Light meter for landscapes

[Dwarak]

Not sure if this is used for landscapes I have read about people using light meters for landscapes without relying on the in camera metering system can anyone tell me if it is a good idea.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Xenedis]

For landscapes, you'd likely need a reflected light meter, as opposed to an incident light meter, which measures the light falling on the subject matter.

Camera-based meters measure reflected light.

I cannot say I've ever found myself wanting a dedicated meter, and I tend to make deliberate decisions to under-expose and/or over-exposed based on the "correct" exposure suggested by the camera after its meter has measured the reflected light.

[Jimbo]

I would've thought your camera's spot meter would be sufficient for landscape work, but having never used a dedicated handheld meter I wouldn't know enough to say.

[NickMonk]

For landscapes, you'd likely need a reflected light meter, as opposed to an incident light meter, which measures the light falling on the subject matter.


Um, why? Reflected light metering fools the camera into thinking, for example, that bright whites are grey and gives you reading usually 1 - 2 stops under exposed if the scene is predominantly white (ie a snow scene). Incident light meters are far and away the best way of measuring light for landscapes, or pretty much any other type of photography. Very useful and far more accurate than the in-camera meter.

[Xenedis]

Don't mind me; I was confused.

[gcflora]

I would've thought your camera's spot meter would be sufficient for landscape work, but having never used a dedicated handheld meter I wouldn't know enough to say.

The in-camera metering is fine except when things start getting over 30" @ ISO 100. At that point you start having to double ISO's, half apertures, etc, etc, to then be able to work out how many stops you need to add to the shutter speed. E.g. if it's 30" @ ISO 1600 then you have to know that that's 4 stops and then add that to your shutter speed once you go back down to ISO 100 (480 seconds). While not hard to do it's cumbersome

[ricktas]

I use my light meter sometimes when taking film landscapes using medium format, especially if the scene has a wide range of brightness. I will take a spot meter from several places and get and average for the shutter speed. Don't use one with the DSLR as I can use the inbuilt metering, in need, or take a couple of 'test shots' (easy to delete, where film costs you, even if you don't expose correctly).

[jjphoto]

Is the Histogram on your camera broken? I have several meters, spot, incidident, colour temp, none of which have seen the light of day when using digital. Use your histogram and bracket. That's far better than anything a meter can do for you.

If you rely on a meter without using your histogram then you might as well be shooting medium or large format film, IMHO, as you will be wasting the imediate feedback that digital gives you.

JJ

[Longshots]

A histogram is only going to give you the average digital information of the digital file. A good histogram means a good file - that I dont doubt. Its not going to give you the information of lets say the light reading of the inside of a barn, whilst checking the exposure reading on the facing wall, and then giving you a reading of the sky is it?


So I'd certainly support using a light meter, and although I check my histogram its not something I'd recommend relying on.


And in addition, I tend to think it looks a little bit more polished if you get the shot right the first time as opposed to reading something that can only be checked AFTER the shot is taken, and not before.

[jjphoto]

A histogram is only going to give you the average digital information of the digital file. A good histogram means a good file - that I dont doubt. Its not going to give you the information of lets say the light reading of the inside of a barn, whilst checking the exposure reading on the facing wall, and then giving you a reading of the sky is it? ...

No. It's a line graph showing the quantity of each illumination level including 0 and 255 (the points where no further information is recorded) such as your dark barn and sky. It tells you exactly, not approximately, how good/bad or indifferent your exposure is and what you have to play with in post, if that's your thing. It tells you if you have information recorded in very dark or very bright area's. By the way, using a meter is not easy and you do need to know what you are doing too. It takes practice and experience to know what it is telling you and how to expose your film, for example. You can still very easilly make mistakes by simply holding the meter in the wrong direction or too high or low, in the case of incident readings.


And in addition, I tend to think it looks a little bit more polished if you get the shot right the first time as opposed to reading something that can only be checked AFTER the shot is taken, and not before.

Do you suggest bracketing be avoided too?

JJ

[Longshots]

No I'm quite happy with bracketing. I do that a great deal of the time, and have done for a good 30 years plus.

But I can agree to disagree with you over relying purely on the histogram.

You cannot escape the fact that is gives you the information on an average; exactly as you said from 0 - 255, but it isnt going to help you with a specific light reading on a specific part of an image, which is going to help you understand how you can creatively control your light capture. Everything else you've said I completely agree with - other than dismissing the use of a light meter.

Both the histogram and light meter can be misused and misunderstood. Nor did I say it was easy to use :) Its like reading and understanding the histogram, it takes some commitment and some practice :) Both have their place - which was my point.

[Xenedis]

A histogram is only going to give you the average digital information of the digital file.

Something important to note here if you shoot raw-only as I do is that the histogram is based on the low-res JPG the camera produces for the LCD screen, not the raw file itself.

[TOM]

in camera light meter can work, and try to use a lens with a similar fov. incident meters can work if you stand in the average light that falls on the average light in your shot. the ideal meter to use is a dedicated spot such as a Pentax Digital spot meter, but they aint cheap, and they don't do everything like the Sekonics (incident, spot, reflect). If you do want an all in one like that then the Sekonic is the only option, but if you only want spot for landscape and nothing else, then the Pentax is a better quality product.

[ricktas]

The Sekonics are good, mine does incident, reflected, spot and flash. Very handy tool.

[Imagenif]

For landscapes, you'd likely need a reflected light meter, as opposed to an incident light meter, which measures the light falling on the subject matter.

Camera-based meters measure reflected light.

