TheLoftStudios wrote:
From my 20 years of Fashion and Commercial Print experience, most Photographers use a light meter (including myself) to control and expose for the flash that is being used.  In addition to that, some may look at their LCD Screen and/or Histogram for confirmation, but I'm stumped on this ".....let me set up my lights and try different settings and different exposures until I like what I see", concept.

Well, most people I know use assistants that know more about lighting than they do to set up the lights and get the readings.

BTW Patrick doesn't shoot digital (last I spoke to him).

Howard Garcia wrote:

Well, most people I know use assistants that know more about lighting than they do to set up the lights and get the readings.

BTW Patrick doesn't shoot digital (last I spoke to him).

Which is what exactly prompted the discussion between my friend and I.  All photographers that I know of (before Digital Photography) had a grasp and understanding of Light, Exposure, Contrast, etc....  So, I guess my question is, is there a NEW BREED of photographers in this digital era who solely use the LCD Screen to capture their shots versus having the knowledge and understanding of using the tools (i.e.... light meter) to do it before the first shot is even captured.  Sure there were Polaroids during the film era, but due to being expensive, it was imperative to get the lighting down using solely the knowledge of a light meter.  Again, this is not, "I'm a better or more knowledgeable Photographer then you are....." kind of thing.  I'm just wondering if this is the standard now among most "Digital Photographers",  especially if you have no prior experience with film.  Again, as long as you do what best for you and you like it, it really doesn't matter how you came about to achieving it.

TheLoftStudios wrote:

Which is what exactly prompted the discussion between my friend and I.  All photographers that I know of (before Digital Photography) had a grasp and understanding of Light, Exposure, Contrast, etc....  So, I guess my question is, is there a NEW BREED of photographers in this digital era who solely use the LCD Screen to capture their shots versus having the knowledge and understanding of using the tools (i.e.... light meter) to do it before the first shot is even captured.  Sure there were Polaroids during the film era, but due to being expensive, it was imperative to get the lighting down using solely the knowledge of a light meter.  Again, this is not, "I'm a better or more knowledgeable Photographer then you are....." kind of thing.  I'm just wondering if this is the standard now among most "Digital Photographers",  especially if you have no prior experience with film.  Again, as long as you do what best for you and you like it, it really doesn't matter how you came about to achieving it.

Sunny 16 and a string tied to your light stand with exposure values at varying distances is cheaper than a light meter

There's also no shame whatsoever in chimping-in an exposure. SOP for me.

Brandon Vincent wrote:




this is what I do with strobes outside.

Kewl Stuff, Brandon.....
How did you achieve those results?

Beach wrote:
Sunny 16 and a string tied to your light stand with exposure values at varying distances is cheaper than a light meter

There's also no shame whatsoever in chimping-in an exposure. SOP for me.

LOL..... So TRUE!

Hope Parr wrote:
I was taught a "shooter" takes a bunch of photos to get a good one, a photographer only needs to take one.

at the end of the day, they both get the shot and the only difference is ego.

Hope Parr wrote:
I use a light meter indoors or out and either with or without strobes. Its how I was taught and works great.

I was taught a "shooter" takes a bunch of photos to get a good one, a photographer only needs to take one.

A shooter huh, i've never heard them called that.  I've heard of a spray and pray photographer...

TheLoftStudios wrote:

Kewl Stuff, Brandon.....
How did you achieve those results?

the one of my son, I had a large softbox to camera right just out of frame. I think I was shooting at f/29. that's how I got the sky that color, it was (sunny 16) 1 and 2/3? stop over the daylight exposure, and I pulled it PS, the darker saturated blue color. I focused on his hand, and at f/29 it gave me a pretty much full sharpness.

the other is my wife I had 2 strobes on either side, one half a stop down. I was at like f/22, around a stop over the day light reading.



when I should outside I always use a light meter, then decide what I want to do, and meter the strobes accordingly.

I have yet (because if WS issues) been able to REALLY underexpose the daylight sky, which I'd like to do.

Ruben Sanchez wrote:
The Histogram is, in a sense, a light meter indication of each individual exposure.  A light meter gives you information about the light falling on the subject, whereas a Histogram, gives you information about the light that was just recorded on the photo you just took. 

I use them both, but find that my Histogam is better in telling how to set my camera's exposure, as it's telling me exactly what my camera is "seeing", and not what the light meter says the camera should be "seeing" on the subject. 

