LIght meters are they essential for todays needs?

[bobn2]

...

If you adopt a method of using exposure to precisely control your output lightness then you have to make an accurate determination of exposure. You may or may not choose to set the exposure to the ISO nominal value, but to choose whether or not to do that, you have to have made an accurate determination.

Is it better to make that accurate determination by measuring the light falling on the subject, or the light reflecting off the subject?

The former. It's a rather basic tenet of photometry. Incident light gets reflected precisely according to the reflectivity of the subject, which is what you're trying to render as the tonality in your image.

 

[bobn2]

...

Incident light metering must produce 'correct' exposure for any given scene for those who determine 'correct exposure' by rendered lightness at a given ISO setting.

But it is not necessarily the exposure that minimizes noise, or retains highlight/shadow detail. This brings us back to the question as to what one is trying to achieve.

Yes, well I was responding to PT's post with respect to his own thinking, that managing exposure is about output image lightness. He was wrong even in his own terms. If your ISO is accurate, and you calculate correctly from the incident light, you must get the 'correct' tonality in the output image. he was trying to argue the ifs and buts in the usual 'exposure is a black art' way, that if the scene was full of dark objects, or if full of light, etc. Incident metering takes that into account automatically.

If your goal is the traditional "correct" exposure, than an incident light meter is very helpful. If your goal is to find the exposure that maximizes image quality, then the in-camera tools may be a better choice.

Sure. Actually, the best choice of all is your camera's sensor, because it's the one that's going to be doing the capturing, not the meter's sensor. But that wasn't the terms in which PT2 was arguing.

I may be misunderstanding you, (because I usually DON'T understand what you are saying).

I think that may not be a problem just with me.

But I definitely was relating to the "image sensor", (because that is what is doing the "capturing").

I see less value in an "incident" reading to give a mid-tone (gray) than an actual imaging sensors ability to enable shifting exposure towards saturation for least noise, (which is more possible today with MirrorLess histograms and "zebras").

Obviously you wouldn't be using incident metering for that. You'd be using it to get the 'correct' tonality for that scene at the output given that you'd chosen to use exposure to adjust the output tonality.

For modern cameras in most circumstances there may be very little difference in the final prints. In terms of workflow, choose whichever you are happiest with. However, if you are in an extreme situation where you need to maximize image quality, the traditional "correct" exposure may not be the best choice.

I still don't know what this 'traditional "correct"' exposure is. No-one has ever come up with a hard enough definition to justify a word like 'correct', mostly they can't even begin to frame a definition.

Well ... was it not a "midtone" gray recording at a midpoint saturation level ???

Was what not a "midtone" gray recording at a midpoint saturation level?

But "correct" may not always be "BEST" for all situations or unusual subject lighting.

Now you're arguing about angels on the head of a pin. If 'correct' is not 'best', then it's not 'correct', is it?

 

[Krav Maga]

But if you look at the famous photographers who produce work that is unique, extraordinary, and that stands out, by and large they advocate the use of a light meter . One of the reason that their work stands out is that they know light and how to use it to produce results IN CAMERA.

I don't think that's accurate. Most of the famous photographers exactly followed the technique of shooting to maximise information and 'getting it right' in the darkroom. The ultimate exponent of that was Ansell Adamas, who developed a whole methodology of exposure to maximise the potential of a negative in the darkroom. As he said 'The negative is the equivalent of the composer's score, and the print the performance'.

--
Bob.
DARK IN HERE, ISN'T IT?

Well, that's where opinion comes in. I should rephrase it to famous photographers whose work I view to be extraordinary, that's up my ally so to speak. Most of them are about getting it right in camera with as little pp work as possible. The approach that many of them take; envisioning it, creating it in camera and little pp work, is best achieved using a hand held incident light meter.

 

[bobn2]

But if you look at the famous photographers who produce work that is unique, extraordinary, and that stands out, by and large they advocate the use of a light meter . One of the reason that their work stands out is that they know light and how to use it to produce results IN CAMERA.

I don't think that's accurate. Most of the famous photographers exactly followed the technique of shooting to maximise information and 'getting it right' in the darkroom. The ultimate exponent of that was Ansell Adamas, who developed a whole methodology of exposure to maximise the potential of a negative in the darkroom. As he said 'The negative is the equivalent of the composer's score, and the print the performance'.

