Hand held meter?

I am not a pro phtographer, I was once semi- pro doing weddings in film days, that long ago it was all black and white, of course in those days using a hand held meter was the norm(incident light with my reliable Weston),of course I am now digital and on the odd occasion medium format film, my question is do any of you pros still use a hand held meter reading in certain situations and do you find them more accuarte than a meter in the camera.
--
Barrie

Barrie Marshall said:

I am not a pro phtographer, I was once semi- pro doing weddings in
film days, that long ago it was all black and white, of course in
those days using a hand held meter was the norm(incident light with
my reliable Weston),of course I am now digital and on the odd
occasion medium format film, my question is do any of you pros still
use a hand held meter reading in certain situations and do you find
them more accuarte than a meter in the camera.

Click to expand...

Yes. I too am familiar with the old Weston Master meters. I used a V and a VI with Invercone.

These days I still use an incident meter --[Minolta Flashmeter V]-- but only because it meters FLASH slightly more conveniently than the camera with review image does. For continuous light shooting the camera metering systems are just fine... and there is always the review image/histogram to check with....

...... which image and histo can also be used for flashmetering, too, if you wish.

We've never had it so good, eh?! ;-)
--
Regards,
Baz

I have always used a hand meter (Weston or Leningrad Selenium Cell type) with the Zone Scale. I always use reflected light readings - they are accurate compared to an incident reading that then requires some experience applied to evaluate to be relevant to the subject.

Reason? I always want to be in control of what I obtain and think that is, honestly, the only way to work. That way I can previsualise exactly how the end will appear and that's what I taught clients, who really wanted to achieve high quality, over many years.
--
Zone8

The photograph isolates and perpetuates a moment of time: an important and revealing moment, or an unimportant and meaningless one, depending upon the photographer's understanding of his subject and mastery of his process. -Edward Weston
http://www.photosnowdonia.co.uk/ZPS

In answer to your questions, yes, and yes. You received a couple of good responses so far, though with some inaccuracies if you shoot Raw (you do shoot Raw, don't you?).

An image on the LCD of the camera is only an approximation of what you will get out of the converted Raw file. That is because the LCD image and the histogram are based on the compressed, dumbed-down, 8-bit JPEG thumbnail that is generated-on-the-fly by your camera. Camera makers make every effort to hide that fact (and successfully, judging by how many photographers are unaware of this).

I have spoken to Canon, Nikon, and other camera makers regarding this, and they all either hedged, or denied that the histogram/LCD image are not true representations of the captured image. All of this also applies to the optional blinking clipped areas that some pro cameras display on their LCD's.

The bottom line is only a calibrated hanheld spot meter will give you exact and accurate light level readings. This of course, will mean learning to use such a meter and calibrating it to your camera. It will be far more accurate than any built-in camera meter.

nzav said:

In answer to your questions, yes, and yes. You received a couple of
good responses so far, though with some inaccuracies if you shoot Raw
(you do shoot Raw, don't you?).

An image on the LCD of the camera is only an approximation of what
you will get out of the converted Raw file. That is because the LCD
image and the histogram are based on the compressed, dumbed-down,
8-bit JPEG thumbnail that is generated-on-the-fly by your camera.
Camera makers make every effort to hide that fact (and successfully,
judging by how many photographers are unaware of this).

I have spoken to Canon, Nikon, and other camera makers regarding
this, and they all either hedged, or denied that the histogram/LCD
image are not true representations of the captured image. All of this
also applies to the optional blinking clipped areas that some pro
cameras display on their LCD's.

The bottom line is only a calibrated hanheld spot meter will give you
exact and accurate light level readings. This of course, will mean
learning to use such a meter and calibrating it to your camera. It
will be far more accurate than any built-in camera meter.

Click to expand...

I basically agree and in fact, never use the panel image/histogram at all. Well, perhaps I should quality that in only the sense that if taking happy snaps for family, I do then, under mildly protested duress, show them what I had just taken. Otherwise, have no interest. I do not use a spotmeter, preferring the handheld - it would take a long time to cover why not but I will say, briefly, internal flare in some circumstances can cause the spot meter to give an inaccurate result. I always made lens hood tubes about 4" long, lined with black velvet, for clients on Zone System workshops for their spot meters to help obviate this problem.

