LIght meters are they essential for todays needs?

Krav Maga said:

Yes. Also, even when not using strobes, if one knows how to use it, for static portraits, it's going to save a lot of time as well. Plus, a handheld incident metering is going to, almost always, give a better result than a camera's reflective metering.

Click to expand...

Michael Fryd said:

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.

Click to expand...

Krav Maga said:

Krav Maga said:

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.

Click to expand...

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.

Click to expand...

Michael Fryd said:

Krav Maga said:

Michael Fryd said:

Is your goal reducing production time or maximizing quality?

Click to expand...

If in a position to use a handheld incident meter, it will result in both.

Click to expand...

Not necessarily. To minimize post processing time, you want to get the brightness correct in-camera. This allows an automated workflow on the back-end, or even the use of camera-produced JPEGs. With most modern digital cameras, this can give you excellent quality, but not necessarily the best quality the camera is capable of.

If the scene does not have high dynamic range, you can get better quality by boosting the exposure. This increases the signal, and reduces the signal to noise ratio. If you use the default processing, your results will probably look too bright. However, of you use custom processing, your results will have the proper brightness, and will have slightly higher quality.

If your image has a very large dynamic range, you may need to preserve the highlights by reducing exposure, and then raising the brightness in post production.

These fine decisions are difficult to make with an external meter, as it is not always obvious where you should be spot metering, or how the spot meter relates to maxed out pixels. For instance, if your camera is set to f/5.6, how bright a spot reading can something give before you start to blow the highlights?

Michael Fryd said:

Maximizing in camera quality results in less post production time.

Click to expand...

Strangely this isn't true. The exposure that produced the absolute maximum quality typically will require post processing.

However, if you are exposing for the JPEG image, then you can get a very high quality image with minimal or no post processing. In many situations, this results in quality that is more than good enough, and results in a quick workflow.

Obviously, if the exposure is way off, then post processing may be difficult as you need to compensate for mistakes made in-camera.

However, if you absolutely want the best possible quality (and most situations don't call for this), then your exposure will likely require post processing.

Michael Fryd said:

Knowing how to use a meter, in many circumstances, is going to be faster than snapping, chimping, adjusting, snapping, chimping some more, etc. Especially if, for example, you're in a bright daylight environment. Squinting at a tiny LCD in the bright sun sucks.

Click to expand...

If those are the only two choices than an external meter might be a better choice.

Many people have the option of using the in-camera meter. Many find this easier and more reliable than an external meter. Shooting with the internal meter saves the metering step. A quick glance at the histogram and a check for blinkies tells you if you need exposure compensation. It is not a slow nor a crazy workflow.

Michael Fryd said:

...

However, vis a vis the original OP, for most portraiture, indoor, outdoor, strobed or naturally lit; positioning people to stand while photographing them, knowledgeable use of a handheld incident meter is almost always going to be superior to using a camera's reflective meter. And it will be quicker. No matter how advanced the camera's "tools" are.

Click to expand...

Maybe, maybe not. Whether you are using an external meter or the camera's meter, the goal is to get the right amount of light on the sensor. The in-camera meter is in an excellent position to do that.

Remember, if you are shooting a very bright white wall, or a dark back wall, you will get a better quality image by letting the sensor think it is mid-gray, and then adjusting the brightness in post. If you base your exposure on an incident light meter, you may end up with a blown out white wall with no detail, or a pure black dark wall with no detail.

Remember, many photographers are trying to capture what the scene looks like, not what it actually is.

Click to expand...

PhotoTeach2 said:

Krav Maga said:

Yes. Also, even when not using strobes, if one knows how to use it, for static portraits, it's going to save a lot of time as well. Plus, a handheld incident metering is going to, almost always, give a better result than a camera's reflective metering.

Click to expand...

It will, (should if working correct), give an identical result if your scene is average (18%) reflectivity.

1.) BUT ... that may NOT be the best setting if the scene is composed of extreme (absorbent) blacks and (shiny-reflective) whites, (or a black-lit or shadowed subject like the OP example). Either one of those may be the most critical and thus better to "optimize" based on the important subject.

2.) AND if your scene is flat and either totally black or white, (like a white rabbit playing in sunlit snow), it may be better to ETTR to the point of near saturation.

That would give you the most correct exposure for the snow/rabbit -- and -- a LOWER NOISE image for the totally black, (after brightness correction in PP).

So I suggest that "professionals" never completely relied on an incident reading in all situations. It still was only a TOOL -- that still required "thinking" to get best results.

In both cases, using the TOOLS in a MirrorLess camera can be easier/faster and better because FOR THE FIRST TIME it is now possible to know the exact point of "saturation" that I suggest taking advantage of.

Click to expand...

bobn2 said:

bobn2 said:

...

Click to expand...

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.

Click to expand...

Michael Fryd said:

Krav Maga said:

Michael Fryd said:

Krav Maga said:

Michael Fryd said:

Is your goal reducing production time or maximizing quality?

