Reading mode: Light Dark

Handheld metering vs TTL metering

Go to last post
tonymp said:
First of all there is no comparison between the spot metering available in-camera and a dedicated focusing spot meter or, a high quality hand held meter with an appropriate spot attachment – a true spot meter is far more precise due to the narrower angle of view which simply can’t be matched by an in-camera metering system, it’s as simple as that!. Again, it will depend upon the lens FL being used as to accuracy with in-camera spot metering.
Click to expand...
Whether the angle of view of a hand-held spot meter is narrower or not depends on what lens you're using with the camera's spot meter, so to say that this one factor will make the handheld spot meter "far more precise" is just hyperbole. Oftentimes the 1 degree angle of view is just not necessary. On the other hand the fact that the camera's meter is TTL can be a big advantage for exposure accuracy.
tonymp said:
A hand-held light meter is a fine tool in its own right and when used correctly, it measures the light falling upon the scene/subject and will give accurate contrast ratio figures which are sufficient to determine either precise, preferred or optimum exposure, depending on a scene's priorities and DR of the media being used so, it would be user error if the highlights are blown and certainly not down to the meter.
Click to expand...
Probably best to use the term incident meter if that's what you mean. A spot meter can be a hand-held, too. Incident meters are easier to use, when used in the appropriate situation; but that doesn't make them more accurate. After all, the camera doesn't take a picture of the light falling on the scene, it takes a picture of the light reflected by objects in the scene. BTW if you can tell me how to use an incident meter to measure the contrast ratio of a scene I'm all ears. That would be a pretty neat trick.

There's a reason most landscape photographers use spot meters rather than incident most of the time. Incident meters won't tell you the contrast range of an image, nor will they allow you to measure the light falling on a mountain top when you're standing in the valley below.
tonymp said:
Reflected light readings can very often fool a camera’s metering be it spot, CW or matrix but, an incident reading taken with a good meter will always produce accurate and consistent exposures because one is not measuring reflections but is measuring the actual light falling on the scene.
Click to expand...
You're lumping spot-metering in with matrix metering, which isn't really accurate. You can't 'fool' a spot meter. When you point it at something, it tells you the exposure required to render that something as a mid-tone. The only confusion comes if the photographer doesn't know how to use that information, or doesn't know what to point the spot-meter at. If you want to argue that spot-metering is more difficult than incident metering, I might agree with that. But it doesn't make spot-metering less accurate, and for outdoor photographers it's a very useful skill to have so it's worth learning even if it is a bit more difficult.
tonymp said:
With regard to the Sunny 16 rule comment I made, it’s not as stupid a comment as you may think! It’s a well tried and trusted method of getting correct exposure if one actually knows how and when to apply it! If one can read the light of an outdoor scene, very often there is no need for any metering whatsoever - it just needs sufficient understanding and the SS 16 rule is actually another form of incident light reading!
Click to expand...
The sunny-16 rule can be useful as a last resort, or when you're photographing in a familiar situation where you know what to expect, what the contrast of the scene is, etc. But it's not more accurate than a spot meter.

--
Jeff Kohn
Houston, TX
http://www.pbase.com/jkohn
http://jeffk-photo.typepad.com
 
I use my meter for flash setup in the studio but for everything else I use spot metering and knowledge of my system. System being, lens, camera, developer, and printer. If I have time and the scene warrants it then I spot meter multiple points like shadows with details, highlights with details, and most importantly the subject itself. Mentally decide the range and subject tonal placement and expose accordingly. If I don't have the time then I spot meter the subject and place it in the right zone and deal with the rest later.

Histograms lie, matrix metering can be fooled, and handheld meters are just one more thing to carry.
--
Charles
My family images are at http://www.stakeman.smugmug.com
Be sure of your subject.
Never, force the shot.
 
Jeff Kohn said:
I think your math is a little off. Handheld spot-meters are typically 1-degree. You don't need anwhere near 240mm to get equivalent coverage from the camera's 2% spot meter.
Click to expand...
OK. 230mm was the correct focal lenght. Diameter of the in camera spot meter is 4mm. 2mm/tan(0.5)=230mm
 
CWilt said:
If I don't have the time then I spot meter the subject and place it in the right zone
Click to expand...
May I ask how exactly you handle the 'place it in the right zone'? Thank you.