 

[Krav Maga]

If you are shooting portraits and don't need to maximize quality, then either method will give good results. It pretty much boils down to using the tool you are more familiar with. People get great results with external meters, and people get great results using in-camera metering/tools.

I think if we had a contest and allowed people to use their tools of choice, we wouldn't see a noticeable difference in speed and ease of workflow.

I agree mostly. But I can't see where going in to pp to change a gray bg to white or black on several photos is going to be less than or equal with regards to time as taking a couple of incident readings and adjusting lighting/moving the model accordingly.

Where I'm coming from mostly is that the notion that hand held light meters have been rendered obsolete is just not correct.

 

[Krav Maga]

I'm trying to think about a 'famous photographer' who did that. I can't. Quite a few, like for instance, Cartier-Bresson relied on someone else to do all the darkroom work, but I don't think any of them felt that they could do without the darkroom work.

--
Bob.
DARK IN HERE, ISN'T IT?

Today's pp work in Lightroom, Photo Shop, etc., is yesterdays darkroom work, yes? It stands to reason that the more "right" it is in camera, then the less pp work to be done.

Keeping in mind, of course, that "right" is subjective. It's all a matter of what one's best approach is to achieving right.

 

[Ellis Vener]

For basic simple lighting with one to two light sources ? No.

Once you start dealing with more than two light sources , it sure helps to have one.

 

[Michael Fryd]

If you are shooting portraits and don't need to maximize quality, then either method will give good results. It pretty much boils down to using the tool you are more familiar with. People get great results with external meters, and people get great results using in-camera metering/tools.

I think if we had a contest and allowed people to use their tools of choice, we wouldn't see a noticeable difference in speed and ease of workflow.

I agree mostly. But I can't see where going in to pp to change a gray bg to white or black on several photos is going to be less than or equal with regards to time as taking a couple of incident readings and adjusting lighting/moving the model accordingly.

There are lots of ways to create photos.

If the lighting isn't ideal, I may want to maximize the capture and adjust in Photoshop. If you're not used to doing this, it may sound like a lot of work. But to those who don't use incident light meters, they sound like a pain.

I might start by letting the in-camera meter select an exposure. I would take a photo and take a quick glance at the histogram and display. If the histogram looks right, and there are no blinkies, I am done. If it isn't right, I apply exposure compensation. Experience tells me how much. I take a second shot and and recheck. More often than not, the exposure is real close to maximizing collected data.

When processing the file in Photoshop, I might start by pressing the "auto" button. This will examine the collected data, and adjust the parameters to give a reasonable result. In some situations this is good enough. Generally I will tweak the values to get the artistic result I want.

I suspect that we spend similar amounts of time on tasks like this, even though we use vastly different methodologies.

Where I'm coming from mostly is that the notion that hand held light meters have been rendered obsolete is just not correct.

They aren't obsolete. However, modern technology has gotten us to the point where there are fewer and fewer situations where you absolutely need a hand held light meter.

 

[bobn2]

I'm trying to think about a 'famous photographer' who did that. I can't. Quite a few, like for instance, Cartier-Bresson relied on someone else to do all the darkroom work, but I don't think any of them felt that they could do without the darkroom work.

--
Bob.
DARK IN HERE, ISN'T IT?

Today's pp work in Lightroom, Photo Shop, etc., is yesterdays darkroom work, yes?

I would distinguish between 'p' and 'pp'

It stands to reason that the more "right" it is in camera, then the less pp work to be done.

Not necessarily. Often it's a case of how you process not whether you process. Often there are no more steps involved.

Keeping in mind, of course, that "right" is subjective.

Then it's hard to talk about 'more right' because if it's subjective, it's not quantitative.

It's all a matter of what one's best approach is to achieving right.

It's an art, often constraints, even if technically unnecessary, can engender creativity. I don't object to anyone's technique if it works for them. I only comment on the theory behind it. What I say, is if you have a certain idea for the look of the image, it's much easier and direct to achieve it at processing time, not capture time. Fitting the processing to the capture and not vice-versa. But if anyone like doing it the other way round, that is their perfect right.

--
Bob.
DARK IN HERE, ISN'T IT?

 

[bobn2]

If you are shooting portraits and don't need to maximize quality, then either method will give good results. It pretty much boils down to using the tool you are more familiar with. People get great results with external meters, and people get great results using in-camera metering/tools.