I cannot say I've ever found myself wanting a dedicated meter, and I tend to make deliberate decisions to under-expose and/or over-exposed based on the "correct" exposure suggested by the camera after its meter has measured the reflected light.

Do you use exp bracketing for your seascapes?

[Imagenif]

Do you use exp bracketing for your seascapes?

Disregard that question John, I just read your seascape photography piece. Very informative thanks :)

[Dwarak]

The Sekonics are good, mine does incident, reflected, spot and flash. Very handy tool.

Rick I have the same can you tell me where can I find information to use it effectively including how to calculate the expose shutter speed needed ect. I think will be very helpful thanks in advance...

[Paul T]

Hi Team

I have a Sekonic and use it quite regularly as a spot meter when I want very accurate readings and don't have time to reshoot. To use the spot meter it is a good idea to have some knowledge about the zone system.

The incident meter on a handheld is not that good for landscapes as you need to take the reading in the same light as the subject. A bit difficult if your subject is at infinity or the ocean etct etc

[arthurking83]

Review screen histogram is more than accurate enough for capturing a landscape scene.

The only issue if you shoot raw and use Auto WB, is that if the camera shoots the scene too blue for the actual conditions at the time, your histogram may tend to look correctly exposed(ie., not blown out if that's what you want).
But if you load the images onto the PC and 'correct' the WB for the image, which will almost certainly be warmer from my experience), then the red channel may immediately blow out depending on how close to the right you've exposed.

I have no idea on how good/bad/ugly spot metering is on a Canon 7D, but on a Nikon D300 it's usually spot on :p

I take spot meter readings via the camera's metering system at various points, use filters if they're required.
Metering on the mid to dark tones, I'll shoot a 3shot - 0.7 bracketed burst(ie. 0 -0.7 and -1.3EV) to push the highlights as far as I can with the neutral exposure.
Almost certainly I'll end up using the -1.3Ev exposure on most of my resultant assessments of my images.

i've never seen any reason to use a light meter with a digital camera.

As far as I'm aware anyhow, each camera's sensor seems to have slightly different exposure characteristics anyhow, and the light meter won't take lens characteristics into account either.

Things like vignetting, contrast colour etc.
The best light meter for a digital camera is the cameras own sensor!

You have a tri colour histogram, use that and be mindful of WB warming later on in PP.

[dowden photography]

Review screen histogram is more than accurate enough for capturing a landscape scene.

The only issue if you shoot raw and use Auto WB, is that if the camera shoots the scene too blue for the actual conditions at the time, your histogram may tend to look correctly exposed(ie., not blown out if that's what you want).
But if you load the images onto the PC and 'correct' the WB for the image, which will almost certainly be warmer from my experience), then the red channel may immediately blow out depending on how close to the right you've exposed.

I have no idea on how good/bad/ugly spot metering is on a Canon 7D, but on a Nikon D300 it's usually spot on :p

I take spot meter readings via the camera's metering system at various points, use filters if they're required.
Metering on the mid to dark tones, I'll shoot a 3shot - 0.7 bracketed burst(ie. 0 -0.7 and -1.3EV) to push the highlights as far as I can with the neutral exposure.
Almost certainly I'll end up using the -1.3Ev exposure on most of my resultant assessments of my images.

i've never seen any reason to use a light meter with a digital camera.

As far as I'm aware anyhow, each camera's sensor seems to have slightly different exposure characteristics anyhow, and the light meter won't take lens characteristics into account either.

Things like vignetting, contrast colour etc.
The best light meter for a digital camera is the cameras own sensor!

You have a tri colour histogram, use that and be mindful of WB warming later on in PP.
This is the biggest load of rubbish I've ever read on the subject.

A light meter is a Grey Card, its that simple. Taking a light reading before you shot is a key part of landscape photography or any kind of photography for that matter weather its digital or film.
Yes cameras have come a long way in the last 10 years, but they still fall miles behind when it comes to reading the light.

If you have a light meter you should use it for EVERY shot you take.

Cameras and it doesn't matter what brand, make or model don't do a good enough job.

The best way to see this is find a white wall, set the colour space to B&W (colour might also work but B&W is the best).
Take a reading of the wall, take a shot.
Take a reading with a Grey card, take the shot.
Turn both images into B&W images in photoshop and the first will show up as middle grey, the second will show the Grey card as middle Grey, the wall white.

How are you going to work out studio flashes without one? change the shutter speed? shutter speed means NOTHING with flash photography, your aperture changes the exposure because a flash of light is around 10,000 of a second. in other words you get the same results at 160/s @ ƒ8 than you would at 10/s @ ƒ8.

[dowden photography]

Hi Team

I have a Sekonic and use it quite regularly as a spot meter when I want very accurate readings and don't have time to reshoot. To use the spot meter it is a good idea to have some knowledge about the zone system.

The incident meter on a handheld is not that good for landscapes as you need to take the reading in the same light as the subject. A bit difficult if your subject is at infinity or the ocean etct etc

Becareful when reading a shot off an LCD screen. Most cameras have ok'ish screens but it'll look nothing like it does on a calibrated screen.

[jjphoto]

This is the biggest load of rubbish I've ever read on the subject.

A light meter is a Grey Card, its that simple. Taking a light reading before you shot is a key part of landscape photography or any kind of photography for that matter weather its digital or film.
Yes cameras have come a long way in the last 10 years, but they still fall miles behind when it comes to reading the light.

If you have a light meter you should use it for EVERY shot you take.

Cameras and it doesn't matter what brand, make or model don't do a good enough job.