--
regards, eric
 
This is a very interesting question. When I had a D300 I was always suspicious of the camera settings. As I also take film I have a Gossen Digipro and use it often, especially where there are varying contrast areas. I find that it actually prevents much post processing, which, lets be fair is good. It's always better to take a well exposed image first time. There are those who wonder if people really know how to use a lightmeter, being a film user it is second nature. So much so, that for all my "important" pictures I use my D700 in manual mode and set to the lightmeter. The result is that I now sit in my digital darkroom much less than I used to and also retain the basic skills of photography.

The D700 is much better at exposing correctly and in fairness does so most of the time, but it can get confused, so I do like to use the meter. If I'm taking "snaps" then I don't bother.

This I know is a regular topic of chat at Photography clubs, but simply put if a person is more comfortable using one, then what's the harm.
--
richardD700
http://www.pixels4u.co.uk
 
Jeff Kohn said:
tonymp said:
First of all there is no comparison between the spot metering available in-camera and a dedicated focusing spot meter or, a high quality hand held meter with an appropriate spot attachment – a true spot meter is far more precise due to the narrower angle of view which simply can’t be matched by an in-camera metering system, it’s as simple as that!. Again, it will depend upon the lens FL being used as to accuracy with in-camera spot metering.
Click to expand...
Whether the angle of view of a hand-held spot meter is narrower or not depends on what lens you're using with the camera's spot meter, so to say that this one factor will make the handheld spot meter "far more precise" is just hyperbole. Oftentimes the 1 degree angle of view is just not necessary. On the other hand the fact that the camera's meter is TTL can be a big advantage for exposure accuracy.
Jeff Kohn said:
A hand-held light meter is a fine tool in its own right and when used correctly, it measures the light falling upon the scene/subject and will give accurate contrast ratio figures which are sufficient to determine either precise, preferred or optimum exposure, depending on a scene's priorities and DR of the media being used so, it would be user error if the highlights are blown and certainly not down to the meter.
Click to expand...
Probably best to use the term incident meter if that's what you mean. A spot meter can be a hand-held, too. Incident meters are easier to use, when used in the appropriate situation; but that doesn't make them more accurate. After all, the camera doesn't take a picture of the light falling on the scene, it takes a picture of the light reflected by objects in the scene. BTW if you can tell me how to use an incident meter to measure the contrast ratio of a scene I'm all ears. That would be a pretty neat trick.

There's a reason most landscape photographers use spot meters rather than incident most of the time. Incident meters won't tell you the contrast range of an image, nor will they allow you to measure the light falling on a mountain top when you're standing in the valley below.
Jeff Kohn said:
Reflected light readings can very often fool a camera’s metering be it spot, CW or matrix but, an incident reading taken with a good meter will always produce accurate and consistent exposures because one is not measuring reflections but is measuring the actual light falling on the scene.
Click to expand...
You're lumping spot-metering in with matrix metering, which isn't really accurate. You can't 'fool' a spot meter. When you point it at something, it tells you the exposure required to render that something as a mid-tone. The only confusion comes if the photographer doesn't know how to use that information, or doesn't know what to point the spot-meter at. If you want to argue that spot-metering is more difficult than incident metering, I might agree with that. But it doesn't make spot-metering less accurate, and for outdoor photographers it's a very useful skill to have so it's worth learning even if it is a bit more difficult.
Jeff Kohn said:
With regard to the Sunny 16 rule comment I made, it’s not as stupid a comment as you may think! It’s a well tried and trusted method of getting correct exposure if one actually knows how and when to apply it! If one can read the light of an outdoor scene, very often there is no need for any metering whatsoever - it just needs sufficient understanding and the SS 16 rule is actually another form of incident light reading!
Click to expand...
The sunny-16 rule can be useful as a last resort, or when you're photographing in a familiar situation where you know what to expect, what the contrast of the scene is, etc. But it's not more accurate than a spot meter.
Click to expand...
No matter what I write and looking at your past replies, you're just keep going to come up with a counter argument to prove your point from your own experiences - that's fine but I just don't have time!

So, the short answer is.. if you believe a hand held meter is not for you then by all means don't use one. There is no obligation for anyone to do so, especially if you don't find any benefit from it but don't assume because you don't benefit from using one that everyone else won't - I have to use one when shooting with my MF neg film cameras but, I also embrace several methods achieve my goals so there is no single method which is the complete answer to everything. A hand held meter is just one tool which makes life easier for those who need it.