I think if we had a contest and allowed people to use their tools of choice, we wouldn't see a noticeable difference in speed and ease of workflow.

I agree mostly. But I can't see where going in to pp to change a gray bg to white or black on several photos is going to be less than or equal with regards to time as taking a couple of incident readings and adjusting lighting/moving the model accordingly.

There are lots of ways to create photos.

If the lighting isn't ideal, I may want to maximize the capture and adjust in Photoshop. If you're not used to doing this, it may sound like a lot of work. But to those who don't use incident light meters, they sound like a pain.

I might start by letting the in-camera meter select an exposure. I would take a photo and take a quick glance at the histogram and display. If the histogram looks right, and there are no blinkies, I am done. If it isn't right, I apply exposure compensation. Experience tells me how much. I take a second shot and and recheck. More often than not, the exposure is real close to maximizing collected data.

When processing the file in Photoshop, I might start by pressing the "auto" button. This will examine the collected data, and adjust the parameters to give a reasonable result. In some situations this is good enough. Generally I will tweak the values to get the artistic result I want.

I suspect that we spend similar amounts of time on tasks like this, even though we use vastly different methodologies.

Where I'm coming from mostly is that the notion that hand held light meters have been rendered obsolete is just not correct.

They aren't obsolete. However, modern technology has gotten us to the point where there are fewer and fewer situations where you absolutely need a hand held light meter.

I see exactly where Krav's coming from. If you're in the business of setting exposure for intended output tonality for a fixed processing regime, incident light is exactly the best way of doing it.

 

[PhotoTeach2]

...

Incident light metering must produce 'correct' exposure for any given scene for those who determine 'correct exposure' by rendered lightness at a given ISO setting.

But it is not necessarily the exposure that minimizes noise, or retains highlight/shadow detail. This brings us back to the question as to what one is trying to achieve.

Yes, well I was responding to PT's post with respect to his own thinking, that managing exposure is about output image lightness. He was wrong even in his own terms. If your ISO is accurate, and you calculate correctly from the incident light, you must get the 'correct' tonality in the output image. he was trying to argue the ifs and buts in the usual 'exposure is a black art' way, that if the scene was full of dark objects, or if full of light, etc. Incident metering takes that into account automatically.

If your goal is the traditional "correct" exposure, than an incident light meter is very helpful. If your goal is to find the exposure that maximizes image quality, then the in-camera tools may be a better choice.

Sure. Actually, the best choice of all is your camera's sensor, because it's the one that's going to be doing the capturing, not the meter's sensor. But that wasn't the terms in which PT2 was arguing.

I may be misunderstanding you, (because I usually DON'T understand what you are saying).

I think that may not be a problem just with me.

Well, it sorta is ...

But I definitely was relating to the "image sensor", (because that is what is doing the "capturing").

I see less value in an "incident" reading to give a mid-tone (gray) than an actual imaging sensors ability to enable shifting exposure towards saturation for least noise, (which is more possible today with MirrorLess histograms and "zebras").

Obviously you wouldn't be using incident metering for that.

Referring back to the OP's original question, (and his follow-up statements).

He was insinuating that an INCIDENT meter was "essential" to proper/correct exposure, (and better than in-camera tools now possible w/ MirrorLess cameras).

So following that line, he argues an Incident meter is best for everything in all situations.

You'd be using it to get the 'correct' tonality for that scene at the output given that you'd chosen to use exposure to adjust the output tonality.

For modern cameras in most circumstances there may be very little difference in the final prints. In terms of workflow, choose whichever you are happiest with. However, if you are in an extreme situation where you need to maximize image quality, the traditional "correct" exposure may not be the best choice.

I still don't know what this 'traditional "correct"' exposure is. No-one has ever come up with a hard enough definition to justify a word like 'correct', mostly they can't even begin to frame a definition.

Well ... was it not a "midtone" gray recording at a midpoint saturation level ???

Was what not a "midtone" gray recording at a midpoint saturation level?

A (traditional) "correct" exposure is a "gray" recording at "midpoint" saturation level.

But "correct" may not always be "BEST" for all situations or unusual subject lighting.

Now you're arguing about angels on the head of a pin. If 'correct' is not 'best', then it's not 'correct', is it?

I said "traditional" correct exposure. I argue that is not always "best" today or in all situations or all subjects.