The best way to see this is find a white wall, set the colour space to B&W (colour might also work but B&W is the best).
Take a reading of the wall, take a shot.
Take a reading with a Grey card, take the shot.
Turn both images into B&W images in photoshop and the first will show up as middle grey, the second will show the Grey card as middle Grey, the wall white.

How are you going to work out studio flashes without one? change the shutter speed? shutter speed means NOTHING with flash photography, your aperture changes the exposure because a flash of light is around 10,000 of a second. in other words you get the same results at 160/s @ ƒ8 than you would at 10/s @ ƒ8.

I shoot with strobes (outdoors) almost all the time and my Sekonic L-358 flash meter never come out to play any more since digital. I don't even bother with meters when shooting cars in a studio (ie expensive jobs), even though I usually bring them just in case, but there is never any need and they don't benefit the situation in any tangable way. It's not like shooting film where you needed to know your meters, lenses, camera, films like the back of your hand because you had to rely on them. Now a Histogram tells you virtually everything you need to know (not colour temp). I also don't bother using my Pentax digital Spotmeter or Minolta Colour Meter either, no point since digital. The Minolta Colour Temp meter comes in handy at times.

The amount of light that passes through a lens can also be quite different when the lens is focused at infinity compared to the same aperture but focused much closer, your light meter won't tell you that but your histogram will. The difference is over a stop with a lens like the Canon 100/2.8 Macro. Of course you can learn the quirks of each and every meter and lens that you own but there simply isn't any need to. It doesn't make sense to use meters when you have a much more efficient and I believe accurate method.

How do you think you benefit from using a meter?

JJ

[jjphoto]

Review screen histogram is more than accurate enough for capturing a landscape scene.

The only issue if you shoot raw and use Auto WB, is that if the camera shoots the scene too blue for the actual conditions at the time, your histogram may tend to look correctly exposed(ie., not blown out if that's what you want).
But if you load the images onto the PC and 'correct' the WB for the image, which will almost certainly be warmer from my experience), then the red channel may immediately blow out depending on how close to the right you've exposed.

I have no idea on how good/bad/ugly spot metering is on a Canon 7D, but on a Nikon D300 it's usually spot on :p

I take spot meter readings via the camera's metering system at various points, use filters if they're required.
Metering on the mid to dark tones, I'll shoot a 3shot - 0.7 bracketed burst(ie. 0 -0.7 and -1.3EV) to push the highlights as far as I can with the neutral exposure.
Almost certainly I'll end up using the -1.3Ev exposure on most of my resultant assessments of my images.

i've never seen any reason to use a light meter with a digital camera.

As far as I'm aware anyhow, each camera's sensor seems to have slightly different exposure characteristics anyhow, and the light meter won't take lens characteristics into account either.

Things like vignetting, contrast colour etc.
The best light meter for a digital camera is the cameras own sensor!

You have a tri colour histogram, use that and be mindful of WB warming later on in PP.

+1
JJ

[arthurking83]

There seems to be a misconception that digital sensors work the same way as film used too.

As I've said, and having briefly borrowed a light meter for landscapes... I've never seen any reason to use a light meter for landscapes

And we are referring to digital here, not film!.. as that was how I understood the premise of the OP's opening question.
Of course that was an assumption I've made, as there is no listing in his sig of any film equipment.. so I may be wrong(again).

A grey card can in fact come in handy for some uses, and my only use for it has only ever been to take a WB reading. I've found that in every situation I've found myself in, my camera's spot meter has been more than accurate.

of course others experiences may be different.

of my statements:

*i've never seen any reason to use a light meter with a digital camera.

*As far as I'm aware anyhow, each camera's sensor seems to have slightly different exposure characteristics anyhow, and the light meter won't take lens characteristics into account either.

*Things like vignetting, contrast colour etc.
The best light meter for a digital camera is the cameras own sensor!

*You have a tri colour histogram, use that and be mindful of WB warming later on in PP.

So with all those highlighted comments are you in fact saying that without a light meter, successfully exposing a landscape scene is impossible?

or are you inferring that an external light meter(thats not calibrated to the specific sensor) is going to allow that digital sensor to expose the scene more accurately than the cameras own meter can?

My D70s and D300 expose the same scene with the exact same camera/lens settings differently, by up to 2/3Ev difference.

maybe your experience with your lenses is vastly different to my experience with my lenses(which all seem to have subtle differences in exposing a scene)

if you have evidence to the contrary, I'd be interested to see it.

Due to my slower than molasses internet connection I will endeavour to post my collection of experiences.

note, no one ever mentioned reading the image or scene off the review screen!
Every reference so far has been to use the histogram on the review screen, not the image itself.
If your PC software is displaying a different histogram to the one on your camera's review screen, I dare say you're using the wrong PC software!... they should be identical!

I've had limited use of my SB-800 for a few 'interested to see what happens' landscape scenes, but for all intents and purposes, the use of any form of external lighting for a LANDSCAPE scene is generally impractical. The transportation of studio flashes and generators to run them into the bush is too much hard yakka for my back and leg.

I'll post up some sample images in due time to highlight some differences between cameras and lenses... etc.

[TOM]

This is the biggest load of rubbish I've ever read on the subject.

A light meter is a Grey Card, its that simple. Taking a light reading before you shot is a key part of landscape photography or any kind of photography for that matter weather its digital or film.
Yes cameras have come a long way in the last 10 years, but they still fall miles behind when it comes to reading the light.

If you have a light meter you should use it for EVERY shot you take.