I will say that using the light meter does give one more the appearance of being "professional" in front of a group.  But for being accurate, I'd use the Histogram to fine tune my exposure.

this response works well

you cant lose

Meehan wrote:
Shooting outdoors balancing ambient and strobe for me is a matter of setting up my light/Vagabond, choosing an output level, snapping a shot, checking LCD, adjusting camera settings, shooting another shot. It's all somewhat intuitive and quick. I have my exposure to my liking within 2-3 shots... then I'm off to the races.

Sure I have light meters and used them to death with my 4x5 and film, but now my best and favorite friend is "Highlights" setting on my camera. When I see a small amount of highlights blinking black on my LCD, I'm happy.

Just wanted to comment on this photo. Incredible! and like you, I too set up the lights, make a few exposures to get the exposure of the sun and lights balanced and then off to the races..

TheLoftStudios wrote:
So, I guess my question is, is there a NEW BREED of photographers in this digital era who solely use the LCD Screen to capture their shots versus having the knowledge and understanding of using the tools (i.e.... light meter) to do it before the first shot is even captured.  Sure there were Polaroids during the film era, but due to being expensive, it was imperative to get the lighting down using solely the knowledge of a light meter.

Well I will jump in here the histogram is the new light meter and dynamic range meter of the digital photog it dose require a test shot as we did with Polaroids
befor and it is a tool just built in and matches the camera electronics so is customized for your lense and sensor.
Far better than a reflective light meter of any brand. Film photogs knew you had to bracket the shots around a starting point "the light meter" now you can test shoot and adjust the input "ISO Shutter Appiture" for a good histo and you are set
If you shoot raw you are more than set you can creat even more just as we did in the dark room with film. /So in my opinion digital can be more creative than film
and even more of a challenge but never use the lcd screen for any thing but checking the crop as the level info is boosted to allow viewing in sunshine
so it is no good for setting the inputs.

jaycephotos wrote:
what about before there was a light meter ?

LOL..... Like in the "Ole West" when the loaded a cup full of Gun Powder on a pallette and let loose

"BOOM"

Bevan Pryor wrote:

Well I will jump in here the histogram is the new light meter and dynamic range meter of the digital photog it dose require a test shot as we did with Polaroids
befor and it is a tool just built in and matches the camera electronics so is customized for your lense and sensor.
Far better than a reflective light meter of any brand. Film photogs knew you had to bracket the shots around a starting point "the light meter" now you can test shoot and adjust the input "ISO Shutter Appiture" for a good histo and you are set
If you shoot raw you are more than set you can creat even more just as we did in the dark room with film. /So in my opinion digital can be more creative than film
and even more of a challenge but never use the lcd screen for any thing but checking the crop as the level info is boosted to allow viewing in sunshine
so it is no good for setting the inputs.

Great Point..... But has there ever been a time where you were "Fooled" by the histogram when it came to a huge difference in contrast between the Subject and the Background.

Hope Parr wrote:
I was taught a "shooter" takes a bunch of photos to get a good one, a photographer only needs to take one.

... and 'photographers' use a light meter whereas 'togs' chimp the LCD I suppose....

TheLoftStudios wrote:
Great Point..... But has there ever been a time where you were "Fooled" by the histogram when it came to a huge difference in contrast between the Subject and the Background.

All digital camera histograms are unreliable -- they show you data from the compressed JPG (even if you are shooting RAW) and, of course, your camera and lighting needs to be calibrated before your exposure readings will make sense.  Most digital cameras are off by almost a stop from the manufacturer's published ISO.

If you want accurate Histogram data, use CaptureOne or open your file in Camera Raw before capturing your final frames.

jaycephotos wrote:
what about before there was a light meter ?

Hope Parr wrote:
what about before there was a camera

.....now are you referring to back when they painted Portraits on canvas or when they painted Drawings on he wall.  LOL

Brandon Vincent wrote:

the one of my son, I had a large softbox to camera right just out of frame. I think I was shooting at f/29. that's how I got the sky that color, it was (sunny 16) 1 and 2/3? stop over the daylight exposure, and I pulled it PS, the darker saturated blue color. I focused on his hand, and at f/29 it gave me a pretty much full sharpness.

the other is my wife I had 2 strobes on either side, one half a stop down. I was at like f/22, around a stop over the day light reading.



when I should outside I always use a light meter, then decide what I want to do, and meter the strobes accordingly.

I have yet (because if WS issues) been able to REALLY underexpose the daylight sky, which I'd like to do.

