 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
| PhotoKB HomeDiscussion Groups Digital Photography Digital PhotoDSLR CamerasZLR CamerasPoint & Shoot CamerasFilm Photography 35 mmLarge FormatMedium formatDarkroomFilm and LabsOther EquipmentPhoto Technique Nature PhotographyPeople PhotographyTechnique GeneralGeneral Photo Topics General TopicsAustralian PhotographyUK PhotographyDirectoryPhoto Clubs |
Photo Forum / General Photo Topics / General Topics / August 2008Light Meters
Hi. New here. Do light meters have any value to a digital only photographer? All of my cameras are TTL and recently I was given a rather elaborate light meter with Flash, Ambient and a few other features. I have always been happy with my camera's inbuilt metering capability, but out of curiosity I spent a few hours framing a photo, taking it with the camera's settings, then measuring the light, switching to manual and following the meter's recommendation. In many cases the result was not as good. I thought that the meter might have been faulty, so borrowed one from a professional film photographer and had similar results. Are light meters only of use for film or am I overlooking something? Vicki > Hi. New here. > [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > > Vicki If your happy witht the results you get, then a light meter wouldn't have any value to you at all. I use a light meter for studio and on location stuff where I am setting up lights and things are a little dicey. I also use it under conditions that I know my TTL meter won't give me the information I am looking for. Most of the time I use TTL on average and compensate based on experience, spot is used the next most often and matrix now and then. Handheld meters are very useful if you have a use for them, just like they are with film and for the same reasons. Vance >> Hi. New here. >> [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > conditions that I know my TTL meter won't give me the information I am > looking for. Can you give an example of such time, where you suspect in advance that it won't give a usable result? > Most of the time I use TTL on average and compensate > based on experience, spot is used the next most often and matrix now > and then. I only compensate when I have a backlit subject out of fill flash range, shoot raw and play in Photoshop. Handheld meters are very useful if you have a use for them, > just like they are with film and for the same reasons. > > Vance Thank you Vance. Vicki >>> Hi. New here. >>> [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] > Can you give an example of such time, where you suspect in advance > that it won't give a usable result? A bride against a white background. A groom in tux against a black background. Like that.  SignaturedadiOH ____________________________ dadiOH's dandies v3.06... ...a help file of info about MP3s, recording from LP/cassette and tips & tricks on this and that. Get it at http://mysite.verizon.net/xico > >> Hi. New here. > [quoted text clipped - 40 lines] > > - Show quoted text - dadiOH gave one example. I am doing a shoot tomorrow for a restaurant owner and I have half the restaurant with windows and the back is very dark in comparison. It's a long narrow room (about 80' long) I will need some flash in the front to even out the lighting from the windows and show the bar adequately because of light fall off (it's opposite the windows). I will set that part of the shot up first using a meter. I will be bouncing a 2400 ws flash bounced off the ceiling in back to light that part up, with perhaps a couple of Canon portables tucked here and there for accent lighting. First, I will set up my exposure for the front part of the restaurant using a meter to get the flash set for the bar area. My basic exposure will be whatever shutter speed I need to get the depth of field I want, set for the sunlit area, say f16. I will light the bar for the same aperture and set the flashes for the back of the restaurant for something less, maybe 2/3 stop less. I want the back to be darker because it will accent the area that is of interest, but it can't be too dark and it can't be lit at the same level as the front or it will just look wrong. It needs to be darker to give it a sense of intimate dining, while still showing interesting detail, but not to much. It has to look nice, in other words. Can't do that without the meter. In general, if an incident reading will do the best job, I will meter it. If I need to spot meter a reading I will use TTL on a spot setting if I have a large enough zoom on the camera to zoom in on the details I want to meter to get a real sense of what the dynamic range is and decide where I want to put the exposure. If I don't have a tele I can do that with, my meter with a 1 degree spot is always at hand and it's faster to use it than changing lenses and maybe have to change back. Antime I am working with lighting in some sort of directed and designed way, I always meter. Finally, and this has nothing really to do with metering and exposure, I am thinking the shot through as I meter and getting rid of the surprises (or dissappointments). That way, the customer gets to see that I am doing something productive and obviously photographic. They don't really know what you are doing, but they like to see you doing something. This is for naive customers who don't routinely work with photographers. They don't know that 90% of what you do is a thought process and the pressing of the shutter is the least of it. Vance Psycho-Deli <Hell@Back.org> wrote: > Hi. New here. > [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > > Vicki I only use light meter in studio or if I use strobes (I used to use 2-3 strobes for wedding, but lately I use 2 Speedlight 580EX). And about light meter it should work with digital camera, but depending on how you use it. Example - You can't measure the lighting in front of you then shoot the object miles away which won't work. - You can't measure the lighting at one specific spot then point camera to different spot.. Those are the simple examples, and with digital camera you don't need light meter *unless* you photograph in studio using strobe(s) then light meter is the MUST HAVE. And for outdoot, I think you should be ok with either AV or TV mode those work quite well outdoor. >> Hi. New here. >> [quoted text clipped - 25 lines] > light meter *unless* you photograph in studio using strobe(s) then light > meter is the MUST HAVE. This I don't understand. Why must have? I don't have strobes, but I do use slave flashes, sometimes in a manual mode, SB600s, and as long as I shoot a test shot first and modify output if necessary the TTL seems to