It depends on the type of photography you are doing. No you don't need to use your light meter for every shot. Man if I did that at a wedding, I'd miss alot of shots. My primary source for metering is a dedicated Sekonic L-358 (??flashmate), but once you take a meter reading, and that's not always neccessary, then you learn to adjust as the light changes. A lot of the time, you can nail the exposure instinctively, and with film, you have a lot of latitude, especially with b&w films like Tri-X. With digital, the LCD screen has alleviated a lot of the need for a meter. For static work like still life or landscape, why not use a meter? It doesn't really have to be a dedicated one though. Particularly if you are using the zone system right through your workflow (capture, develop, print).


The best way to see this is find a white wall, set the colour space to B&W (colour might also work but B&W is the best).
Take a reading of the wall, take a shot.
Take a reading with a Grey card, take the shot.
Turn both images into B&W images in photoshop and the first will show up as middle grey, the second will show the Grey card as middle Grey, the wall white.

Yes that will happen, of course the camera doesn't know what it is pointing at. But you will learn to compensate for that, even subconsciously over time. There is no reason why you can't use a camera's relfective meter becasue of a scenario like that. Most of the time, the camera's meter won't need compensation - hence this is why meters are calibrated at 18% grey (I know that is debatable). The average scenes luminance is just that. But you have a type of grey card with you at all time. Meter the back of your hand, and compare the difference with a grey card (everyone's skin is different). Now you know that if you add the compensation to your spot meter's reading, then you should get 18% grey - no need to carry a grey card, or at least it will do in the absence of one.

[arthurking83]

.... The difference is over a stop with a lens like the Canon 100/2.8 Macro. Of course you can learn the quirks of each and every meter and lens that you own but there simply isn't any need to.....

JJ

That's apparently because the Canon version doesn't display or relay the correct aperture info at macro(or close up) distances.
Not wanting to start a N vs C war but the Nikon version does, and it drops as far as f/4.8 at about 1:2 or thereabouts.

But the other thing to note is that every lens may have real different aperture values as opposed to the indicated(or marked) values.

Eg. many f/2.8 lenses may in fact be more like f/2.92 or so(and I think the Tammy 90/2.8 is??) coupled to a little known fact that some lenses apertures are not as precise as the manufacturers make them out to be(be weary of kit lenses!) or can become sticky over time ... I see no reason to believe a virtual reading(external light meter) over an actual reading(histogram).

If anyone can prove the opposite to be true, it'd make for an interesting tutorial.
(Since I have no need for a light meter, I'm not in any position to prove or disprove anything).. only that WB can make a difference.

[TOM]

There seems to be a misconception that digital sensors work the same way as film used too.

Film does still work AK :)

[arthurking83]

LOL!

I know!.. I stuffed my last roll up tho... I need to find a better film processing lab first.. and I in need of a film scanner that costs next to nothing. the digital scans they supplied are woeful... even my flatbed scanner could have done a better job of them, but it can't connect to Win7!.. no drivers and I suspect that many old banger slide scanners may also die with the newer Windoze version? :(

[dowden photography]

and when you all overexpose an image I'm sure you'll say "I'll get it right in photoshop"

[arthurking83]

LOL!

And in reply: that's part of the reason I prefer to use my camera's meter and the histogram. It doesn't lie.


well... mine doesn't at least, so I'm not sure what brand of camera or what software you prefer to use, so that could be a telling factor.

Sometime later today I'll post up one of my new "big loads of rubbish" to help you understand how the histogram never lies(1)


author reference notes:
(1) the assumption is made that this condition can be variable, dependent on software used to view, process and convert the images

[Kym]

and when you all overexpose an image I'm sure you'll say "I'll get it right in photoshop"

I think AK's point was to not just use the full histogram but also the tri-colour histogram.

This point got buried in the thread noise.

If you use a tri-colour histogram - you will get a spot on exposure.
http://www.luminous-landscape.com/columns/determining-exposure.shtml

[ricktas]

Considering this was a thread about lightmeter usage for LANDSCAPES, I am not sure how we got Studio work in the mix, they are to very different genre :confused013

[Dwarak]

I think AK's point was to not just use the full histogram but also the tri-colour histogram.

This point got buried in the thread noise.

If you use a tri-colour histogram - you will get a spot on exposure.
http://www.luminous-landscape.com/columns/determining-exposure.shtml

Thanks kym only recently I have learnt about histograms and been able to understand them the 7d does have the three color channel histogram lucky for me. Thanks for all your comments will try and use the light meter for portraits cannot fiddle around with it when we are loosing light fast rather take the trial and error approach take the shot not happy compensate and retake.

Just need to know how to work out the correct exposure after taking the meter readings. If I am shooting in av mode and here I can only see the change in the shutter speed when I focus on different points in the scene how do I then calculate the right shutter speed for my exposure do I calculate the average shutter speed.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Dwarak]

Considering this was a thread about lightmeter usage for LANDSCAPES, I am not sure how we got Studio work in the mix, they are to very different genre :confused013

Thanks for pointing out this I guess it just got sidetracked. But I have learnt a great deal from the replies most appreciated.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[jjphoto]

Considering this was a thread about lightmeter usage for LANDSCAPES, I am not sure how we got Studio work in the mix, they are to very different genre :confused013

It has nothing to do with the OP's question but is just in relation to one of the replies about using strobes and meters.

Macro lenses have nothing to do with shooting landscapes either, at least not at close focus distances, but the way lenses transmit light at different focusing distances potentially does.

JJ

[ricktas]

It has nothing to do with the OP's question but is just in relation to one of the replies about using strobes and meters.

Macro lenses have nothing to do with shooting landscapes either, at least not at close focus distances, but the way lenses transmit light at different focusing distances potentially does.

