external light meter

[robertc]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I was interested to read that Erwin Putts is experimenting with the new Gossen light meter with his M9 and X100. Does anyone else use an external light meter with their digital M8/ X1 or film M6 onwards?

I have always relied on the camera's light meter but have had some disappointing exposures which I would like to improve on. Edwin's blog got me thinking about buying the basic Gossen meter. Would it be a waste of money?

[Advertisement]

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

[christer]

1. Yes

2. No.

 

I have Gossen's second most basic model (Digiflash) which I bought for use with simple setup multiple flash with the M7. It served its purpose very well. Then I bought a 3g, and the meter came very useful for a purpose other than flash. I mainly used it in incident mode. I came to like incident metering and I now use Digiflash with the M7 in difficult light situations. BTW I have been very pleased with Gossen's after sale customer service.

[wda]

I have several external exposure meters but have never found the need to use one with my digital M cameras. When I use external flash, which is rarely, I turn to my Gossen Variosix F. With sensible interpretation and metering angles, I find my M8 and M9 meter very accurately as delivered.

[aesop]

I was interested to read that Erwin Putts is experimenting with the new Gossen light meter with his M9 and X100. Does anyone else use an external light meter with their digital M8/ X1 or film M6 onwards?

I have always relied on the camera's light meter but have had some disappointing exposures which I would like to improve on. Edwin's blog got me thinking about buying the basic Gossen meter. Would it be a waste of money?

 

...I strongly recommend investing some more time in understanding your camera's built-in meter, robertc. It is also worth remembering that *all* light meter readings are merely suggestions, and are definitely open to individual interpretation. In essence, light meter readings may be accepted, tweaked or completely ignored - it all depends on what sort of image you are trying to create.

 

Finally, there is no such thing as a disappointing exposure. Find out what happened, and then use each exposure (disappointing or spot on) as a building block. Remember, one step at a time.

[pico]

I was interested to read that Erwin Putts is experimenting with the new Gossen light meter with his M9 and X100. Does anyone else use an external light meter with their digital M8/ X1 or film M6 onwards?

I have always relied on the camera's light meter but have had some disappointing exposures which I would like to improve on. Edwin's blog got me thinking about buying the basic Gossen meter. Would it be a waste of money?

 

Yes, it would be a waste of money. Once you learn the area that your in-camera meters, how it renders, then you don't need an external meter - except for off-camera flash. Putts seems to be desperate for material.

[lars_bergquist]

All camera meters meter reflected light. But various subjects, and various parts of the subject, reflect different amounts of light. How much? You don't know, and the meter, or its maker, does not know.

 

By definition, 100% of the incident light falls on the subject. A piece of matte white paper – a diffuse highlight – reflects something like 80–85% of the incident light back at your lens. A really dark shadow part can reflect less than one percent. So what do we measure? The industry thinks that the average subject reflects 18% of the incident light. Hence the Kodak Gray Card which reflects just that amount. But the industry thinks that the average subject is Aunt Amalia with her dog in the garden, not Aunt Amalia on the ski slope, or Aunt Amalia in the night club. So if we follow Auntie around, trusting our meters, we consistently get Aunt Amalia in 18% grey snow, and 18% grey nightclubs, or whatever. And Auntie herself will be mis-exposed: Underexposed in the snow, and overexposed in the club.

 

Oh, you say, this is kid stuff! I know all that! And I compensate exposures accordingly, 'cause I am an Experienced Photographer and I know how to apply the right corrections.

 

Right. You guess the exposure. Or you chimp, going by trial-and-error. Or you bracket, hoping that one of the exposures will be in the ballpark.

 

Sometimes you don't have time for anything else. And yes, sometimes you guess at least about right, and you are satisfied. And yes, sometimes, by pure chance, the camera meters an area of the subject that happens to reflect 18% on the average. If this is always enough for you, congratulations. The fact remains that people whose incomes and careers depend on correct exposure rely on hand meters.

 

Metering incident light is the ONLY accurate exposure metering. This way, you nail not only the maximum diffuse highlight (because that white dome IS such a highlight), but also the 18% in the middle of the legendary Zone V, and the minimum registerable 2% shadow. You can obtain that metering with a decent incident-capable hand meter, or by a device such as the ExpoDisc.

 

Often, when I work under conditions when the incident light is stable but the subjects variable, I measure the light, set the exposure and keep working. Even the knowledge that I have the means to determine an accurate exposure is good to have. And the fact that with an incident meter, you can begin to learn about exposure, is a good thing too.

