Handheld metering vs TTL metering

[CWilt]

Btw, do you dislike ETTR because what you get is not what you see?

Two main reasons. ETTR relies on the histogram and without UNI wb it can not be trusteed. The other is because it doesn't always produce the expected reults regarding tonality and colour.

Actually, I’m using Lightroom and CS2. Maybe some things would work better in NX, maybe even better with RPP (but no Mac yet).

RPP is what I use. ;-)

--
Charles
My family images are at http://www.stakeman.smugmug.com
Be sure of your subject.
Never, force the shot.

 

[afoton]

Not if you know your system!

The only way to know for sure is to use UNI WB and filtering. Any other method is just guessing.

As long the world is in color, you can't trust a handheld either

But as long you know your system, you know when you can trust it, and you know what you have to do when you can't trust it. Both the handheld and the in camera and the histogram, and the combination of them.

 

[bmxdad]

Wow what a heated debate on metering. Yes I would value a spot meter for Studio lights, but I use my histogram to fine tune my setup so far

For Sports the cameras metering is fine I usually have it at -3 in sunny conditions

I do a bit of scenery shooting, mostly for fun. Why do some of you talk about metering a scenery shot as if you were shooting large format film at several dollars per shot. We shoot digital with cameras that can shot 100.000 plus frames before they wear out.

So why not get your best metering as a starting point, then bracket each of your pictures and that could also give you the possibility of HDR editing if you are into that kind of thing

Also I use filters, that affect metering, ND split ND and PL

Pete

 

[CWilt]

Pete,

I prefer the one shot, one kill method. Just because the shutter is rated for 100k plus and at 9 fps doesn't mean it has to be shot that way. My view camera won't shoot that fast.

--
Charles
My family images are at http://www.stakeman.smugmug.com
Be sure of your subject.
Never, force the shot.

 

[bmxdad]

But it can, I why would I not use that feature of my camera this is after all a forum on high end digital SLR's I think

So if you think that I lucked out on getting that perfect exposure, so what

Pete

 

[CWilt]

You can do it that way and get a good one out of the group usually. Personally I think its just being lazy.

I didn't post to try and convert anyone. Simply wanted to say that there are many methods from methodical to spray and pray. Whatever way you choose enjoy it. You will hear no more from me.

--
Charles
My family images are at http://www.stakeman.smugmug.com
Be sure of your subject.
Never, force the shot.

 

[Jeff Kohn]

I do a bit of scenery shooting, mostly for fun. Why do some of you talk about metering a scenery shot as if you were shooting large format film at several dollars per shot. We shoot digital with cameras that can shot 100.000 plus frames before they wear out.

So why not get your best metering as a starting point, then bracket each of your pictures and that could also give you the possibility of HDR editing if you are into that kind of thing

Try shooting like that every day for the duration of a weeklong trip, then when you get home and have to sort through all those files let me know how much fun you're having, or how many hard disks you need once you've been doing that for a couple years with bigger and bigger RAW files every time you upgrade your camera.

I do bracket when contrast is high, so that I have the ability to blend exposures. But I still want to get the exposure right as much as possible. Sometimes conditions are changing too fast to waste time with careful metering, in which case a guess at exposure and "spray and pray" can be the best way to capture the light before it fades. But when you have time, I see no reason not to use it to maximize results.

Also I use filters, that affect metering, ND split ND and PL

As do I, which is why I prefer in-camera spot-metering to handheld.

--
Jeff Kohn
Houston, TX
http://www.pbase.com/jkohn
http://jeffk-photo.typepad.com

 

[georgeRC]

Wow! What a thread.

If you are shooting only one type of subject, say studio portraits, and have lots of experience, then it only makes sense for you to do whatever works for you.
If what you are doing isn't working well, try something else.

In any case, keep in mind that we are working with machines that can, and sometimes will, get it wrong. We always have to think through what we are doing.

To the extent that the shot is unusual (to us) or extra important, bracketing might be the saving factor. An "ugly" solution perhaps, and models might object. Landscapes never object, but lighting on landscapes can be variable (always changing, slowly or quickly) so experience and intelligence are big helps.

For landscapes, I prefer to set exposure to manual, compose a frame that the camera's metering system will have minimal trouble with, set the exposure, then recompose and shoot. For flash, the only good way (with my limited abilities) is to go for aperture priority, shoot, look at the results, and dial in compensation if needed. In extreme situations I bracket. Shooting RAW helps me - for example when shooting fireworks I have no way to know in advance how bright the next shell will be.

So, to contribute a little to the OP's questions:

1. To go with whichever works for me in the situation at hand. There is no one way that works best in all cases.

3. Yes, there are. If you use TTL the results may be skewed by composition/aiming; you are at the mercy of what the camera "thinks" about the scene/target; you may be helped, or you may suffer; you still have to think through "how much exposure comp do I need to adjust for the camera's assumptions about reflectivity, and scene type (if using matrix).

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?

2. Why?

3. Are there any specific negatives to using TTL in the D700 over a handheld metering system?

Thanks for your responses!