JJ

Agree, not a problem, just wanted to get this back on track. If we want to discuss lightmeters and studio setup, probably the strobist forum would be more suited as lighting in studio can be very complex, meaning this thread could deviate even more from its intended discussion, that's all.

[Steve Axford]

and when you all overexpose an image I'm sure you'll say "I'll get it right in photoshop"
Yep. And it happens quite a lot with macro photography. It may just be a small highlight, but being able "to get it right" is invaluable. I must say that the colour or the subject sometimes seems to stuff up the meter reading, particularly with reds. Still, that ability to "get it right" after the event makes a huge difference. Anyway, the "correct" exposure may be so far down the scale that I would lose shadow detail, so I have learnt to accept a bit of post processing recovery.

[arthurking83]

.... but the way lenses transmit light at different focusing distances potentially does.

JJ

and also the glass elements used in the various lenses, brands of lenses, the lens's ability to control aberrations, etc, etc...

First I want to show the differences between the same image as displayed by two different software manufacturers.
Because I only use Nikon, I use Nikon specific software and now I'm trialling Bibble5(but it's about to go bung on me any second now as the trial expires today!)
Bibble and LR3 have the same degree of differences to how Nikon's software displays the image/histogram and ultimately the exposure you see on your PC.

I took a pseudo landscape image of some grass:

55798

I took a photo of the camera's display screen and the image I saw on the PC via ViewNX(Capture NX has some subtle differences, but for all intents and purposes the same as ViewNX)
The two images look basically the same on the camera's review LCD and on the PC but slightly brighter on the camera. I adjusted the D300's LCD to -2(out of +- 3 levels of adjustment) and it looks the same enough. The important point is that exposure is dead bang on target as per the camera via ViewNX histograms are the same identical shape in all three colours and the grey(white) graph. Apologies for the rank photo of a blurry camera LCD tho(I'm a little rushed today).

Note I only shoot using the Standard Picture Control(camera enhancement) with all tweaks zero'ed out. If I want camera enhancements 'in camera', I prefer to use them via the PC software... advantages of shooting raw, and I suspect that other manufacturers software allows the same ability for their respective raw files.

Bibble's idea of how the image looks:

55799
I wouldn't call that rendition anywhere near the same as the camera, Nikon ViewNX, and also FastStone's FSViewer!... in any respect. Neither colour, contrast, brightness, or sharpness look anything like the image I wanted from the camera, and that's Bibble's fault.. but without trying to blame Bibble as an isolated case, as I've seen the same results using LR3 and years ago PSCS2(via ACR.. whatever version I had back then). Bibble tells me both on screen and via the histogram that the image needs either a colour boosting or some exposure adjustment (-ve something). The histogram is completely different!
yet FSViewer shows the exact same histogram as does the camera and Nikon's software.
that's because it displays the embedded jpg image in the raw file.

ps. Bibble is very very fast at processing/conversion(that was my only interest in it)

These results should be different if you shoot a raster format(jpg or tiff) in camera, and most likely looking more similar across different software.
I haven't converted any of the images to jpg yet to load them into Bibble5 to see if there are any differences.

I also took two snaps in fully controlled light in my back room, and the Nikon 105VR macro lens at f/4 required 1/1.6s for the same exposure that required 1/2.5s without changing any other variables when using the Tammy 300/2.8. The Nikon 105VR is 2/3Ev slower than the Tammy300. :confused013 both exposures are similar with the Tammy shot looking approx 1/6th brighter, but in effect with less contrast than the Nikon lens produced.

Add a polariser into the mix(very common for landscapes!) and any other type of filter used for balancing/controlling light, and the light meter quickly becomes a PITA for speedy work rates.

[arthurking83]

..... The Minolta Colour Temp meter comes in handy at times.

....

JJ

do you find it close to 100% accurate?
ie. is it worth the $

Thom Hogan suggested using one instead of a grey card to preset WB as it's usually more accurate, and I'm a cheapskate and only got myself a grey card! :p

How much do you reckon they're generally worth?

Thom also specifically mentions the Minolta brand too, and now that's a meter I'd be interested in.

[jjphoto]

do you find it close to 100% accurate?
ie. is it worth the $

Thom Hogan suggested using one instead of a grey card to preset WB as it's usually more accurate, and I'm a cheapskate and only got myself a grey card! :p

How much do you reckon they're generally worth?

Thom also specifically mentions the Minolta brand too, and now that's a meter I'd be interested in.

I think Colour Temp Meter is potentially as difficult to use as any other meter so it takes a lot of getting used to and learning what it is actually telling you. I only ever used it for a 'ball park' guide when shooting slide film at sunset or in the shade where the colour temp would vary WILDLY, especially just after the sun has set. Picking the colour temp after the sun has set is very difficult regardless of how much experience you have, and I used to do it all the time. If in doubt, use an 85C, was my MO.

Re accuracy, I don't know but I hardly ever used it where the light wasn't changing constantly so it's hard to judge. I think Colour Temp Meters are virtually irrelevant these days as a RAW file is so easy to tweek. The only time I think they are still handy is when gel-ing lights to match existing lighting (a situation where a RAW file won't help you at all).

I also think that accuracy can be over rated. Some thing can be innacurate but look good or the other way around. Of course there are times when accuracy is critical such as when shooting clothes or art work for example.

JJ

[arthurking83]

I had a quick search about and found that the old Minolta Color II is selling for approximately US$500 now.

The current gen Minolta CL-200 is listed on a few USA base sites for US$3K! :eek:

They only do colour temp measurement.

