How many of you use a light meter?

[KanzaKruzer]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I found Thorsten Overgaard's article on light meters interesting. I just ordered my first rangefinder (Leica M) and and was curious how many of you use a light meter. Do you find it more accurate and does it give you more control how to light the subject? Do you use a light meter all the time?

 

I would love to learn how to take photos like the following ones from Timothy Allen and would think a light meter would help capture the correct exposure.

 

 

[Jeff S]

Like many on the forum, I sometimes carry a small incident meter in a pocket for tricky light situations and/or when exposure accuracy is critical. Typically I'll do this once at the beginning of a shoot to make sure I've assessed the light correctly. Most times, however, experience suffices, along with the camera meter if needed.

 

The important thing is to know what you're trying to achieve, and then understanding how your meter (camera or otherwise) works in order to get there.

 

Jeff

[Michael Hiles]

In most outside situations I use my judgement and experience. When things get more difficult or I need very precise exposure, I use an old Soligor 1 degree spot meter. It gives superb control.

[lars_bergquist]

I do. A Gossen Sixtomat Digital rides permanently in my Billingham. It is usually accompanied by an ExpoDisc.

 

The rerason is not that a hand meter is 'more accurate' than a camera meter, but that it can do what a camera meter can't: meter incident light. Metering light itself, instad of variable subject reflectances, shunts out all uncertainty. It's objective.

 

A spot meter is not more precise than an averaging camera meter, it's worse, because it does immediately cnfront you with the basic reflectance metering problem: What is the reflectance, in percent of the incident light, of this particular spot on this particular object? – but in an aggravated form because of the small angle of acceptance. With incident metering, you don't have to ask that question.

 

The old man from the Age of Selenium and Kodachrome

[250swb]

 

The rerason is not that a hand meter is 'more accurate' than a camera meter, but that it can do what a camera meter can't: meter incident light. Metering light itself, instad of variable subject reflectances, shunts out all uncertainty. It's objective.

 

Incident metering may be 'objective' Lars, but sometimes that isn't very useful if you want to measure the contrast range, or indeed if you can see (with experience) that the contrast range will exceed your film or sensor range. It is a very lazy and potentially inaccurate way to make an exposure reading if used indiscriminately.

 

Steve

[giordano]

Incident metering may be 'objective' Lars, but sometimes that isn't very useful if you want to measure the contrast range, or indeed if you can see (with experience) that the contrast range will exceed your film or sensor range. It is a very lazy and potentially inaccurate way to make an exposure reading if used indiscriminately.

 

Indiscriminate use of any way of making an exposure reading is lazy and potentially inaccurate.

[earleygallery]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I use one for incident readings, also for low light (it's a digital meter and gives a reading in very low light conditions which is sometimes useful).

[masjah]

An old Weston Master V + invercone for incident light readings

[MPerson]

I always carry an incident meter. Either a Weston Master or a Sekonic L-398A.

[earleygallery]

Just a thought, does anyone bracket anymore?

[kdriceman]

I found Thorsten Overgaard's article on light meters interesting. I just ordered my first rangefinder (Leica M) and and was curious how many of you use a light meter. Do you find it more accurate and does it give you more control how to light the subject? Do you use a light meter all the time?

 

I would love to learn how to take photos like the following ones from Timothy Allen and would think a light meter would help capture the correct exposure.

 

 

By all means get an incident meter and learn how to use it. It will help with at least some exposures. But what makes these images special isn't that the photographer got the exposure right, it is that they contained interesting lighting to begin with.

[wattsy]

Just a thought, does anyone bracket anymore?

 

Yes, quite often for 'landscape type' stuff.

[giordano]

Just a thought, does anyone bracket anymore?

Yes, but pretty much only for long-range subjects where there's zero latitude.

[pico]

I would love to learn how to take photos like the following ones from Timothy Allen [...]

 

So would I. Frankly, it isn't his meter that makes his work outstanding.

.

[LucisPictor]

I use a Gossen LunaSix 3 for my IIIa.

[KanzaKruzer]

So would I. Frankly, it isn't his meter that makes his work outstanding..

I recognize Timothy Allen is very talented and you need more than correct exposure. The first photo I referenced was obviously not taken with auto settings as it would have bumped up the ISO to average the central part of the exposure, but the darkness makes the photo. Timothy probably knows from experience what f/stop, ISO and shutter time to use, but I'm just learning and suspect I need a light meter. Setting the fastest f/stop and lowest ISO may be a start, but changing the shutter time given the smoke would probably deliver different looks.

 

My hope is that the Leica M is up to the task. If it is the right tool, and I work at it, I may learn how to capture those types of photos. At least that is the direction I would like to take my photography.

[Jeff S]

The first photo I referenced was obviously not taken with auto settings as it would have bumped up the ISO to average the central part of the exposure, but the darkness makes the photo.

 

You're combining different issues...the camera's meter, the shutter dial (possibly to include the 'A' setting) and the auto-ISO setting. There are many ways to use these, even without a separate meter, which goes back to my point about learning to understand and use the various tools available.

 

Jeff

[bocaburger]

With the M9 I use the in-camera meter, but mainly I meter facsimilie subjects. If there are blue skies I point it away from the sun and go with that exposure. If there's a patch of mid-tone green foliage, that works too. And if not, I meter off my palm and add a stop and a half. If the lighting was really tricky and the shot really important, I'll check the histogram (otherwise, I have auto review turned off). As important as getting an "average" reading for the scene, is checking the darkest and lightest areas to be sure the sensor's dynamic range can handle the overall contrast range.

 

The only film cameras I still have are meterless, but the only film I still shoot is Tri-X, so Sunny-16 and its permutations work for me. I have a Sekonic L308B which does reflective and incident and flash, but I almost never use it.

[grillo]

I use the camera as a meter in difficult situations. I take a shot a check the histogram. It's not perfect, but it's available all the time.

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Interesting Leica gear

[pico]

I recognize Timothy Allen is very talented and you need more than correct exposure. The first photo I referenced was obviously not taken with auto settings as it would have bumped up the ISO to average the central part of the exposure, but the darkness makes the photo. [... snip good stuff ...] My hope is that the Leica M is up to the task. If it is the right tool, and I work at it, I may learn how to capture those types of photos. At least that is the direction I would like to take my photography.

 

The Leica M is up to the task. Allen knows his craft and probably metered in-camera first for highlights, then locked into manual mode. You can look at the pictures EXIF data. Low ISO, very high shutter speed, wide-open aperture with 85mm lens.

 

IMHO the BTL meter is just as useful as a handheld meter when/if you understand how the M meters.