 

[OldMaster]

Can't believe there have been so many responses!! So here is another one!!

Could say I have been around along time..relatively. Studied at college in 1972, etc..and shot with Hasselblad most of my film career..no meter in that at all!!!

You may recall the early Leica had no meter either and it was reckoned that a "real photographer" didn't need a meter at all.

Certainly true in my film days I could guess the exposure within 1/2 an f stop..after all light is light and how many days do you need to be taking photographs for your brain to think..hey, the weather is just like yesterday!!!

I digress, but it is relevant. If you shoot RAW, which you should, there is generally as much latitude as you ever had with negative material so I would suggest for most subjects the superb meters in camera will get it more than correct where reflective metering is appropriate..and then again you have the histogram..so what is the issue!!!! Have a look at it!!!

Where subjects are seriously back lit (use TTL fill?) or any situation where the subject is predominantly black ...or white and it is of benefit to read the light falling on it rather than reflected from it then use an incident meter by all means ..just as you would in the studio with flash...but really with digital and histograms a hand held meter must surely be of very limited value these days?

 

[xrdbear]

One of the pains of histograms is that they reflect the entire frame. In some situations, the subject and background or the entire scene are in the same light. Which makes it a little easier to interpret. But other times the background can completely throw off the histogram. Yes experience goes a long ways here, but hand-metering can also eliminate any question of what the light levels on the subject are. Personally I don't find incident metering necessary (other than for flash work), but if a person wanted to do it that way, no harm either.

Seems to me this adds one to the wish list. A crop mode, with navigation, for the histogram on the camera.

--
Brian
Fine Art Print sales of the Isle of Skye at:
http://www.eyeofskye.co.uk/

 

[Bruce Allen Hendricks]

Though I don't use my handheld meter anywhere near as often as I used to when I shot MF film.....I would NEVER get rid of it!!!!

If you want any ratio control between non TTL- strobes a hand held meter is a must - period.

You can do a lot with your in camera meter if you understand the Zone system and spot metering, but that doesn't mean it can replace a hand held meter.

The problem here is that photographers are "degressing"...getting dumber and wanting to learn less as a group with each new person getting into the industry. A lot (not all) of the new photographers today are well....stupid! They expect the camera to do it all for them. They don't understand lighting or composition...the foundation of photography! The technical side of photography is being ignored by a lot of new photographers, but that severly ;imits the potential growth of one's ability.

Like all camera gear, a hand held meter is a tool. You need to understand what it can do and what it can not........just like you camera's built in meter. Auto everything isn't perfect and is not what you want or need all the time.

Bruce Allen Hendricks MPA, F.Ph.
http://www.impactphotographicdesign.com

 

[erpsab]

Thanks to everyone for your insights and opinions on my post. From the thread, it is apparent to me that there is no real consensus with regard to my questions. There are many that prefer using the camera and many that use handheld metering for everything or just a few types of photography. It seems there is one true consensus and that is about studio work and with flashes. Handheld metering seems to be the choice and needed for that.

It looks like I will be buying a new meter to supplement my D700's metering system so that I can get the absolute best lighting control in all circumstances that I shoot.

Thanks again for this wonderful thread and all the debate provided.

 

[Scott A. Flaherty]

I find that I can get more predictable and reproducible exposures using an incident meter. I use one when I can for my landscape/wildlife images as well as for my studio work. Sometimes I can't get the incident meter into the same light as my subject. In those scenarios, I'll use the sunny 16 rule (adjusted if necessary) or reflective metering.

--
Scott A. Flaherty
----------------------------------
http://www.clanoflaherty.com/
----------------------------------

'No man, however great, is known to everybody and no man, however solitary, is known to nobody.'
Thomas Moore (1779-1852)

 

[Jim Keye]

I love the zoom-able histogram idea.

I also use hand-helds when scouting an area. I can walk around and take readings constantly, getting an idea for what I'm in for or what I need to change, comparing light sides and dark sides in a room, etc.

 

[Ednaz]

I always have an incident meter with me. I always use it in high dynamic range situations, or in black cat in a coal bin/polar bear on an ice floe situations. When I shoot events I'll also use it - I'll take incident readings of the areas where I know I'll be shooting a lot, compare them to in-camera readings, and figure out my EV compensation from the incident readings. I also use incident metering when I'm using flash in daylight for highlighting a subject or balancing out shadows.

Despite having lovely spot metering capabilities in my handheld meter, I find the camera's spot meter perfectly fine when spot metering is needed. In some situations, I'll spot meter brightest and darkest with the camera, and then do either an incident read or an average read, and work out something based on that.

Metering is such a complex and situational thing. One of my favorite photography stories was told by a photographer who's a legend of commercial photography, about one of his buddies calling him to tell him that he'd finally figured out a precise and repeatable way to absolutely nail exposure. It involved a combination of spot, incident, and averaging readings, with formulas to blend them together. However, the explanation of the perfect approach then ended with "and then bracket exposures from two stops under to two stops over."

So much for the complex formulas.