On the other hand!
The Sekonic C-500 is selling for approx $1K. It's a lot money for the two times(so far) that I've found myself scratching my head re colour temp for a given scene.
Considering the ability to measure light for specific colour channels, I'd prefer the added expense of a colour meter over a standard light meter even if the colour meter was more than twice the price!

[dowden photography]

LOL!

And in reply: that's part of the reason I prefer to use my camera's meter and the histogram. It doesn't lie.


well... mine doesn't at least, so I'm not sure what brand of camera or what software you prefer to use, so that could be a telling factor.

Sometime later today I'll post up one of my new "big loads of rubbish" to help you understand how the histogram never lies(1)


author reference notes:
(1) the assumption is made that this condition can be variable, dependent on software used to view, process and convert the images

I don't need your help to understand a histogram, nor did I need to see your "latest" for you to prove a point.
Yes you can read a histogram, yes you can try to judge a shot on that, but it will always need PP to fix the changes in the light. Light changes within seconds, thats why you'll see "photographers" taking 5 or 6 readings before shooting. Not just shooting checking a histogram and then saying "oh I think it needs 2 extra stops."

The histograms on cameras can lie, and are about 90 to 95% right, meaning what you camera is telling you could be wrong.

As for what camera I use a Sony/Minolta, Sony make the sensors/chips for Nikon not that cameras matter, its the photographer, not the gear and software I use Aperture, but I get it right the first time and in camera because I use a light meter.

I got these figures from trainers at a leading photo imaging college & the canon rep at my part time job.

[arthurking83]

....

Yes you can read a histogram, yes you can try to judge a shot on that, but it will always need PP to fix the changes in the light. Light changes within seconds, thats why you'll see "photographers" taking 5 or 6 readings before shooting. Not just shooting checking a histogram and then saying "oh I think it needs 2 extra stops."

.... its the photographer, not the gear and software I use Aperture, but I get it right the first time and in camera because I use a light meter.

I got these figures from trainers at a leading photo imaging college & the canon rep at my part time job.

Sorry dude! as I read your answers.... they're wrong answers!

Are we now we're talking video here? Changes in light will really only affect an image at very long exposures and the camera can usually take care of that anyhow if you use the correct mode.
I've never had any issue exposing an image and during that exposure the changes in light have had any affect on the image.
With video, yes.. but with most of my images up to approx 2 seconds any changes in light have never been a problem. And I do primarily shoot landscapes, where light changes all the time.

Firstly you said: but it will always need PP to fix the changes

Secondly you said: but I get it right the first time and in camera because I use a light meter
(and going by your current gallery, I find that statement rather hard to believe!)

So which is it?

you want us to believe(and based on what premise/level of experience?) that by using the light meter, the histogram is going to subsequently be more accurate? Is this what your argument is?

I'm sure whatever you're on... it's the wrong stuff!

I'm just glad I haven't wasted money on trainers to teach me guff like that!

The image I posted for the sake of your clarification was shot without the use of a lightmeter and, as categorically stated, using only the histogram on the review screen provided by the camera, which was confirmed by the correct software, even tho the incorrect software deemed it to be incorrect... and thus requiring PP(as you said).
Which software would be inclined to trust.

As I said.. you're on the wrong stuff.. but thanks for your comments anyhow, I think your comments have allowed many of us an insight into something that we've only suspected .... until now. :umm:



.... is this another fried chicken in the making ?

[dowden photography]

Sorry dude! as I read your answers.... they're wrong answers!

Are we now we're talking video here? Changes in light will really only affect an image at very long exposures and the camera can usually take care of that anyhow if you use the correct mode.
I've never had any issue exposing an image and during that exposure the changes in light have had any affect on the image.
With video, yes.. but with most of my images up to approx 2 seconds any changes in light have never been a problem. And I do primarily shoot landscapes, where light changes all the time.

Firstly you said: but it will always need PP to fix the changes

Secondly you said: but I get it right the first time and in camera because I use a light meter
(and going by your current gallery, I find that statement rather hard to believe!)

So which is it?

you want us to believe(and based on what premise/level of experience?) that by using the light meter, the histogram is going to subsequently be more accurate? Is this what your argument is?

I'm sure whatever you're on... it's the wrong stuff!

I'm just glad I haven't wasted money on trainers to teach me guff like that!

The image I posted for the sake of your clarification was shot without the use of a lightmeter and, as categorically stated, using only the histogram on the review screen provided by the camera, which was confirmed by the correct software, even tho the incorrect software deemed it to be incorrect... and thus requiring PP(as you said).
Which software would be inclined to trust.

As I said.. you're on the wrong stuff.. but thanks for your comments anyhow, I think your comments have allowed many of us an insight into something that we've only suspected .... until now. :umm:



.... is this another fried chicken in the making ?

Really? going on what image or images?
Firstly have you sold any images to any gallery anywhere? Yes or no? well I have.
A seascape image, taken with a light meter reading, a HDR (the 17 shots were taken off a light meter reading), these two images sold at a show last month. Apart from the HDR there was no PP needed.


I was talking about the time it takes to read the histogram and then make the changes to shutter speed and aperture. A light reading would be one quicker, and 2 better.

As for the software, you are using the software from Nikon am I right? If so of cause its going to show you whats on the camera, it does on my sony camears when I open the sony software, it does it on canon cameras and it does it on Pentax cameras. These programs are designed to show you what the camera saw using the software built into the camera, open the images up in a program like Aperture, Lightroom or Photoshop RAW and it'll see what you would have seen on a grey card or light reading.
You see every camera will over or under expose an image. The in camera meter is always going to be off by up to 15%, they is going to show up in a histogram in programs such as PS, aperture or lightroom.