--
Zone8

The photograph isolates and perpetuates a moment of time: an important and revealing moment, or an unimportant and meaningless one, depending upon the photographer's understanding of his subject and mastery of his process. -Edward Weston
http://www.photosnowdonia.co.uk/ZPS

I keep meaning to buy a new meter, most, as with Baz, for use with flash.

But in the last fedw days I was shooting inside an airplace hanger with translucent giant doors, photographing peole in front fo the doors, and a handheld meter would hvbae been very useful. And earlier this week I photographed an executive using a Canon flash while he was standing in front of the interior side of a translucent giant white window. AGain and hand held meter would have been useful and quicker than the techniques I used.

BAK

Interesting response... I have tested almost every pro-level spot meter going back to pre-digital meters with analog needle movements, and found most of the recent spot meters were quite resistant to flare. My tests included spot meters from Gossen, Minolta, Pentax, Sekonic, among others that I cannot recall right now.

Some of the old analog and early digital meters had serious flare issues; others were extremely resistant, such as the Zone VI customized Pentax with added internal baffles to reduce flare. I tested that meter against the non-customized version and found very little difference due to flare, although a difference in color response was obvious. It also did not read flash which was a major disadvantage.

The current crop of pro spot meters have optical systems that are as flare resistant as most of the better multi-coated camera optics; not surprising since they have the latest computer designed lenses with multicoating to control flare. In my experience, flare has not been an issue with current pro spot meters – YMMV.

Of course, current pro meters like the Sekonic L-758 (and some earlier models) offer optional lens hoods, which I have but rarely use.

The important thing to note is only a spot meter can give you a true measure of how many EV's are in the scene you are shooting, and therefore, will let you know if your camera's DR will handle it. An incident meter only gives you an average reading at the subject plane, and with some shading of the cell, will give you lighting ratios. This is still much too vague in difficult and uncontrolled lighting situations.

I use an incident meter to substitute for a gray card reading (Zone V if you will), then the spotmeter tells me if my highlight and shadow areas exceed the DR of the sensor I am using. The procedure involves three quick light readings and I know instantly if I must sacrifice some highlight or shadow content, or bracket for later HDR image work. Naturally, having a meter that has both capabilities is a major advantage.

The methods above are based on a calibrated meter to sensor system not unlike the Zone System, which is outside the scope of this forum discussion.

Hi ya - very interesting & useful posts!

I shoot digital, mastering in RAW, for studio & field work. Only fashion, so I am under different pressures to sports folks etc. I don't have to rush setting up.

In the studio, I always use a handheld meter when I am setting up lighting (strobes). In the field, I usually meter using a handheld as well, especially if I am using portable flash.

I usally also take a reference shot after I have metered - one of those cards with a pure black, white and grey. I use this when I am doing post in Photoshop to set my curves so that blacks are really black & the whites really white. I also take a custom white balance reading always and test this with a colour reference scale chart as well.

Sounds a bit laborious but, in my experience, digital sensors (I have a 1DSMkII and 350D) are a bit quirky when they show colour. E.g., violets can come out bluish, so getting the baseline as right as possible is vital (in what I do anyway).

It was also definitely worth calibrating my monitor and using paper profiles for my printer.

All a bit techie, but it is absolutely vital for my stuff that the colours I produce are as close to the originals as possible.

Hope this helps - very useful stuff by the other posters about the displays on the camera. I never know that they didn't use the RAW data!

Martin21 said:

Hi ya - very interesting & useful posts!

I shoot digital, mastering in RAW, for studio & field work. Only
fashion, so I am under different pressures to sports folks etc. I
don't have to rush setting up.

In the studio, I always use a handheld meter when I am setting up
lighting (strobes). In the field, I usually meter using a handheld as
well, especially if I am using portable flash.

I usally also take a reference shot after I have metered - one of
those cards with a pure black, white and grey. I use this when I am
doing post in Photoshop to set my curves so that blacks are really
black & the whites really white. I also take a custom white balance
reading always and test this with a colour reference scale chart as
well.