Don't you get soft photos when you stop down that much due to diffraction? I think it might depend on what kind of camera you are using? Medium/large format can probably use really small aparatures (high #'s).

PS The fireMan Pic was awesome. Nice work.

I had a Nikon D200, I'm not sure if it was faulty or not, but one thing I hated about it, is I couldn't judge the exposure by using the LCD screen, if a studio shot was under exposed, D200's LCD liked to boost the darker areas so it looked all nicely exposed.
My Nikon D70s didn't do that, if its underexposed I can tell.

I use a light meter sometimes, when I'm feeling professional. But I find I can do a pretty good job of aproximating the exposure once you get to know your lights, and lighting accessories you can guestimate take a test shot, and quickly adjust.
Of course with more than two lights it could start getting more complicated.
And using a light meter makes it easier to figure out your lighting / shadow ratio and figure out what exactly your doing so you can reproduce the same effects later on.

Eric Schwabel wrote:
All digital camera histograms are unreliable -- they show you data from the compressed JPG (even if you are shooting RAW) and, of course, your camera and lighting needs to be calibrated before your exposure readings will make sense.  Most digital cameras are off by almost a stop from the manufacturer's published ISO.

If you want accurate Histogram data, use CaptureOne or open your file in Camera Raw before capturing your final frames.

Exactly!!!

Most people aren't cognizant that the histogram on the back of their LCD is NOT accurate. A digital camera's histogram is based upon the rendered JPEG settings, which in turn usually have an "S" curve applied to the data to make it look more pleasing on the back of the camera. As you pointed out Eric, the only way to view accurate Histogram data is to open your file in a Raw converter (and excuse my obvious bias, but I use Adobe Camera Raw). (-;

Additionally, Sekonic makes a light meter that allows for Exposure Profiling.

Cheers!
Rick Miller

Hope Parr wrote:
I use a light meter indoors or out and either with or without strobes. Its how I was taught and works great.

I was taught a "shooter" takes a bunch of photos to get a good one, a photographer only needs to take one.

Ahhh, someone gets it...

Brandon Vincent wrote:
the one of my son, I had a large softbox to camera right just out of frame. I think I was shooting at f/29. that's how I got the sky that color, it was (sunny 16) 1 and 2/3? stop over the daylight exposure, and I pulled it PS, the darker saturated blue color. I focused on his hand, and at f/29 it gave me a pretty much full sharpness.

the other is my wife I had 2 strobes on either side, one half a stop down. I was at like f/22, around a stop over the day light reading.



when I should outside I always use a light meter, then decide what I want to do, and meter the strobes accordingly.

I have yet (because if WS issues) been able to REALLY underexpose the daylight sky, which I'd like to do.

I have not tried this myself but I read somewhere (I can't remember where) that after you max at 250ss or 500ss depending what camera you're using... then you start to use your aperture to darken the scene and adjust the strobes to light the foreground.


So say you're at F16 and 125/250 and exposure looks good. Now you want to darken the background so you change your Shutter from 125/250 to 250/500 and should make it darker. Since you're max your Sync then you start to change your Aperture from 16 to 22 to whatever you need to make it darker. Now you crank up the strobes at max if need it to light the foreground or move the strobes closer to the model.

I too been shooting only in my home studio and have not taken my strobes out due to not having portable power. Now that I just received my VGII I'm eager to take it out and give this a try. Too bad the weather is not helping now so I may have to wait a few days.

btw, excellent thread and guys keep giving your input!

--William

TheLoftStudios wrote:

Which is what exactly prompted the discussion between my friend and I.  All photographers that I know of (before Digital Photography) had a grasp and understanding of Light, Exposure, Contrast, etc....  So, I guess my question is, is there a NEW BREED of photographers in this digital era who solely use the LCD Screen to capture their shots versus having the knowledge and understanding of using the tools (i.e.... light meter) to do it before the first shot is even captured.  Sure there were Polaroids during the film era, but due to being expensive, it was imperative to get the lighting down using solely the knowledge of a light meter..

Actually I would say that this new breed still has an understanding of Light, Exposure, and Contrast, and use the MODERN tools to make their decisions.  I emphasize modern, because it really is no different than a Light meter in the end.  A light meter was developed last century to fulfill a need that film cameras could no perform.  However, with modern digital cameras someone who does know what they are doing, CAN use only a camera to get extremely good lighting.