--
Bob.
DARK IN HERE, ISN'T IT?

 

[PhotoTeach2]

...

But in the end there are two basic approaches, adjusting exposure to control output image lightness or adjusting exposure to maximise captured information. The latter will in the end produce better results, sometimes at the cost of more effort when it comes to processing.

In situations where the results are visually the same, it may not be worth the additional effort to maximize captured information.

It isn't any additional effort at the capture, and as I said somewhere, negligible at processing time too. I think in the majority of cases you'll save effort, because it is much easier to precisely control output image lightness at processing time

It is of course ESSENTIAL to precisely control "output" to proper/best brightness.

But you "can" still do that even with an under-exposed original.

than it is at capture time.

It will be a much BETTER, (lower noise), image if optimally "captured".

Thus extra time is often worth-it at "capture" time.

Albeit I acknowledge it is not always a big difference and often not worth, (a lot of), the extra time.

BUT ... I find tweaking EC "zebras" very very very quick, (at least w/ FZ-1000).

In challenging situations, maximizing captured information may, in fact, produce an image that is visibly better.

It always will, the only question is by how much. As above, in terms of results its also much more predictable and overall easier.

I agree, some images/situations are more critical than others.

I am not always taking an image I expect to be a sellable 40"x60" poster.

--
Bob.
DARK IN HERE, ISN'T IT?

 

[PhotoTeach2]

I did not say that incident meters were obsolete. What I said is that they are not required for most types of high end photography.

There are many situations where one can use either incident meters or in-camera metering. It's a matter of personal choice. However, in-camera metering and tools have reached a point, where there are very few situations where incident meters are needed.

You may not have said that, but, following this thread, that is a consensus among many. Reference the post below by the person saying that hand held incident light meters are only useful for film photographers. That notion is absurd.

As far as very few situations in which an incident light meter is needed: Maybe not necessarily needed, but there are MANY instances in which knowledgeable use of one will definitely make for an easier and better outcome.

Incident light metering is by far the simplest way to make a reliable determination of exposure. That's why I find it strange that people who don't use it commit themselves to a methodology that requires accurate determination of exposure.

--
Bob.
DARK IN HERE, ISN'T IT?

But "accurate" may not always be best for a given situation or subject.

If you adopt a method of using exposure to precisely control your output lightness then you have to make an accurate determination of exposure. You may or may not choose to set the exposure to the ISO nominal value,

Can you please define what you mean by "ISO nominal value" ???

but to choose whether or not to do that, you have to have made an accurate determination.

And how do you propose making an "accurate" determination of that ???

The essence of this thread is to use an "incident" meter for that -- OR -- in-camera tools.

(NOTE that I make a big distinction between traditional dSLR metering vs new-technology MirrorLess histograms or "zebras".)

--
Bob.
DARK IN HERE, ISN'T IT?

 

[PhotoTeach2]

...

If you adopt a method of using exposure to precisely control your output lightness then you have to make an accurate determination of exposure. You may or may not choose to set the exposure to the ISO nominal value, but to choose whether or not to do that, you have to have made an accurate determination.

Is it better to make that accurate determination by measuring the light falling on the subject, or the light reflecting off the subject?

The former. It's a rather basic tenet of photometry. Incident light gets reflected precisely according to the reflectivity of the subject, which is what you're trying to render as the tonality in your image.

To use an extreme example ... what if your make/set via "incident" lighting, (maybe via a hand-held meter), -- BUT -- your subject is (ONLY) a MIRROR (reflecting the sun directly into the camera).

I suggest that is indeed a very difficult "subject" and there could be many different exposures that would produce totally different results.

And I suggest an "incident" reading would have been meaningless depending on the final output you may want.

And of course a "reflected" reading may also be meaningless for the same reasons.

 

[PhotoTeach2]

I did not say that incident meters were obsolete. What I said is that they are not required for most types of high end photography.

There are many situations where one can use either incident meters or in-camera metering. It's a matter of personal choice. However, in-camera metering and tools have reached a point, where there are very few situations where incident meters are needed.

You may not have said that, but, following this thread, that is a consensus among many. Reference the post below by the person saying that hand held incident light meters are only useful for film photographers. That notion is absurd.

As far as very few situations in which an incident light meter is needed: Maybe not necessarily needed, but there are MANY instances in which knowledgeable use of one will definitely make for an easier and better outcome.

