SelfPortrait/091003_0037a.jpg">this</a>.<br /> Pointing the light meter at the camera will cause a lot of overexposure.</p>

<p>2 - A backlit shot. For instance like <a href="http://cdn.picturecorrect.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/06/backlit-portrait3.jpg">this</a>.<br /> Pointing the light meter at the light source will cause a lot of underexposure.</p>

<p>That should be proof enough that you can't just do what the manual says without understanding what you are measuring.</p>

<p><em>BTW, a lot of portrait shots are lit from the front side and usually not high contrast so the difference between aiming the light meter at the main light source or at the camera is very small.</em></p>

<p> </p>

[Uhooru]

<p>Let me ask you Pete, how do you use the meter to establish your 3:1 ratio in the first place?</p>

[richard_wrede]

<p>I guess he (Jim Doty) is pretty much saying what most of you have said here and it makes a lot of sense... in an average lit scene it can be pointed at the camera, a dramatic side lit scene, you would point it at the light source if the lit part of the subject is what you are going for. Here is a quote from his article:</p>

<blockquote>

<p align="LEFT">"Where you point the dome depends on which side of your subject you want to be normally exposed. For me, that usually means I point the white dome at the primary (brightest) light source.</p>

<p align="LEFT">In the following photo, I pointed the white dome to the left at the setting sun so the side of the boulders facing the sun would be properly exposed. That meant the side of the boulders away from the sun would go very dark.</p>

<p align="LEFT">Had I pointed the white dome of the meter to the right, away from the sun, the shaded side of the boulders would be normally exposed and the sunny side would be seriously overexposed. If I stood near the rocks and pointed the white dome at my camera (splitting the difference between the other two exposure possibilities), the sunlit side would have be overexposed and the shaded side underexposed.<strong> </strong></p>

<p align="LEFT">It's your choice where to point the white dome. Just don't fall for the advice that you should "always point the white dome at the camera". That won't always give you the exposure you want.</p>

<p align="LEFT">This is just my preference, but in the sunlight with frontlit and sidelit subjects, I usually point the dome at the sun.</p>

<p align="LEFT">In sunlight with backlit subjects, I point the white dome at the camera (away from the sun) and subtract 1 stop of light from what the meter says. That's because backlit subjects usually look best somewhat underexposed."</p>

</blockquote>

[Uhooru]

<p>Why don't you try it both ways and empirically test it for yourself?</p>

[rodeo_joe1]

<p>Who the heck is Jim Doty anyway? Just another photo blogger, and no authority on anything at all by the look of his rather boringly designed website.</p>