Sounds a bit laborious but, in my experience, digital sensors (I have
a 1DSMkII and 350D) are a bit quirky when they show colour. E.g.,
violets can come out bluish, so getting the baseline as right as
possible is vital (in what I do anyway).

It was also definitely worth calibrating my monitor and using paper
profiles for my printer.

All a bit techie, but it is absolutely vital for my stuff that the
colours I produce are as close to the originals as possible.

Hope this helps - very useful stuff by the other posters about the
displays on the camera. I never know that they didn't use the RAW
data!

Click to expand...

You have already realized calibration and profiling of your displays and printer are crucial to producing good output, but calibrating the meter and camera sensor is just as important and is the first step in your getting your system right.

All cameras, from consumer P&S to pro dSLR's shoot Raw, but only the higher-end and pro cameras offer Raw output; it is the captured linear information (bits) from the sensor and cannot be viewed without conversion to an image file (JPEG or TIFF). The thumbnail image generated by the camera for a Raw file has to be a JPEG to take advantage of the compression. A JPEG can only be an 8-bit file (which discards a major amount of info) while the Raw file can output 16-bit conversions. So when the LCD on the camera displays an image, it can't possibly show the true color range, or dynamic range of a 16-bit Raw conversion. Since the histogram and flashing clipping warnings are also based on the JPEG thumbnail, they also lack the full info in the Raw file. On average, most pro cameras can produce about a stop more useable image in the highlights, but the JPEG thumbnail will never show that.

If you stop and think about how much is involved when you open a Raw file in your favorite Raw converter on your fast and powerful computer (Mac or PC) with gigs of RAM and powerful software to the tiny low-power chip in your camera, you will realize the camera cannot compete in quality conversion. I have all of the major conversion software like ACR CS3, C1 Pro, Bibble, etc., and every one of them provides a laundry list of options and corrections to the Raw file before conversion. Once you finish tweaking the settings, you will notice it takes your powerful software and computer much longer to make the conversion than the chip in the camera. This should give you an indication of the losses involved in producing the camera's displayed image.

Finally, with the conversion done in your computer, you decide on the true color balance, saturation, noise reduction, sharpening, etc, on a 16-bit (65,536 levels opposed to 256 levels in 8-bit) file, instead of your camera!

Note - Before anyone jumps in to say "Photoshop's 16-bit files are only 32,769 levels," I am aware of that and understand why they implement the files that way. It still is a far cry from the paltry 256 levels of 8-bit files. Unfortunately, bit depth is too complicated a subject to delve into here.

I often test calibration equipment ranging from simple reference cards to very sophisticated spectrophotometers. On location (and in the studio) I have found the ExpoDisc an excellent substitute for a gray card and color balance setting. It is small and can take the abuse of location shoots.

Sorry for the long posts...

nzav said:

In answer to your questions, yes, and yes. You received a couple of
good responses so far, though with some inaccuracies if you shoot Raw
(you do shoot Raw, don't you?).

An image on the LCD of the camera is only an approximation of what
you will get out of the converted Raw file. That is because the LCD
image and the histogram are based on the compressed, dumbed-down,
8-bit JPEG thumbnail that is generated-on-the-fly by your camera.
Camera makers make every effort to hide that fact (and successfully,
judging by how many photographers are unaware of this).

I have spoken to Canon, Nikon, and other camera makers regarding
this, and they all either hedged, or denied that the histogram/LCD
image are not true representations of the captured image. All of this
also applies to the optional blinking clipped areas that some pro
cameras display on their LCD's.

The bottom line is only a calibrated hanheld spot meter will give you
exact and accurate light level readings. This of course, will mean
learning to use such a meter and calibrating it to your camera. It
will be far more accurate than any built-in camera meter.

Click to expand...

Out of the box, I often find the LCD to be brighter than the raw file.

what I do is adjust the LCD to come as close to the out of camera image as possible, and this is usually achieved by putting the LCD on the least bright setting the camera can afford. To compensate viewability, especially outdoors, I use the hoodman (the $70 thingie), which works beautfifully.

Patrick