 

The old man from the Age of the Weston Master

[nggalai]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I bought a Gossen Digisix to go with my Lubitel and then-“new” M3. Worked like a charm and I got used to it quicksmart.

 

After acquiring an M9, I found myself using the Gossen in incident-metering mode more and more often. I use the M9’s internal meter only if I forgot to hang the Digisix around my neck when leaving home. I consider it more comfortable to meter for my subject matter (mostly exteriors / natural light while strolling through the countryside) than reflective TTL metering, with exposure compensation.

 

For my (low) level of photography, it’s basically a matter of taste more than necessity or exactitude I’m sure. Hence your mileage may vary.

[250swb]

Metering incident light is the ONLY accurate exposure metering. This way, you nail not only the maximum diffuse highlight (because that white dome IS such a highlight), but also the 18% in the middle of the legendary Zone V, and the minimum registerable 2% shadow. You can obtain that metering with a decent incident-capable hand meter,

 

Couldn't agree more Lars.

 

I try to use a separate meter for instance if my M9 is on a tripod for landscape work etc. Then I can wander off and make some readings from different areas of the image or an object that is close to the tones I can see in the distance. It is just a refinement, the camera meter will do the job with some chimping, but you get a far better idea about the range of light and intensity of the light with a hand held meter.

 

I learned photography via large format and the Zone system even before I had my own 35mm camera, and the lessons learned never fail to remain relevant no matter how sophisticated a cameras built in meter may be.

 

Steve

[honcho]

..... Edwin's blog got me thinking about buying the basic Gossen meter. Would it be a waste of money?

 

Absolutely not, it would be money well spent. Accurate and sophisticated ttl metering systems are simply no use at all if easily fooled by the subject, as they so often are.

 

For wedding, portrait and commercial photography, an incident reading is more use to me than all of the ttl metering options available in my Nikon D3s/X's and for my fine art landscape work, a spotmeter is essential.

 

I would feel incomplete as a photographer without an independent means to measure light.

 

Get a meter!

[earleygallery]

Ive always had a handheld meter regardless of camera. Incident readings are ideal in many situations.

[lars_bergquist]

Couldn't agree more Lars.

 

I try to use a separate meter for instance if my M9 is on a tripod for landscape work etc. Then I can wander off and make some readings from different areas of the image or an object that is close to the tones I can see in the distance.

 

Steve, it seems that you are using a spot meter. So you are still metering reflected light, and all the problems with that are still relevant – only even more so. Incident metering, to repeat, nails all the relevant values. The brightest diffuse highlights, which you don't want blown, will register with detail in them, and because you are using the range of the film/sensor to its full extent, you also get the maximum possible shadow detail (underexposing to get a margin for the highlights will lose you shadow detail).

 

Finding the brightness range of the subject is useful only if you can influence the range of the film or sensor after exposure. You could do that with film, if you were shooting sheet film or even glass plates; giving differential development to different frames on a strip of roll film was never practical. You did need this, in fact, way back then when negs were printed contact, so that local exposure modification was close to impossible, and printing paper came in one contrast grade only. With roll film, we learned to give an optimum standard development, and different paper grades and the usual arcane gesticulation under the enlarger – dodging and burning-in – did the rest. It was a great sport in a way, but pretty messy.

 

But no matter if subject lighting is flat or harsh, ascertaining the level of incident light will give you optimal exposure. Period. Simply because it utilises all the contrast range that the film or the sensor is capable of registering.

 

The old man from the Age of the Gossen Sixtomat

[honcho]

.....ascertaining the level of incident light will give you optimal exposure. Period. Simply because it utilises all the contrast range that the film or the sensor is capable of registering.

 

 

It is not always possible or advisable to use an incident reading for landscape photography for a number of reasons, not least of all because of the type of media being used to record an image. The correct metering technique needs to be adopted accordingly, and in many circumstances spot metering is the best method, particularly with transparency film and digital capture. A series of spot meter readings from a range of tonal areas within a scene will enable you to judge optimum exposure.

 

The ability to do this confidently comes with experience.

[bocaburger]

Regardless of which type metering you use, there are situations that will fool it. That goes true for incident meters also, despite what's written about it often. If you take your reading in a different light level than your subject is in (such as photographing a sunlit hill from the shaded hill opposite) it won't be accurate. Incident meters were really made for studio use. They are usable elsewhere, but need intelligent compensation just as a reflected meter. I find that setting the lens to infinity and taking a frame-filling reading of my palm and adding 1 1/2 stops gives me the same result as an incident meter. On a cloudless day I sometimes fill the frame with the blue sky 90 degrees from the sun and use that reading. And then there's the old Sunny-16 and its permutations. Many ways to skin the exposure cat.