Both methods, in the hands of someone who know what they are doing, will give the same result.  It is using different tools to achieve the same thing.  In essence it sounds very similar to the film vs digital debate.  Different tools, same results.  Both require similar, though slightly different knowledge sets to use effectively.  Is one better than the other?  Only the individual user can decide for sure.

I sold my light meter about five years ago.  I could get accurate lighting information faster using the camera.  I have been shooting 100% digital, professionally, for 8 years now, first started in 1999, long before the digital bandwagon.

And while it may be true that no individual camera manufacturer has a standard to which to set their histogram settings, it is designed for that individual camera model.  While the light meter is a universal instrument, it does not account for variables of the camera model.  Therefore the camera's histogram is going to give you an accurate reading for that particular camera model.  With my meter I remember getting a reading then adjusting it by a +1/3 stop because my camera never quite seemed to read exactly what the meter said.  I have never had to do that with my modern digital cameras.

ward wrote:
I do this:

Meter the exposure of the sky TTL or, a reflected light meter reading (i.e. 125th @ f~8.0 ~ 100 iso as an example). Adjust the output of the strobe to match the sky exposure. (125th @ f~8.0 @ 100 iso). Then adjust the shutter speed accordingly to make the sky darker or lighter.

I do this:

Look at the sun light hitting the desert background behind my model.  I make a note of its intensity.  Then I break out the Norman 200, set it as close to the model as necessary to get the ratio I require for the shot, point the camera at the model (after setting the shutter and aperture of course) and squeeze the shutter.  I note that the exposure is right on the money (based on the LCD display which is calibrated to my computer screen which is calibrated to my printer) and proceed to shoot JPG with the 5D or RAW with the XTi.

No light meter, no histogram.  Just the wind, the sun, and the strobe.  Damn I'm good. 

Daguerre wrote:

I do this:

Look at the sun light hitting the desert background behind my model.  I make a note of its intensity.  Then I break out the Norman 200, set it as close to the model as necessary to get the ratio I require for the shot, point the camera at the model (after setting the shutter and aperture of course) and squeeze the shutter.  I note that the exposure is right on the money (based on the LCD display which is calibrated to my computer screen which is calibrated to my printer) and proceed to shoot JPG with the 5D or RAW with the XTi.

No light meter, no histogram.  Just the wind, the sun, and the strobe.  Damn I'm good. 

I will have to try that. I have a program card on my Minolta. I can measure light at say background. Hit the a button and hold it, point it at up to five other places and the camera figures out the best combination.

Daguerre wrote:
I do this:

Look at the sun light hitting the desert background behind my model.  I make a note of its intensity.  Then I break out the Norman 200, set it as close to the model as necessary to get the ratio I require for the shot, point the camera at the model (after setting the shutter and aperture of course) and squeeze the shutter.  I note that the exposure is right on the money (based on the LCD display which is calibrated to my computer screen which is calibrated to my printer) and proceed to shoot JPG with the 5D or RAW with the XTi.

No light meter, no histogram.  Just the wind, the sun, and the strobe.  Damn I'm good. 

Patrickth wrote:
I will have to try that. I have a program card on my Minolta. I can measure light at say background. Hit the a button and hold it, point it at up to five other places and the camera figures out the best combination.

WHAT????????????????????????????????????????

You are going to let a piece of plastic and silicone determine your exposure?  Forget it!  Use your eyes!

I wasn't kidding-- I do not use anything other than the LCD on the camera to judge ratio and exposure.  Balance your light and guage your exposures by sight, and you will begin to see much more.

TheLoftStudios wrote:
Which is what exactly prompted the discussion between my friend and I.  All photographers that I know of (before Digital Photography) had a grasp and understanding of Light, Exposure, Contrast, etc....  So, I guess my question is, is there a NEW BREED of photographers in this digital era who solely use the LCD Screen to capture their shots versus having the knowledge and understanding of using the tools (i.e.... light meter) to do it before the first shot is even captured.  Sure there were Polaroids during the film era, but due to being expensive, it was imperative to get the lighting down using solely the knowledge of a light meter..

I'm your Huckleberry...

Actually, in the 'old days' Polaroid was inexpensive when compared to the rolls of film blown or tons of snip tests required to zero in on developement times when exposures were off.  Polaroid was a fantastic learning tool.

I have a grasp and understanding of Light, Exposure, Contrast, etc.. and have 2 Minolta IVs which I use with film but not digital.  With digital I only use the LCD on the back of the camera when testing, or the calibrated laptop screen on a job.  Histograms waste my time.