C R Photography wrote:
I've found 100% reliability in my Sekonic compared to my gray or white cards.

The balance meter in my D2X is nice, but I always want a second opinion.

This eliminates abut 30% more post production work.

I agree with Craig, Sekonic is my life saver...

V Powell wrote:
How many of you use a light meter with your digital camera?  Or do you just take a test shot, look at the histogram and adjust everthing there after?

I always meter. That's not to say that I always meter in incident mode, or that I always meter with a hand-held (though I always meter with a hand-held whenever possible, the Sekonic L558 dualmaster is my current meter of choice). The spot meters in some cameras are great (if you know how to use and interpret them and few people do). In some they're almost worthless.

Charcoal Artist wrote:
Santa is bringing me a Sekonic meter.  I expect I will be using it every time,  my camera doesn't have a true spot meter

Oh shit... Everyone go check out Charcoal artist's work...

AWESOME composition and energy! This guy is going to be dangerous when he digs into lighting.


I'm about 45 minutes south if you need a jumpstart on your obsession with lighting.

Rob

Marko Cecic-Karuzic wrote:
An incident reading is much more "reliable" if you don't know what it is you're reading and why with a spot meter. If you do know what you're reading and you know how to interpret that, a controlled spot meter reading tells you everything whereas the incident reading only tells you your illumination level. How hot will the highlights on the white shirt read? How dark is that black velvet jacket? With an incident reading you don't really know except by educated guesswork. If you spot meter and you understand what your meter is telling you, then you really know what the dynamic range of your subject under that illumation is, you can pre-visualize your intended result tonally, and you can adjust lighting, exposure, whatever accordingly with much more purpose and accuracy.

(That's also a slightly slower way of working. And it's also really the only way of accurately working if you're shooting say a landscape subject. Ansel Adams's entire technical system revolved around this principle.)

This is perfect, and how I often work when outside the studio.

DragonFlyImage wrote:
Does a bear crap in the woods ?

I've done a lot of camping in bear country. Can't say I have ever seen bear shit.

Hmmmm....

Marko Cecic-Karuzic wrote:
An incident reading is much more "reliable" if you don't know what it is you're reading and why with a spot meter. If you do know what you're reading and you know how to interpret that, a controlled spot meter reading tells you everything whereas the incident reading only tells you your illumination level. How hot will the highlights on the white shirt read? How dark is that black velvet jacket? With an incident reading you don't really know except by educated guesswork. If you spot meter and you understand what your meter is telling you, then you really know what the dynamic range of your subject under that illumation is, you can pre-visualize your intended result tonally, and you can adjust lighting, exposure, whatever accordingly with much more purpose and accuracy.

(That's also a slightly slower way of working. And it's also really the only way of accurately working if you're shooting say a landscape subject. Ansel Adams's entire technical system revolved around this principle.)

NOW you opened the can of worms... I love Ansel Adams zone technique. Obviously it works very well, and has become a standard.

All of these ways of measuring light work in their own ways. Unlike Ansel, I can get right up to every part of my scene. I can take incident readings from every nook and cranny, and block certian light sources when needed. It's kinda like the zone system with incident readings. Whatever... It works for me.

Whatever you do, take into account the brightness and reflective values of the elements in your scene. Keep in mind the range of the film (or digital back) you are using. Then, make a creative decision based on what your instruments read. Different situations call for different ways of reading the light.

RobHowardStudios wrote:
Whatever you do, take into account the brightness and reflective values of the elements in your scene. Keep in mind the range of the film (or digital back) you are using. Then, make a creative decision based on what your instruments read. Different situations call for different ways of reading the light.

Look, I'm a fashion shooter, not a landscape shooter, and that IS what I was saying. With an incident meter you have to mentally guesstimate the reflective values of your subject. A reflective meter reading will TELL you exactly what it is. It'll tell you what you're light is reading in every nook and cranny and it will tell you what the incident meter reading won't tell you, what your reflective values are (which is what your film/sensor is going to read in the end). And you can then make your aesthetic/technical adjustments more effectively.

That said, for some subjects, and some situations, it IS overkill (yes, I use the incident method quite a lot myself). When you have a difficult subject to deal with tonally, it's easily the best way to deal with it. Sadly, a lot of people think this technique only applies to old farts with 8x10 cameras in Yosemite, and not to anything else. Not true at all.

Marko Cecic-Karuzic wrote:
Look, I'm a fashion shooter, not a landscape shooter, and that IS what I was saying. With an incident meter you have to mentally guesstimate the reflective values of your subject. A reflective meter reading will TELL you exactly what it is. It'll tell you what you're light is reading in every nook and cranny and it will tell you what the incident meter reading won't tell you, what your reflective values are (which is what your film/sensor is going to read in the end). And you can then make your aesthetic/technical adjustments more effectively.

That said, for some subjects, and some situations, it IS overkill (yes, I use the incident method quite a lot myself). When you have a difficult subject to deal with tonally, it's easily the best way to deal with it. Sadly, a lot of people think this technique only applies to old farts with 8x10 cameras in Yosemite, and not to anything else. Not true at all.

They both have their merit. Reflective readings will tell you what you should expose IF your subject is middle grey. You will have to compensate for that. For me it is much easier to see the reflective value of something and apply that information to my incident readings. Like I said... works for me.

Either way there is much to interperate. Please don't think I never use the spot meter. Sometimes it is the only way to get the readings I need. Sometimes it is pure deception.

BCG wrote:
no joke...a stripper stole my light meter.

This time I believe you, but in a gullible kind of way

V Powell wrote:
How many of you use a light meter with your digital camera?  Or do you just take a test shot, look at the histogram and adjust everthing there after?

I have a sekonic 558R as well. It is great. Although I noticed that in most situation the metering from my camera (1DsMarkII) is right on the spot. At the most notable exception of subjects on a completely white background, sun in the background, etc... where the background is ALL white and bright and only a small portion of the image is what you really want to shoot/focus on. In those case, without the light meter you need to otherexpose seriously the photo to get the right exposure. Or if your subject is still enough use bracketing exposure and combine different exposure in photoshop to create ideal photo. Background not otherexpose and subject perfect... but a lot of work!!!

V Powell wrote:
How many of you use a light meter with your digital camera?  Or do you just take a test shot, look at the histogram and adjust everthing there after?

I do not use a light meter when I shoot.

I do use the Histograme when I shoot.

I shoot some live performances and there is no way to meter the lighting in the environment I shoot. I shoot with about 6 to 10 other photographers in the same bar and no one meters.

I have a Sekonic L-358 but don't really know how to use it, so I set my camera to what shutter and f/stop I'm used to shooting with what ever strobes I'm using at the time.

Brian Diaz wrote:
I use a light meter all the time.

There's one built into my camera, and it makes a pretty, informative graph of how the light interacts with my camera's sensor.

What camera do you use that you find it so reliable?

V Powell wrote:
How many of you use a light meter with your digital camera?  Or do you just take a test shot, look at the histogram and adjust everthing there after?

I do the latter, I don't have a light meter or feel the need for one.....all depends on what you get used to :-)