There will always be times or situations when spot meter readings will be more practical than incident readings or there wouldn't be a market for spot meters but, a hand held meter provides or can provide both and for many situations, such as when using continuous light in studio or location settings etc etc etc, where in-camera metering would be pretty useless and at best or take far too long to chimp one's way through to get the exposures right which could be accurately done in seconds with a small number of readings from a h/h meter. Not forgetting, most hand helds can also be used for flash or flash plus ambient readings too, so again an absolute must in a working studio or on location which just can't be done with in-camera metering without lots and lots of time wasting.

At the end of the day, a hand held meter is just another tool which can provide information quickly and reliably - whether one has a need for one is another matter and, if one is happy to chimp one's way through a situation when a hand held is definitely required and they have the time for it, then fine - unfortunately I don't have and need to use the fastest and most practical and relaible method for a given situation and on many occasions, hand held metering is the only way to go for me!
Tony

--
The only thing that gets sharper with use is a woman's tongue!
http://www.le-femme.co.uk
 
erpsab said:
How many of you out there prefer using a handheld meter versus TTL metering in your camera? I have a D700 and have been reading pros and cons to both but would like to hear forum participants on this issue.

1. When would you use one over the other?
Click to expand...
I would use the hand held meter when I want to really dial in the exposure I want especially in a challenging scene that has strong DR.
erpsab said:
2. Why?
Click to expand...
Because my meter has both spot and incident metering with DR spread (Sekonic L-758DR) I can establish base exposure as well as the DR of the scene using the incident portion for the base and the spot for the DR, I can then intelligently choose the exposure for my subject and my artistic vision of how I want the scene truly rendered.

I am a big fan of understanding there is no "PERFECT EXPOSURE" just "base exposure" and where you want to go from there based on the light you have and your understandig of that light (and how the camera will see it)

If you understand the light and the DR of a scene, when things get challenging you can make decisions much more intelligently than an averaging algorythem. Decisions like "The scene is too bright to record...what do I want to sacrifice or do I want to even pull the trigger at all?"
erpsab said:
3. Are there any specific negatives to using TTL in the D700 over a handheld metering system?
Click to expand...
Yes, when scenes have a great amound of light and dark, especially in isolated spots, and also when the DR is beyond the capabilitys of the camera the in camera metering usually errors toward one side or the other and does not nail the exposure. This happens less and less as in camera meter DB/Algorythems improve, as well as the DR of the sensor improves. But to date, no manufacturer of any DSLR has got all things covered.

This dosn't mean that all in camera meters suck or are unusable, and as your attention to detail improves as you learn the craft of photography, then the details start to really make the diffrence. As you improve your workflow from prevision to post processing, you become more consistant in delivering what you want as a photographer.
erpsab said:
Thanks for your responses!
Click to expand...
Your quite welcome!

Roman

--

The best tools of a successful photographer as well as a 'well lived' life is appreciation and a sense of adventure.

These are the tools of mastery of all things.

http://www.pbase.com/romansphotos/
 
Jeff Kohn said:
Hey Charles, glad to see you're still around, we haven't crossed paths online in a while. Hope everything is well with you and the family. Do you still shoot Nikon? I see you've been active in some of the 4/3 forums.
Click to expand...
Hello Jeff. Yes it has been a while. Everyone is doing fine. How about you and yours? Still have and use the Nikon gear for work but the micro 4/3 sure is fun and taking over for some work.

--
Charles
My family images are at http://www.stakeman.smugmug.com
Be sure of your subject.
Never, force the shot.
 
lovEU said:
May I ask how exactly you handle the 'place it in the right zone'? Thank you.
Click to expand...
This is a good place to start reading. http://www.libraw.org/node/43

I shoot portraits mainly so I will use that as a brief example but nothing will substitute for testing and practice.

When the contrast range isn't visibly wide, meaning soft light, then I spot meter mid tone skin with compensation determined by how light or dark their skin is. If the contrast range is wide, meaning hard light, then I will spot meter the lightest part that I need to keep detail in and compensate anywhere from +2 to +4 depending on the system. There are of course artistic decisions to be made as well. Perhaps the shadows are more important to the photographer.

Proper exposure can be many things to different people. To some it could be relying on matrix metering for that quick snap shot of something important. Others perhaps prefer the slow methodical spot metering of a landscape scene. For me, proper exposure means I will get accurate color and tonal reproduction with the most detail possible.

