Switch to English Language Passer en langue française Omschakelen naar Nederlandse Taal Wechseln Sie zu deutschen Sprache Passa alla lingua italiana
Members: 75,683   Posts: 1,669,361   Online: 733
      
Page 2 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 34
  1. #11

    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    Los Angeles, CA
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    8,006
    Images
    4
    You have illustrated an extremely basic point. Any beginning photography student who listens to the instructor and reads the text knows that the left photo is what happens when you listen to a reflected meter in such a situation, and that the right photo is what happens when you listen to an incident meter. One of the very first things a good instructor teaches beyond the basics is how to use a meter; how to convert what your meter is telling you into a "good" exposure using your meter's provided info and your brain. Reflected meters are inherently flawed for metering an entire composition at once and going with exactly what the meter sez. We all know this. It has nothing to do with film or digital. It has to do with knowing how to use a meter.
    2F/2F

    "Truth and love are my law and worship. Form and conscience are my manifestation and guide. Nature and peace are my shelter and companions. Order is my attitude. Beauty and perfection are my attack."

    - Rob Tyner (1944 - 1991)

  2. #12
    SilverGlow's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Orange County, Calif
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    739
    Images
    41
    Quote Originally Posted by digiconvert View Post
    Yes but it reinforces the need for meters even in this digi world.
    I strongly disagree. For digital nothing beats spot metering AND histogram reading. Even matrix/evaluative metering most DSLR's are very good, and again all one needs is the skill in reading a histogram.

    Now when I shoot film I use a handheld light meter, but never for digital.
    Coming back home to my film roots. Canon EOS-3 SLR, Canon EOS 1V SLR, 580ex flash, and 5D DSLR shooter. Prime lens only shooter.

  3. #13
    SilverGlow's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Orange County, Calif
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    739
    Images
    41
    Quote Originally Posted by Chan Tran View Post
    Nah! in the digi world you just guess the exposure then check your result on the LCD, make adjustment then shoot again. I don't use either the built in nor hand held meter with my digital camera and I always shoot in manual mode. I get to the point where my first guess is generall quite good. I know the respond of my little digi cam well enough that I use it as the meter for my film camera. Well I gota shoot film or else I am not supposed to be here right?
    Perhaps the worse way to meter in digital is to rely on the LCD image of the shot you just took. That LCD screen lies! It is forever at the mercy of ambiant light, and the brightness setting of the screen, and the angle of view of the shooter too.

    A far better way to judge exposure with digital is to rely on the histogram. With most DSLR's matrix/evaluative metering works very well, and even for backlit subjects too.

    Leave the handheld meters to the studio shooters, and film shooters...for everything else digital, the camera's built in light meter is great but only if used in conjuction with the histogram.
    Coming back home to my film roots. Canon EOS-3 SLR, Canon EOS 1V SLR, 580ex flash, and 5D DSLR shooter. Prime lens only shooter.

  4. #14
    wiltw's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    SF Bay area
    Shooter
    Medium Format
    Posts
    930
    Quote Originally Posted by SilverGlow View Post
    I strongly disagree. For digital nothing beats spot metering AND histogram reading. Even matrix/evaluative metering most DSLR's are very good, and again all one needs is the skill in reading a histogram.
    And I disagree about the utility of the histogram...if you had a scene with shadowy area under the trees, some of the scene is the building, and some of the scene is sky, the histogram tells you nothing about the pixels specifically which make up the building! You know the quantity of dark, medium and light pixels, whether too many of them seem to be falling off the histogram, but nothing about the suitability of the pixels that are rendering the main object of interest (whatever that might be!)

    But this is an analog forum, so the debate about histogram is pointless!

  5. #15

    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    UK
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    410
    ....and a nice bue sky is sorta grey to a light meter (so wont fool it so much)............so all the holiday pics in sunny Spain come out and white sky UK pics have problems.

  6. #16
    eddym's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    Puerto Rico
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    1,927
    Images
    26
    Quote Originally Posted by Sirius Glass View Post
    I always take the TTL reading of the object or area that I would want to be neutral gray if I were shooting black and white. I do this for both color and black and white [hey, black and white are colors too!] whether I am using my Nikon (35mm) or my Hasselblad (MF).