Secondly I was talking about your work will always need PP if you don't get a light reading, yes histograms do a good job, but they are nothing like the readings taken from a light meter or with a Grey card.

Now tell me what you've "only suspected" until now? I've starting to get a better understanding of forums in the last month or so, when people are wrong they have a go at someones work, You can think whatever you want, its your hobby.

As for wasting my money on school and trainers, at least I know what I'm doing and when push comes to shove, I know who will get hired, a hobby photgrapher or someone who has the training, the images and knows how to use a light meter.

[JM Tran]

If you have a light meter you should use it for EVERY shot you take.

LOL, nahhh I'll be alright. Experience comes to the fore, sometimes I know exactly the exposures and settings when I walk into a room, or outside. If I had to meter before every shot with a light meter, I would be out of business by now:)



How are you going to work out studio flashes without one? change the shutter speed? shutter speed means NOTHING with flash photography, your aperture changes the exposure because a flash of light is around 10,000 of a second. in other words you get the same results at 160/s @ ƒ8 than you would at 10/s @ ƒ8.
__________________

actually a 1/160th at f8 shot will have very dark backgrounds, compared to a shot at 1/10th f8, with a much better exposed and balance background to the main subject:):):):):)

I like hot and spicy fried chicken from KFC:)

[dowden photography]

I got this from Steven Chee, one of Australia's leading studio photographers, who I've assisted with.

"Aperture controls your exposure with flashes"

I'm finished on this subject, do or don't use a light meter I don't really care.

[I @ M]

Now tell me what you've "only suspected" until now? I've starting to get a better understanding of forums in the last month or so, when people are wrong they have a go at someones work, You can think whatever you want, its your hobby.


Well, as far as forums go, the advice that is given on them by posters ( that is you, me or Joe Blow ) really only ever gains any credibility when backed up by real life examples of the advisors work.

Quite simple really, if people consistently push a certain way of doing things but their images are purely crap then it is little wonder that others simply feel that the poster has it all wrong to start with.

[ricktas]

Now tell me what you've "only suspected" until now? I've starting to get a better understanding of forums in the last month or so...

Yet you stay and continue to post... and you own a photography forum yourself! :confused013

[ricktas]

I have banned a member who has been posting in this thread, after a PM was reported to me, where he attacked the other member for posting their views in this thread.

[TOM]

(the 17 shots were taken off a light meter reading)

do you meani that you took one meter reading, then bracketed, or did you actually meter 17 times for 17 frames? Chase Jarvis doesn't use a light meter, and I'm told he knows a thing or two about taking good pics.

[Paul T]

LOL!

And in reply: that's part of the reason I prefer to use my camera's meter and the histogram. It doesn't lie.


well... mine doesn't at least, so I'm not sure what brand of camera or what software you prefer to use, so that could be a telling factor.

Sometime later today I'll post up one of my new "big loads of rubbish" to help you understand how the histogram never lies(1)


author reference notes:
(1) the assumption is made that this condition can be variable, dependent on software used to view, process and convert the images

Hi team

Not really interested in WW3 only sharing opinions and information etc,so here is some more info to consider.

The histogram on ALL digital cameras (other than some high end cameras) is based on the JPEG setting in camera even if you are shooting RAW. This means that the histogram may be showing you that an image is overexposed, but may in fact be be up to 1 stop underexposed when you bring the image into a RAW converter.

The only (as far as I am aware) way of getting a truly representative camera histrogram is to use a Uni White Balance and a neutral curve in camera. The problem with this is that it throws the colours way out.

Yes a hand held meter doesn't take into account filters etc but that is a matter of the photographer being able to calculate the exposure differences when filters are used and where a hand held meter is used to take the readings.

Spot metering when using the Zone system correctly is extremely accurate and once you are used to it very fast.

Having said all this, beauty is in the eye of the holder and it doesn't matter what method of metering a person uses, it only matters that the persons is happy with their images.

Cheers

[TOM]

it's a fairly crude spot meter, but I also use my iPhone. I use the app called , and it works well for my medium format stuff that doesn't have a light meter. It won't replace my Sekonic, but at least it is always with me.

[Kym]

The histogram on ALL digital cameras (other than some high end cameras) is based on the JPEG setting in camera even if you are shooting RAW. This means that the histogram may be showing you that an image is overexposed, but may in fact be be up to 1 stop underexposed when you bring the image into a RAW converter.

Hence the earlier comment about tri-colour histograms. They let you get it right.

BTW Thanks for being ON topic!

[RaoulIsidro]

It's amazing how a great passion to a certain way of doing photography can bring about unpleasant circumstances.
I tend to avoid people who react to postings using the word: "Nope."

[Paul T]

Hence the earlier comment about tri-colour histograms. They let you get it right.

BTW Thanks for being ON topic!

Hi Kym

Thanks for the thanks.

My understanding with the Histogram, whether it is displaying the colour channels or the luminance channel, is that it is always displays the settings set for JPEGs. This in turn means that if the histogram colour channels are used and the expousre is bought as close to the right of the histogram without touching the right hand edge the exposure may be out by 1/2 to 1 stop depending upon the scene. Try it; shoot one image as per the histogram then another (same scene) as I describe below and see if you have more info to play with in the RAW converter. Pay particular attention to the red channel as it is the one which typically over exposes first.