 

That said I bring along a little VC Meter (shoe mount) in case the M9 meter would act up or quit entirely.

[Jeff S]

I often carry a Sekonic L308s in a pocket for an incident reading as needed. Even given roughly 35 years using camera meters and/or guessing exposure, it's nice to have an incident meter handy. In a digital world, the histogram can also be a good friend.

 

Jeff

 

PS Just read bocaburger's post...yes, it's important to understand how your meter works.

[honcho]

.....If you take your reading in a different light level than your subject is in (such as photographing a sunlit hill from the shaded hill opposite) it won't be accurate.

 

As I was saying.....

[250swb]

Steve, it seems that you are using a spot meter.

 

Not sure how you interpreted that Lars, perhaps some random association or words that you jumbled up?

 

But if you are working in variable shade with a meter in incident mode, or have significant shade in your photograph somewhere in the distance, it is a safe bet you can take a few readings that don't coincide with an overall incident reading. The point being that wandering around with you light meter makes you apperciate the variants in light in order to adjust the exposure accordingly. The Zone system is/was never about absolute values (incident if that is your favourite, but works best with reflective), but how you adjust them according to your materials and interpretation of the scene.

 

Steve

[pico]

Lars, I think you are full of it. If a person knows the coverage of his camera's internal meter and knows how to sample the scene, he doesn't need an external meter. Sure, I have external meters from last years best all the way to the Westons (through both changes in ASA calibration) and even a couple extinction meters (four, in fact).

 

External meters do have their particular advantage for flash metering, especially in mixed ambient and ambient light.

 

But you are so full of it I wonder if you ever learned to use an internal meter. Yer stuck, ya Olde Pharte and you aren't much older than I am.

 

--

Pico - the second most stuck Olde Pharte

[Hank Taylor]

Lars, I think you are full of it. If a person knows the coverage of his camera's internal meter and knows how to sample the scene, he doesn't need an external meter. Sure, I have external meters from last years best all the way to the Westons (through both changes in ASA calibration) and even a couple extinction meters (four, in fact).

 

External meters do have their particular advantage for flash metering, especially in mixed ambient and ambient light.

 

But you are so full of it I wonder if you ever learned to use an internal meter. Yer stuck, ya Olde Pharte and you aren't much older than I am.

 

--

Pico - the second most stuck Olde Pharte

 

Sorry Pico , but I think you are full of it. I have been using a incident meter ever since I can remember and that goes back to the early 50's when I was a Marine Corps Photographer. Love my Leica's and especially the M9, however, will rely on the incident every time.

 

Hank

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Interesting Leica gear

[lars_bergquist]

I bought my first light meter in 1958. It was a Gossen Sixtomat, it did both reflected and incident light, and it even had a colour temperature meter of sorts. Cameras did not have built-in meters in those days as a general rule. If they had (e.g Contax III or Super Ikonta V) they were not coupled. The M3 did get its first Leicameter around that time but this outboard meter coupled only to the shutter speeds.

 

The Nikon F, I seem to remember, got its first Photomic in about 1962. And before meters, I exposed without a meter. Yes, that's how Olde this Olde Pharte is.

 

Yes I know about reflectances, and quick and dirty ways to cope with them. I know that a moderately new-mown lawn reflects about 18%. But deciduous foliage needs about 1/2 of an f-stop more, and a stand of firs more than one stop. The inside of a hand reflects not 18% as is often claimed, but more like 25% which is one half stop more. And in snow, you can meter the snow itself (if it is pristine) and add about two stops for a reasonable exposure. And all that. But for precision and assurance, I go incident.

 

Pico, do I come over as a self-satisfied know-all? I have learned one or two things during all those years, enough at least to see through some of the perennial superstitions of the craft. But I am still ready to learn more. I understand that this readiness is not universal.

 

The Olde Pharte from the Age of Guess-the-Exposure

[lars_bergquist]

Steve, I assumed that you used a spot meter, because this analysis of the contrast range in reflected light is what spot meters were mostly used for. You can do it with a non-spotmeter too of course – Ansel and Edward did it with a wide-angle selenium meter – but if you use an incident meter, what you meter is of course the range of illuminance – the light, not the subject.

 

I have owned a spot meter but dumped it because it created more problems than it solved. When it worked, the result indicated was usually identical with what a straight incident metering showed. So why mess up your procedures when you can keep them simple? This experience was probably why I misunderstood you.

 

The Olde Pharte from the Age of the Seconic Studio Deluxe