Click to expand...

If in a position to use a handheld incident meter, it will result in both.

Click to expand...

Not necessarily. To minimize post processing time, you want to get the brightness correct in-camera.

Click to expand...

This is incorrect. It depends on the shot you're after. If you know the shot you're after--which is normally the case in portraiture--and you know enough about light to be able to work with it, and how to use an incident meter. It will result in getting the shot right in camera, thus minimizing the need for post production work. Image quality is subjective for the most part. Imagine what you want, use the light to create it. If the image matches what your mind's eye saw, that would be a quality image.

Click to expand...

The exposure differences we are talking about affect noise levels, blown highlights, a detail lost in shadows. In the context of this discussion, these are the issues I am referring to when I talk about "Image Quality".

As to what brightness level a skin tone should be in a JPEG, that's partially an artistic question. As to minimizing noise level in the image, that's an engineering issue we can measure.

It's also an artistic question as to whether or not we want to maintain details in the shadows and highlights. However, if we do want to retain those details, we can say that we have higher "image quality" if we have retained those details, and if we have minimized image noise.

Artistically, we may actually want noise in the image, and/or blown out highlights. While such an image may be wonderful and amazing, it may not score highly with the narrow definition of "image quality" we are using here.

Michael Fryd said:

Michael Fryd said:

Michael Fryd said:

Maximizing in camera quality results in less post production time.

Click to expand...

Strangely this isn't true. The exposure that produced the absolute maximum quality typically will require post processing.

Click to expand...

Again, "quality" is subjective. When using a handheld incident meter--and knowing the shot you want--many if not most of the resulting pics need very little if any post processing with the exception of, say, some skin smoothing, cropping, things like that. Abbreviated workflow: Meter off the model > set my camera settings > snap the model holding a color chart > take a bunch of pics to my heart's desire. Post processing: use the pic of the model holding the color chart to sync white balance to all the pics from that session. Crop the keepers if I feel it's needed (rarely) > off to PS for skin smoothing if it's needed and any other artistic embellishments. Done. Rarely any tweaking of shadows, highlights, exposure or color. I'm the kind of person who actually likes tweaking my photos in post production. Often times I'm disappointed at the lack of tweaking needed in portrait shots.

Click to expand...

For the purposes of this discussion, Image Quality refers to maintaining details while minimizing noise.

Michael Fryd said:

Michael Fryd said:

Michael Fryd said:

Knowing how to use a meter, in many circumstances, is going to be faster than snapping, chimping, adjusting, snapping, chimping some more, etc. Especially if, for example, you're in a bright daylight environment. Squinting at a tiny LCD in the bright sun sucks.

Click to expand...

If those are the only two choices than an external meter might be a better choice.

Many people have the option of using the in-camera meter. Many find this easier and more reliable than an external meter. Shooting with the internal meter saves the metering step. A quick glance at the histogram and a check for blinkies tells you if you need exposure compensation. It is not a slow nor a crazy workflow.

Click to expand...

Sure, it may be a better choice for some. That's called winging it: getting as much quality data into the file as possible, dealing with it in post production. There's nothing wrong with that. I do it all the time. Hell, when shooting landscapes I bracket all the time and then merge as needed in post production, etc.

But I don't do it for portraiture (formal people pics--stand here while I take your pic). The OP specifically mentioned portraits. When I'm taking portraits, I do glance at the LCD the first couple of shots to see if the overall image more or less resembles what I had in mind; shadows, contrast, etc. After that I don't look at it all. Many of the shots, if I were a histogram chimper, would make me cringe because the histogram is "technically" way out of whack; piled up on one side or the other--or both--but not clipping. So what? My lighting and the shot are what I saw in my head before hand.

Click to expand...

Your method certain works, and it can produce excellent quality images. However, it may not produce the minimal noise levels, and it may result in loss of shadow or highlight detail.

Assume that we take two portraits of a model standing in a studio with an open window behind her. The model only lit by constant interior light.

We take two photos. One at noon, where the exterior is illuminated by bright sunlight, and one at night, with the exterior illuminated by moonlight.

What should the exposure be? More importantly, as the model is the important part of the image, should the exposure be the same for both, or should the two images have different exposures?

Let's suppose we meter off the model, and use that. We can process both images with the same parameters, and we will get prints where the model looks good, but the window is either all white or all back. The problem is that we have lost the background details.

However, we can use a lower exposure for the daytime exposure, this will help us retain some of the sunlit details in the window. We can use a higher exposure for the nighttime shot. This can help us retain some of the details of the moonlight exterior, without blowing out the details of the model.

The important point is that the mapping of the model's skin tone to numeric values should nor be fixed. It should vary depending on the needs of the image.

When the image is processed, the model's skin tones can be adjusted to the level we want, and the scene outside the window can be adjusted as well. This can be done manually, or through various automated processes.

If your goal is to maximize the useful detail captured, then you want to maximize exposure without blowing out important highlight details. This is much easier to do with the in-camea meter/histogram than with an external meter.