Sorry for the long response.
--
Charles
My family images are at http://www.stakeman.smugmug.com
Be sure of your subject.
Never, force the shot.
 
afoton said:
Jeff Kohn said:
I think your math is a little off. Handheld spot-meters are typically 1-degree. You don't need anwhere near 240mm to get equivalent coverage from the camera's 2% spot meter.
Click to expand...
OK. 230mm was the correct focal lenght. Diameter of the in camera spot meter is 4mm. 2mm/tan(0.5)=230mm
Click to expand...
That 4mm comprises only 1.5% of the viewfinder screen according to the manual (For DX cameras such as the D300, it's 3mm and covers 2%). The spot metering area is just slightly larger than an AF focus point. Simple empirical observation (looking through the viewfinder with lenses of different focal lengths mounted) should tell you that it doesn't take anywhere near 230mm to achieve the same measuring area as a 1-degree hand-held spot meter.

--
Jeff Kohn
Houston, TX
http://www.pbase.com/jkohn
http://jeffk-photo.typepad.com
 
CWilt said:
This is a good place to start reading. http://www.libraw.org/node/43
Click to expand...
Thank you for the link - I read that at the time Iliah published it but I’ve to do again.
CWilt said:
I shoot portraits mainly so I will use that as a brief example but nothing will substitute for testing and practice.

When the contrast range isn't visibly wide, meaning soft light, then I spot meter mid tone skin with compensation determined by how light or dark their skin is. If the contrast range is wide, meaning hard light, then I will spot meter the lightest part that I need to keep detail in and compensate anywhere from +2 to +4 depending on the system. There are of course artistic decisions to be made as well. Perhaps the shadows are more important to the photographer.

Proper exposure can be many things to different people. To some it could be relying on matrix metering for that quick snap shot of something important. Others perhaps prefer the slow methodical spot metering of a landscape scene. For me, proper exposure means I will get accurate color and tonal reproduction with the most detail possible.
Sorry for the long response.
Click to expand...
Far from it - thanks again for your detailed answer, Charles. I guess there is a lot of experience behind the extent you will compensate due to brightness of skin tones.

There is one scenario I’m wondering once in a while and I’m sure it has been discussed here some time ago. That is, if your subject shows up mainly in mid tones and there are no highlights but many dark tones in the scene. Would you compensate +1 or even +2 eV for the main subject and set that back afterwards in post processing? By that, avoiding capturing noise within dark areas? Or is that kind of stupid idea?
--
regards, eric
 
lovEU said:
There is one scenario I’m wondering once in a while and I’m sure it has been discussed here some time ago. That is, if your subject shows up mainly in mid tones and there are no highlights but many dark tones in the scene. Would you compensate +1 or even +2 eV for the main subject and set that back afterwards in post processing? By that, avoiding capturing noise within dark areas? Or is that kind of stupid idea?
Click to expand...
It's not stupid at all, what you've just described is a good summary of "exposing to the right", or ETTR. As long you can be sure you're not clipping highlights you care about, this is a good approach in situations where you've got plenty of dynamic range.

Using ETTR accurately can be a bit tricky though; you have to keep in mind that the camera's histogram represents a camera-process JPEG; that includes white balance and tone curve adjustments. If you want to ensure the hiistogram is as accurate as possible, you should looking into the "Uni-WB" custom white balance, and also set the other picture control settings as neutrally as possible so that you're not mislead by the histogram.

--
Jeff Kohn
Houston, TX
http://www.pbase.com/jkohn
http://jeffk-photo.typepad.com
 
CWilt said:
Jeff Kohn said:
Hey Charles, glad to see you're still around, we haven't crossed paths online in a while. Hope everything is well with you and the family. Do you still shoot Nikon? I see you've been active in some of the 4/3 forums.
Click to expand...
Hello Jeff. Yes it has been a while. Everyone is doing fine. How about you and yours? Still have and use the Nikon gear for work but the micro 4/3 sure is fun and taking over for some work.
Click to expand...
No complaints here, life's been good. Glad to see you're still shooting.