Incident light metering is by far the simplest way to make a reliable determination of exposure. That's why I find it strange that people who don't use it commit themselves to a methodology that requires accurate determination of exposure.

 

[PhotoTeach2]

Of course modern technology makes it easier to produce a visibly better outcome. That's why most any Joe can pick up a camera and make an acceptable photo.

I suggest that applies also to a hand-held meter ... indeed any JOE, (even JoePhoto), could produce an "acceptable" photo via a hand-held meter.

But for many there comes a time when they move beyond that.

And that is exactly why a hand-held is not "ESSENTIAL" because more modern tools, (in MirrorLess cameras) are now better TOOLS than a hand-held meter.

Especially for portraiture.

If your goal is to simply gather as much usable data as possible and then worry about making your shot in post production, yeah, that's one way, and modern in camera tech is the best way of doing that. But if you look at the famous photographers who produce work that is unique, extraordinary, and that stands out, by and large they advocate the use of a light meter .

I suggest that is HISTORY with photographers NOT using new MirrorLess cameras.

I suggest they were often using (reflective) SPOT meters, (not necessarily "incident").

One of the reason that their work stands out is that they know light and how to use it to produce results IN CAMERA.

(Spot metering + "zone" system)

Generally, getting it right in the camera will make for a more efficient process. The more right you have it in camera, the less post production work. The BEST way of getting it right in the camera is to know what you want, know how to use your light to get it, and use an incident meter.

OR ... (reflective) spot-metering + zone system knowledge.

Period.

You can pose a counter argument all you want. You can slice it any way that you want, but, in the end, it simply comes down to that fact.

Well ... NO it does not.

NOTE that I was indeed an "incident" meter user/trust'r for years ...

And I would have agreed with you at that time ...

NOW ... I have a MirrorLess and find it so much easier/faster to use "zebras" for specific subjects. Incident is TOTALLY IRRELEVANT to me now.

 

[PhotoTeach2]

But if you look at the famous photographers who produce work that is unique, extraordinary, and that stands out, by and large they advocate the use of a light meter . One of the reason that their work stands out is that they know light and how to use it to produce results IN CAMERA.

I don't think that's accurate. Most of the famous photographers exactly followed the technique of shooting to maximise information and 'getting it right' in the darkroom. The ultimate exponent of that was Ansell Adamas, who developed a whole methodology of exposure to maximise the potential of a negative in the darkroom. As he said 'The negative is the equivalent of the composer's score, and the print the performance'.

 

[PhotoTeach2]

If you are shooting portraits and don't need to maximize quality, then either method will give good results. It pretty much boils down to using the tool you are more familiar with. People get great results with external meters, and people get great results using in-camera metering/tools.

I think if we had a contest and allowed people to use their tools of choice, we wouldn't see a noticeable difference in speed and ease of workflow.

I agree mostly. But I can't see where going in to pp to change a gray bg to white or black on several photos is going to be less than or equal with regards to time as taking a couple of incident readings and adjusting lighting/moving the model accordingly.

Where I'm coming from mostly is that the notion that hand held light meters have been rendered obsolete is just not correct.

Well ... I won't go so far as to say "obsolete" ...

But the OP's question was are they "ESSENTIAL" (today) ???

I say "TODAYS" MirrorLess (tools) are faster and better.

 

[PhotoTeach2]

If you are shooting portraits and don't need to maximize quality, then either method will give good results. It pretty much boils down to using the tool you are more familiar with. People get great results with external meters, and people get great results using in-camera metering/tools.

I think if we had a contest and allowed people to use their tools of choice, we wouldn't see a noticeable difference in speed and ease of workflow.

I agree mostly. But I can't see where going in to pp to change a gray bg to white or black on several photos is going to be less than or equal with regards to time as taking a couple of incident readings and adjusting lighting/moving the model accordingly.

But "capturing" and image and "outputting" it, (to printer), are totally separate operations and may be the same either way.

In other words, even if your total image is nothing but a (bright/reflective) WHITE wall, and you (optimally) expose right at the edge of saturation --- a (commercial) printer may still output it as a "gray", (because auto-printers are also calibrated to print 18% gray).

But the exposure level of the original capture will determine how much "noise" may be in the final output.

 

[PhotoTeach2]

Incident light measurements are very handy when using film. Will you be using film? You did not specify.