If you want to regularize the values in the raw file (i.e. an 18% skin tone should always give the same values), then you may have a simplified workflow, but you are giving up some quality.

Let me repeat, that for many images the quality difference between the two methods is small. Modern cameras are so good, that you may not need to squeeze the last drop of quality out of them.

Michael Fryd said:

Michael Fryd said:

Michael Fryd said:

...

However, vis a vis the original OP, for most portraiture, indoor, outdoor, strobed or naturally lit; positioning people to stand while photographing them, knowledgeable use of a handheld incident meter is almost always going to be superior to using a camera's reflective meter. And it will be quicker. No matter how advanced the camera's "tools" are.

Click to expand...

Maybe, maybe not. Whether you are using an external meter or the camera's meter, the goal is to get the right amount of light on the sensor. The in-camera meter is in an excellent position to do that.

Click to expand...

In portraiture, for me anyway, the goal is to get the shot as I envision it. Envision it, create it, shoot it. The in camera meter is in an excellent position to give you an image that is a nice average of everything. The handheld incident meter and an understanding of how light works is a nice way of getting the shot as you envisioned it inside of your camera.

Click to expand...

The camera does not record the light falling on the subject. The camera records the light reflecting off the subject to the camera.

When you measure incident light, you need to make assumptions as to how that light will reflect. If the too much light reflects, then you blow out highlight detail. If not enough light reflects, then you will lose shadow detail.

Michael Fryd said:

Michael Fryd said:

Remember, if you are shooting a very bright white wall, or a dark back wall, you will get a better quality image by letting the sensor think it is mid-gray, and then adjusting the brightness in post. If you base your exposure on an incident light meter, you may end up with a blown out white wall with no detail, or a pure black dark wall with no detail.

Click to expand...

The notion that capturing a white or black wall as mid gray and fixing it in post is best is, frankly, goofy in my opinion. Again, I'm talking portraiture. I used to do just that. Then I learned how to use my handheld meter and manipulate my light as needed (still learning as it's always a learning process) and/or move the subject to get the background I want. Making those needed adjustments takes a few moments. Using post production to create a bg over tens if not hundreds of images is far more time consuming and difficult. Well, unless you're simply doing a global adjustment which I can't imagine that being a viable option. Not for me anyway. You want that white wall? Bump up brightness, lose some detail in the subject. Or, use layers to separate the bg from the model, go through that whole thing. No, thanks.

Click to expand...

It's only "goofy" if you want to match a particular work flow, and don't mind giving up a little quality.

Let's go back to shooting a very white wall. Use an incident light meter, and you might get blown out highlights. Use in-camera metering/histogram, and you retain detail.

Open the raw file in a program that auto-adjusts brightness, and both give you an 18% wall. However the incident light meter version has fewer details.

Open the raw file in a program that allows you to adjust the brightness, and both give a white wall, but the in-camera/histogram metered one has more details.

Michael Fryd said:

At the end of the day, in camera metering has a place, absolutely. But a lot of people actually create more work for themselves and limit themselves in many respects by thinking it is the end all be all.

Click to expand...

I am tempted to say the same thing about external light meters.

Michael Fryd said:

Again, the notion that in camera metering and the "tools" built within the camera have rendered knowledgeable use of a handheld incident meter obsolete is absurd.

Click to expand...

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.

Click to expand...

Krav Maga said:

Krav Maga said:

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.

Click to expand...

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.

Click to expand...

Michael Fryd said:

bobn2 said:

Michael Fryd said:

...

Click to expand...

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.

Click to expand...

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.

Click to expand...

Michael Fryd said:

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.

Click to expand...

Michael Fryd said:

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.

Click to expand...

bobn2 said:

...
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.

Click to expand...

bobn2 said:

Krav Maga said:

bobn2 said:

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.

Click to expand...

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.

Click to expand...

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.

Click to expand...

PhotoTeach2 said:

bobn2 said:

Krav Maga said:

PhotoTeach2 said:

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.

Click to expand...

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.

Click to expand...

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.

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

Michael Fryd said:

bobn2 said:

...

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.

Click to expand...

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

Click to expand...

Michael Fryd said:

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

Click to expand...

bobn2 said:

bobn2 said:

...

Click to expand...

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.

Click to expand...

Krav Maga said:

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.

Click to expand...

PhotoTeach2 said:

bobn2 said:

Krav Maga said:

PhotoTeach2 said:

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.

Click to expand...

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.

Click to expand...

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?

Click to expand...

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

Click to expand...

bobn2 said:

Michael Fryd said:

bobn2 said:

bobn2 said:

...

Click to expand...

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.

Click to expand...

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.

Click to expand...

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.

bobn2 said:

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.

Click to expand...

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.

Click to expand...

bobn2 said:

bobn2 said:

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.

Click to expand...

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.

Click to expand...

bobn2 said:

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.

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

Click to expand...

Krav Maga said:

...
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.

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.

Click to expand...