    Steve
    Steve, you know how to meter a scene. Most people don't, and they call the result, "fooling the meter." Meters aren't fooled; photographers are fooled.
    Eddy McDonald
    www.fotoartes.com
    Eschew defenestration!

  7. #17

    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    UK
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    410
    Quote Originally Posted by eddym View Post
    Steve, you know how to meter a scene. Most people don't, and they call the result, "fooling the meter." Meters aren't fooled; photographers are fooled.
    ..If meters weren't fooled then they could read bright white and coal seller black for correct exposure...............in theory you can't trust a meter that is calibrated to appx Kodak grey, unless all of the subject is appx Kodak grey......what happens in practice is the exposure latitude of the film covers objects that are moving to white or black.

  8. #18
    benjiboy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    U.K.
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    7,904
    Quote Originally Posted by Sirius Glass View Post
    For the record: I have met light meters that I did not like!

    Steve
    I've met some I really like , but I wouldn't let my sister marry one !
    Ben

  9. #19
    jnanian's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2003
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    18,071
    Blog Entries
    14
    Images
    71
    Quote Originally Posted by Ed Sukach View Post
    If that is the case, the amount of light reflected from the scene may easily be different from the light reaching the meter from another source (incident).
    Incident metering is taken AT the subject; reflective metering, AT the camera.

    Reflective metering is affected by the nature of the subject (dark will send less light to the meter than light); incident is not - measuring the amount of light falling on the subject.

    I would use nothing other than "incident" in studio work (give me a 2% 'worm-out' window here). In landscape work, it would be very difficult to take a meter reading AT the subject, and travel to the camera without having the amount of light falling on the subject (scene) change.
    i
    hey ed!

    great to see your posts

  10. #20
    SilverGlow's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Orange County, Calif
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    739
    Images
    41
    Quote Originally Posted by wiltw View Post
    And I disagree about the utility of the histogram...if you had a scene with shadowy area under the trees, some of the scene is the building, and some of the scene is sky, the histogram tells you nothing about the pixels specifically which make up the building! You know the quantity of dark, medium and light pixels, whether too many of them seem to be falling off the histogram, but nothing about the suitability of the pixels that are rendering the main object of interest (whatever that might be!)

    But this is an analog forum, so the debate about histogram is pointless!
    The particular questions you ask of the histogram are irrelevent because you want to transpose the functionality of a meter to the histogram, and it's apples and oranges. You want to know where the leaves or Sally's face are on the histogram, and well, there are far better questions to ask of a histogram, frankly.

    When you look at the histogram, the far left are the darkest part of your composition (for example the patch of dirt your cute wife is posing on), and the highlights on the far right are (for example the patches of over cast skys in your composition). That is really all you need to know because everything in the middle often can safely be shifted up or down via EC. It's the extreme left (shadows) and extreme right (highlights) that could get sacrificed.

    So don't try to use a light meter in the same way you might read a histogram, and once you figure this out, you too will find that the histogram gives better "advice" then a light meter.

    Another way to look at this is that a light meter will tell you a reading based on what you decide is 18% gray, and that is it. The histogram shows the amount of distribution at 18% (middle) and for the entire dynamic range..far more helpful to a digital photographer.

    I've yet to come across a composition that could not be exposed correctly without a hand held meter.

    On the other hand, i readly see the value of a handheld meter for shooting film, and for this reason I use one from time to time but only when I shoot film.
    Last edited by SilverGlow; 11-01-2008 at 01:21 AM. Click to view previous post history.
    Coming back home to my film roots. Canon EOS-3 SLR, Canon EOS 1V SLR, 580ex flash, and 5D DSLR shooter. Prime lens only shooter.

Page 2 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast


 

APUG PARTNERS EQUALLY FUNDING OUR COMMUNITY:



Contact Us  |  Support Us!  |  Advertise  |  Site Terms  |  Archive  —   Search  |  Mobile Device Access  |  RSS  |  Facebook  |  Linkedin