Hand held Incident Light meter

[lars_bergquist]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

[ ... ] Incident meters are accurate & mostly foolproof while @ the same time being quick & easy to use.

 

Best of all, no burned-out highlights. Because what the meter does is to create an artificial, standardised diffuse highlight – that opal dome – and measure it. The mid-tones fall into place automatically.

 

Specular highlights on the other hand are mirrorings of light sources, have no obvious relationship with general illumination, and in the Dark and Wet Ages we always printed them paper white. They can have a light intensity a thousand times that of a diffuse highlight (which never reflects more than about 90% of the incident light) and are outside any recordable dynamic range.

 

The Dark and Wet old man

[Advertisement]

The Leica Q3 is available for pre-order at B&H Photo Video and Adorama

[pgk]

A histogram tells you what's happened after the event, a meter shows you before. It's not always possible to adjust the exposure and take the second shot a second time.

If you have time to use an incident light meter you certainly have time to take a 'preshot'!

 

I often take a couple of shots, checking the histogram each time and then set a manual exposure which I change only when the lighting shifts or what I am trying to do demands and exposure shift. I personally see absolutely no necessity to encumber myself with another piece of gear and whilst it is perfectly possible to use a light meter, it adds in duplicity and complexity leading to potential mistakes. The histogram and raw files are incredibly powerful tools in the digital armoury and stepping backwards towards hand held light metering is to ignore the progress made by digital imaging IMHO.

 

Oh yes, and in low contrast conditions incident meters will underexpose digital files!

[lars_bergquist]

Oh yes, and in low contrast conditions incident meters will underexpose digital files!

 

Huh?

So you mean that if I set up a subject consisting of a grey card, and measure the light falling on that card with an incident meter, then the card will be under-exposed?

 

Of course not. That 18% gray card will be reproduced with a good likeness of 18% grey.

 

Let us say that you re-do the experiment, fixing a Kodak Gray Scale across that 18% card. You will find that the scale is correctly exposed, with bright highlight steps (though with separation between them) and with good but still separated blacks at the other end.

 

What you mean is that, presented with a subject with a restricted dynamic range, e.g. light grey highlights and dark grey shadows, you will get a picture with – light grey highlights. That of course may not be to your taste. But it is not "underexposure". It is correct exposure. It is simply that you don't want correct exposure. In the Wet Dark Ages, we changed to a harder paper when we encountered that situation (just as we changed to a softer grade of paper when the range was exceptionally great). Today, we raise the contrast in post-production. See, there is a little mark on the right side of the PP histogram that you move over to the outer highlights on the line. Similarly, if the blacks are muddy, you move another mark over to the outer shadows. But mark you well, when that histogram came up on your computer monitor, the bulk of the exposure was balanced around the center of the graph, just as it should be with a correctly exposed picture.

 

And as to your contention that everything digital is an advance, I simply won't comment on it.

 

The old man from the Age B.M.

[Mauribix]

As many here I do (almost) always carry a Sekonic L-508 with me.

That's a bit on the "huge" side of the sizes, but then again when I use an external meter my findings are:

 

-higher percentage of correct exposures at first attempt

-less "chimping"

-less PP work

-better caption of the scenes' mood

 

IMHO, and external light meter is an essential tool for any photographer.

The fact is that, guided by the digital age (and tools), many have lost the meaning of being a photographer and study, observe and measure the light.

 

The dark side of the force won when the matrix (metering) came in

[pgk]

What you mean is that, presented with a subject with a restricted dynamic range, e.g. light grey highlights and dark grey shadows, you will get a picture with – light grey highlights. That of course may not be to your taste. But it is not "underexposure". It is correct exposure.

It WAS correct exposure with film but it is NOT correct exposure with digital. I shoot many images underwater in murky conditions - lower contrast that the camera is capable of handling. To get useful results I MUST shoot to ensure that the histogram is right biased with the highlights that I want to retain not clipped (in fact many of my subjects are fish and parts of the eyes inevitably 'blow' because of their high reflectance). The result is that I need to carry out substantial adjustments when converting the raw files. If I shoot as I explained then there is a great deal that I can do to provide a (scientifically) useful image. If I shot to ensure a correct mid tone (which I have tried in the past) the result is far 'muddier' and not as acceptable and contains less useful information. FWIW I have to give a presentation on findings based on the ability to shoot such images and am working on a paper on it for future publication. Digital is quite simply not the same as film and techniques need to be amended accordingly.

[Mauribix]

It WAS correct exposure with film but it is NOT correct exposure with digital. I shoot many images underwater in murky conditions - lower contrast that the camera is capable of handling. To get useful results I MUST shoot to ensure that the histogram is right biased with the highlights that I want to retain not clipped (in fact many of my subjects are fish and parts of the eyes inevitably 'blow' because of their high reflectance). The result is that I need to carry out substantial adjustments when converting the raw files. If I shoot as I explained then there is a great deal that I can do to provide a (scientifically) useful image. If I shot to ensure a correct mid tone (which I have tried in the past) the result is far 'muddier' and not as acceptable and contains less useful information. FWIW I have to give a presentation on findings based on the ability to shoot such images and am working on a paper on it for future publication. Digital is quite simply not the same as film and techniques need to be amended accordingly.

 

Sorry Paul, but apart from the technical discussion, which I can't comment properly, isn't this a specific scenario, where the M9 isn't the "right" tool? (Underwater shooting).

I can't comment since I'm not an expert, but if I can recall, the 18% grey "rule" is not valid under these circumstances.

 

Then, correct me if I'm wrong, isn't a camera with matrix metering the best tool for that specific usage? Maybe even better than looking at the histogram?

[Keith (M)]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

An interesting discussion re the use of incident-metering versus the histogram. My new Sekonic Twinmate L-208 (ordered for use with my 'new' M2) arrived this morning. It will be interesting to compare results between incident-metering and TTL on the M9.

[Guest WPalank]

Don't forget to calibrate your light meters. Most of the better Sekonics allow this.

[pgk]

Sorry Paul, but apart from the technical discussion, which I can't comment properly, isn't this a specific scenario, where the M9 isn't the "right" tool? (Underwater shooting).

I can't comment since I'm not an expert, but if I can recall, the 18% grey "rule" is not valid under these circumstances.

 

Then, correct me if I'm wrong, isn't a camera with matrix metering the best tool for that specific usage? Maybe even better than looking at the histogram?

No, its not camera specific, its digital specific. The point is that whilst the 18% grey card was related to film/chemical processing system, digital, whilst it uses 'ISO' ratings doesn't record in the same way.

 

As a simple test, next time you are in a very low contrast, misty situation try different exposures on any digital camera that shoots raw. The one which gives a right biased histogram without clipping will produce the most effectively adjustable file which will yield the most usable result (and visually pleasing). The others will give muddier shadows.

 

Digital cameras respond best when both the amount of light and the overall contrast are taken into account - simply using a single incident reading will work when the grey 'point' fits into the scene's contrast and the camera's handling of this contrast, but not if the contrast is far too high or low - then its the point at which clipping occurs which is of greatest importance.