Why do pros use light meters?

[The Sage Knows]

It's all luck friend!

To add to this; I NEVER white balance. I ALWAYS, ALWAYS shoot in auto white balance.

All I can do is shake my head in dismay

--
Robert

 

[MajorNikon]

Actually I think in terms of how many stops difference there is between the intensity of the main + fill incident on the subject and the intensity of the light falling into the shadows. I can translate those to ratios if I want to in order to communicate with a traditional portrait photographer who thinks in terms of 2:1 ,3:1, etc.

Either way you're still thinking in terms of light referenced to your key whereas I'm thinking in terms of light referenced from my ambient or the lowest part of my dynamic range. We may both get to the same point, it's just a matter of where we start from.

Perhaps I wasn’t clear about what I considered “the subject”. I’m not talking about a flat backdrop. I’m asking about a three dimensional person with a light to their left (or right)as the main and a second light along the camera axis as the fill. Just like your video example. How again can a “fill” placed along the same axis as the main light possibly fill in the shadows created as the main light gets blocked by Bruce’s nose and visible from the camera position. The answer is - it can’t. Therefore, you need another light along the camera axis to fill in the shadows. Some try to do it with a reflector but ideally, the fill should come from the same position as the camera.

The answer to your question is a fill placed on the same side as the key doesn't fill in the shadows on the opposite side. That's the whole point. You don't have to fill in every single shadow, and some left alone can create quite dramatic effects. Fill doesn't have to come from the axis. It could be cross lit, side lit, top lit, even back lit. Some photographers use reflectors quite often to great effect. I prefer not to because I like the level of control I get with lights better. My favorite tool for on axis fill is my orbis ring which I use quite often.

That’s also what most all photographers with a meter including myself also do. It takes the place of a Polaroid previously used to check such things. It's the use of the LCD to base exposure settings from that I called crude and can't take the place of a lightmeter - properly used.

I'm not talking about using the picture on the LCD. I'm talking about using the histogram on the LCD.

You must be using some pretty luminescent paper as the contrast of a typical LCD can range from 500:1 to 1000:1 while glossy print paper has a tonal range of 100:1. Ever try to soft proof in Photoshop using the paper profile and with the simulate paper button checked. Adobe's Jeff Schewe calls this the "Make my picture look like crap" button. And that's because a print that reflects light usually has less dynamic range than a backlit display.

See above. And re-reference the Sekonic quote.

Here's a guy that seems to speak English as his first language, and creates images for the cover of Time. He uses the term in the exact same way I do:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cqkqO_mmG7g

He actually refers to the “fill” exactly the way I do.

With one significant difference. Notice he speaks of his fill as his very first light, which strongly implies that he's setting that up first before the key, which is exactly how I do it. You're doing the reverse. Again, nothing wrong with that. It's just a different approach.

The Sage Knows wrote:
Wait back up to (1:14) – did he just say that a “light” can create a “shadow”
Someone needs to revoke his Time Magazine credentials for speaking such heresy!

He's not trying to define fill. He's explaining the effect he gets from on axis fill. For simplicity sake he speaks of "another shadow", when the reality is it's the same shadow created by the blocked key, it just gives the appearance of coming from another direction, which you most certainly do not want generally.

When in doubt, I always check with Webster:

Definition of SHADOW
1

: partial darkness or obscurity within a part of space from which rays from a source of light are cut off by an interposed opaque body

I'm not trying to jerk your chain here. I understand you think of light in terms of "creating" shadows with a strong light source. I used to think in exactly the same terms. Thinking of dynamic range as a constant, and light being always additive, you start to think in terms of those shadows were always there to begin with. You just chose how much light to put in them(if any at all), and you did that first before adding stronger light sources. It's a different way of looking at the same problem, which allows you to employ different methods to solve it.

2:28 “and certainly the ring is from the front and it fills in the shadows .”

So he describes fill pretty much word for word the way I did. And he places it at the camera axis as it is supposed to be.

I tend not to think in terms of "supposed to be". Ties me down too much and kills creativity. I like filling on axis too because it's relatively foolproof and easy, but I'm not afraid to try something different.

Correct. That's why I will pick a spot (cheek), and with the flat diffuser parallel with that spot, I measure the highlight...

How do you know exactly where the highlights and shadows are if you don't have a modeling light?

 

[The Sage Knows]

I'm not talking about using the picture on the LCD. I'm talking about using the histogram on the LCD.

Now you're back to the histogram again. We're starting to just go around in circles.

Correct. That's why I will pick a spot (cheek), and with the flat diffuser parallel with that spot, I measure the highlight...

How do you know exactly where the highlights and shadows are if you don't have a modeling light?

My Elinchroms have modeling lights proportional to the strobe power. That's how.

--
Robert

 

[Barrie Davis]

Re> I don't understand how a device seeing how much light there is could know if it's going to blow out highlights or underexpose shadows.

It doesn't.

Some of the latest Incident Flashmeters CAN be set to assume particular dynamic range sensitivity in the recording media in use, so this potential shortcoming has been circumvented, apparently. I forget which models they are, right now, but they're presumably top-end Sekonics...[??]

My own Minolta model 'V' flashmeter is of an earlier generation, and cannot do DR setting. I find it isn't necessary. The only highlights that burst through into complete burn-out are specular reflections of lightsources, from something like chrome on a car, say, or direct recording of the lightsources themselves. These are tiny areas of detail-less whiteness, and, because they are not large, look quite correct left just as they are.
--
Regards,
Baz

"Ahh... But the thing is, they were not just ORDINARY time travellers!"

 

[AceP]

If you are talking about using flash, a cameras light meter can only measure ambient light.

Not exactly. Cameras do have TTL flash metering and control built in as well. These work fine most of the time but they can be fooled by the same things that can fool the camera's ambient light meter.

 

[AceP]

I find it funny that first, someone would tell another how to shoot, and two why their way is better than another.

I've wondered that myself. What I prefer is to have both sides state their case based on factual information rather than personal pride.

 

[AceP]

Notice how he says, "about two stops". He doesn't care about ratios. He's describing how he's building the shot from the bottom end of his contrast to the top. Furthermore, since Bruce's face is constantly changing gradient, I don't know what useful information an incident light meter would give you.

I am familiar with Gregory Heisel, the photographer in the YouTube video. If there is no useful information that can be obtained from an incident light meter, you have to wonder then what he is doing using using one here:



--
http://everchanginglanes.blogspot.com/

 

[Jay Kilgore]

A lot of lighting discussions, I liken to the guy who just got out of prison; he has that prison knowledge and wants to share.

It may not be the right way, but it's the right way for HIM and he wants everyone to follow along because it worked for him for X number of years; i.e. it kept him alive.

It doesn't make it right or wrong, just what works for him. I am confident with what I do, but wouldn't dream of forcing my views on someone. There's more than one way to skin a cat!

I find it funny that first, someone would tell another how to shoot, and two why their way is better than another.

I've wondered that myself. What I prefer is to have both sides state their case based on factual information rather than personal pride.

--
Cheers,
Jay Kilgore
http://www.jaykilgore.com