Take care,

--
Jeff Kohn
Houston, TX
http://www.pbase.com/jkohn
http://jeffk-photo.typepad.com
 
Jeff Kohn said:
It's not stupid at all, what you've just described is a good summary of "exposing to the right", or ETTR. As long you can be sure you're not clipping highlights you care about, this is a good approach in situations where you've got plenty of dynamic range.
Click to expand...
I see, I wasn’t aware that by ‘exposing to the right’ you would overexpose your main subject like that, but of course, other than that it doesn’t make sense.
Jeff Kohn said:
Using ETTR accurately can be a bit tricky though; you have to keep in mind that the camera's histogram represents a camera-process JPEG; that includes white balance and tone curve adjustments. If you want to ensure the hiistogram is as accurate as possible, you should looking into the "Uni-WB" custom white balance, and also set the other picture control settings as neutrally as possible so that you're not mislead by the histogram.
Click to expand...
Some weeks ago I tried out Uni-WB first time, but even though I read through many threads before I’m still not sure if I’ve understood the concept of producing a ‘linear curve’ correctly. Btw, I was dumb enough, to try Uni-WB first time during a portrait shoot. So, my model looking at the cameras lcd seemed not to be amused about her skin tones … :-|
--
regards, eric
 
I spent years as a large format photographer, so I have a lot of experience with meters, especially spot meters. Also have used and still have good other meters, including incident meters.

I don't use handheld meters any more. Two issues for me. First, the meters I'm familiar with don't meter red, green, and blue separately, so I can get the best reading possible from the handheld and still blow a channel. So I have to look at the RGB histograms anyway to judge exposure (yes, there have been threads on this being imperfect, but it's pretty good). Second, as for flash photography, I've become a Strobist fan and find the "trial and error" approach not at all inefficient.

All that said, these are my personal experiences and I can see from the other posts how some shooting styles can find handhelds the way to go.
--
Rick L
http://www.pbase.com/ricklawrence/root
 
lovEU said:
Far from it - thanks again for your detailed answer, Charles. I guess there is a lot of experience behind the extent you will compensate due to brightness of skin tones.

There is one scenario I’m wondering once in a while and I’m sure it has been discussed here some time ago. That is, if your subject shows up mainly in mid tones and there are no highlights but many dark tones in the scene. Would you compensate +1 or even +2 eV for the main subject and set that back afterwards in post processing? By that, avoiding capturing noise within dark areas? Or is that kind of stupid idea?
Click to expand...
Eric,

Gaining that knowledge is as simple as comparing a grey card to the spot metered subject and remembering it. I cut a kodak grey card in 1/4s and keep one in a camera bag just in case.

I really dislike the ETTR method and would prefer think in terms of capturing data. If I am facing that situation I try to get as much detail as I can between zones 3 and 7. Most of the time I will also take a 2nd caputre with "normal" exposure to help remember the scene when it comes time to process. Keep in mind that the RAW developer will influence this process as well. It may take a little whiile but I will find an article on that and provide the link as well.
--
Charles
My family images are at http://www.stakeman.smugmug.com
Be sure of your subject.
Never, force the shot.
 
CWilt said:
Gaining that knowledge is as simple as comparing a grey card to the spot metered subject and remembering it. I cut a kodak grey card in 1/4s and keep one in a camera bag just in case.
Click to expand...
You’re right … once in a while I’ll forget that sometimes things can be found out easily just by shooting and watching. Maybe I should do a couple of test shots in August when I’ll meet friends from all over the world.
CWilt said:
I really dislike the ETTR method and would prefer think in terms of capturing data. If I am facing that situation I try to get as much detail as I can between zones 3 and 7. Most of the time I will also take a 2nd caputre with "normal" exposure to help remember the scene when it comes time to process.
Click to expand...
Cool, just doing a second shot to capture the ‘original mood’ of the scene. Again, easy method but I never applied that consciously. I think I might have had less trouble in the past having done that more often … thanks for your answer.

Btw, do you dislike ETTR because what you get is not what you see?
CWilt said:
Keep in mind that the RAW developer will influence this process as well.
Click to expand...
Actually, I’m using Lightroom and CS2. Maybe some things would work better in NX, maybe even better with RPP (but no Mac yet).
--
regards, eric
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Keyboard shortcuts

f
Forum
m
My threads
Mobile site
About
Editorial content
Cameras & Lenses
Community
All content, design, and layout are Copyright © 1998–2025 Digital Photography Review All Rights Reserved.
Reproduction in whole or part in any form or medium without specific written permission is prohibited.
When you use DPReview links to buy products, the site may earn a commission.
©GPS Media - Guides, Products, Services.
Back
Top