When I am shooting I always shoot in RAW and if I am using my histogram I will allow the histogram ( I use the colour channel view) to just nudge over the right hand edge about 1/2 to 1 stop. (Just enough to get the blinkies going.) I watch the red channel like a hawk as explained above. So if the red channel is starting the 'blinkies" I will not add exposure.

When I then import into the RAW converter I have heaps of info to make sure my shadows aren't full of noise.


Cheers:)

[ricktas]

A poster in this thread also commented about always using a light meter and taking 5-6 readings before taking a shot. Now I have been a landscaper for years, and not once have I ever encountered a DSLR user, using a light meter. Makes me wonder where all the photographers are that the poster has encountered? Using film is completely different, especially medium or large format, and I always use my light meter. But I have also used the meter inside my DSLR to get a reading to set my medium format camera by, and it has been accurate.

[RaoulIsidro]

But I have also used the meter inside my DSLR to get a reading to set my medium format camera by, and it has been accurate.

I have done that too, on my F2AS (no cell, so no meter). It has a 50mm f1.4 AIS lens.
Whatever the reading on my 5D with a 50mm f1.4 USM gave, I applied to the F2 and it had good exposures on the Velvia! So in effect, my 5D was my "meter" for my F2...

[Xenedis]

A poster in this thread also commented about always using a light meter and taking 5-6 readings before taking a shot. Now I have been a landscaper for years, and not once have I ever encountered a DSLR user, using a light meter. Makes me wonder where all the photographers are that the poster has encountered?

No idea, but I predominantly shoot seascapes (mostly on a weekly basis), and when I've seen other photographers around, I've never seen anyone with a dedicated light meter.


But I have also used the meter inside my DSLR to get a reading to set my medium format camera by, and it has been accurate.

Like yourself, I use my DSLR's light meter, and to be honest, I've never felt it wasn't capable of the job. My results don't suggest to me that metering of light is a problem.

[Xenedis]

Firstly have you sold any images to any gallery anywhere?

That's completely irrelevant to the issue of metering light and exposing correctly.



I was talking about the time it takes to read the histogram and then make the changes to shutter speed and aperture. A light reading would be one quicker, and 2 better.

I would argue that the amount of time you spend stuffing around taking multiple readings from a light meter would be longer in duration than the extra second or two it would take, in the event that the first camera meter's reading was inherently wrong, to adjust the exposure value.


As for wasting my money on school and trainers, at least I know what I'm doing and when push comes to shove, I know who will get hired, a hobby photgrapher or someone who has the training, the images and knows how to use a light meter.

You do think rather highly of yourself, don't you?

You appear to be trying to suggest that a problem exists when it really doesn't.

The simple fact is that the light meters in DSLRs are quite accurate, and that the lack of a dedicated light meter doesn't put you on the road straight to the hell of incorrectly exposed images.

There are plenty of people successfully photographing 'scapes without dedicated light meters.

Feel free to use your dedicated light meter all you like, but be advised that the method of metering light that works for you is not The Authoritative Method That We All Most Obey.

Furthermore, do not suggest either indirectly or directly that anyone who doesn't use a dedicated light meter has got it all wrong and is an idiot. It's not the slightest bit convincing to those who know what they are doing.

For the record, I wouldn't hire you. Not because of the expert knowledge you're happy to profess you have, but because of the appallingly bad attitude you have displayed in this thread.

Happy shooting!

PS: To address your comment about attacking other people's photographic work, in my experience, the people on AP don't engage in that sort of thing; but when someone storms into a thread acting high and mighty, it is not unreasonable to expect that others will look at that person's work to see if he walks the walk as well as talking the talk.

[arthurking83]

for the sake of some other members that may or may not remember, but a few months back we had a member affectionately referred to as Fried Chicken, who felt the need to masquerade as a professional photographer with references from the top end of town :rolleyes: such as the CEO of Rio Tinto, amongst others.
Just a little research revealed this member to be a 14yo living in one of Melbourne's most affluent suburbs!
Poor little rich kid with too much time on his hands.

My references to the ex member Dowden were to prove his point that his images are the result of only using a light meter and zero post processing(as he claimed)... which upon inspection of his gallery seemed to be at odds with those claims!

his personal attacks to both another member(and I thought it was going to be me! :D), and subsequently Rick in his final correspondence, vindicates Ricks decision to ban him(actually agreed upon by mods)
AP is now better off without his bloated claims, of unproven worth.

We can only hope that another Fried Chicken doesn't happen to stumble upon AP too quickly now, and that some semblance of peace is maintained ... well at least until the outbreak of WW4! :D

and Xenedis!... his attitude in this thread is quite mild to lame, compared to the PM's to Rick and the other member! :rolleyes:
I suspect that the anonymity of the internet is a major factor in his ability to find such strength in his own convictions!
I'd be interested in his attitude in real life tho ;)

[Xenedis]

for the sake of some other members that may or may not remember, but a few months back we had a member affectionately referred to as Fried Chicken, who felt the need to masquerade as a professional photographer with references from the top end of town :rolleyes: such as the CEO of Rio Tinto, amongst others. Just a little research revealed this member to be a 14yo

Heh; that's the Internet for you. :-)


and Xenedis!... his attitude in this thread is quite mild to lame, compared to the PM's to Rick and the other member! :rolleyes:

I can imagine.


I'd be interested in his attitude in real life tho ;)

I wouldn't. :-)

[jjphoto]

Rick, can you please change my user name to Fred Chicken?:D

No, no, just kidding...

JJ

[ricktas]

Rick, can you please change my user name to Fred Chicken?:D

No, no, just kidding...

JJ

Don't tempt me!

[jjphoto]

Don't tempt me!

I'll be good...