handle it fine. With film the test shot isn't really possible so I can see the advantage there, but with digital I can't. > And for outdoot, I think you should be ok with > either AV or TV mode those work quite well outdoor. Yes, I was mostly concerned with studio use. Thank you Joel Vicki Psycho-Deli <Hell@Back.org> wrote: > > Psycho-Deli <Hell@Back.org> wrote: > > [quoted text clipped - 33 lines] > fine. With film the test shot isn't really possible so I can see the > advantage there, but with digital I can't. Why MUST HAVE? because strobe is external flash doesn't connect to camera, the camera has no way to measure the light *before* it happens. And it's the MUST HAVE because it's the best or only way you can measure the flash to be able to setup your camera to match the lighting condition. > > And for outdoot, I think you should be ok with > > either AV or TV mode those work quite well outdoor. > > Yes, I was mostly concerned with studio use. Studio is probably the easiest way because you have full control of everything. - Distance is close - Plenty of light - You know exactly what the lighting condition will be - At closer distance you usually have sharper, more detail image etc.. *But* with wrong setting between lighting (strobes and camera setting) it can easily get overexposured, wrong shadow etc.. BTW, this is how the lighting meter, strobe, camera (in studio) work 1. You adjust the lighting power for your shooting style (it could be 1-3 strobes or can be 4 strobes) 2. Move the Light Meter to the main subject then fire the strobe(s). The Light Meter will display the camera setting (Shutter Speed, Aperture, and ISO). 3. *If* you are happy with the reading then you set the camera to match the reading (or under/over depending on your style and experience), *if* it's not what you want then you can change the ISO or adjust the Lighting Power then fire the strobes to get a newer measurement. That's why Lighting Meter is thew MUST HAVE for studio photography (or external strobe/flash doesn't connect/communicate with the camera). > Thank you Joel > > Vicki >> > Those are the simple examples, and with digital camera you don't need >> > light meter *unless* you photograph in studio using strobe(s) then light [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] >the MUST HAVE because it's the best or only way you can measure the flash to >be able to setup your camera to match the lighting condition. I hate to tell you, but you can't measure light with *any* meter *before* it happens. The problem with an external meter is that you then need to relate it to the camera's sensor, which may or may not be easy to do. The problem with the internal meter is usually how to determine *exactly* what it is or is not measuring. However, the *fact* is that taking a test shot with the camera *sensor*, as opposed to one with the light meter, lets the photographer see *exactly* what is and is not over exposed. That of course has nothing to do with the light meters, internal or external, but instead is a function of the LCD display on the camera! SignatureFloyd L. Davidson <http://www.apaflo.com/floyd_davidson> Ukpeagvik (Barrow, Alaska) floyd@apaflo.com > However, the *fact* is that taking a test shot with the > camera *sensor*, as opposed to one with the light meter, > lets the photographer see *exactly* what is and is not > over exposed. That of course has nothing to do with the > light meters, internal or external, but instead is a > function of the LCD display on the camera! I learned the hard way that the image you see on the LCD is a low resolution representation of the image contained in the raw file. The histogram is a more reliable indicator of exposure. I try to look at the histogram to see if there is any clipping and to make sure my exposure puts the histogram as far to the right as feasible, without clipping the highlights. Perhaps some here can learn from my mistake. I was consistently underexposing, yet my image looked almost perfect in the LCD. I had increased the LCD brightness to see in in daylight. Since the image looked overexposed, I adjusted exposure compensation for less exposure. Had I used the histogram instead, I would have had a lot less grief. SignaturePeter >> However, the *fact* is that taking a test shot with the >> camera *sensor*, as opposed to one with the light meter, >> lets the photographer see *exactly* what is and is not >> over exposed. That of course has nothing to do with the >> light meters, internal or external, but instead is a >> function of the LCD display on the camera! There is some confusion here, which is probably entirely my fault. "A function of the LCD display" does *not* refer to trying to judge exposure by the brightness of the display. I didn't go into detail because I had already provided detail in another article, but the "function" is the "Highlight Display", and to a lesser degree the "Histogram Display" available via the camera's LCD. Without that context from the other article, it is easy to misread my intended meaning above. >I learned the hard way that the image you see on the LCD is a low resolution >representation of the image contained in the raw file. The histogram is a >more reliable indicator of exposure. On most, though perhaps not all, cameras there is a "highlight" display, which will blink pixels that are within 1/3rd of an fstop of the maximum value. It provides a *very* accurate exposure indication, and far exceeds a historgram for accuracy. >I try to look at the histogram to see if there is any clipping and to make >sure my exposure puts the histogram as far to the right as feasible, without >clipping the highlights. But your accuracy is roughly 1/2 to 1 fstop, while the above mentioned highlight display will easily get within 1/2 of whatever increment is possible. >Perhaps some here can learn from my mistake. I was consistently >underexposing, yet my image looked almost perfect in the LCD. I had >increased the LCD brightness to see in in daylight. Since the image looked >overexposed, I adjusted exposure compensation for less exposure. Had I used >the histogram instead, I would have had a lot less grief. I can't imagine using the brightness of any camera LCD display as a way to judge image exposure. (I can't even do that very well with a high quality LCD monitor, and given the popularity of monitor calibration tools that must be the "norm" rather than not.) SignatureFloyd L. Davidson <http://www.apaflo.com/floyd_davidson> Ukpeagvik (Barrow, Alaska) floyd@apaflo.com > >> > Those are the simple examples, and with digital camera you don't need > >> > light meter *unless* you photograph in studio using strobe(s) then light [quoted text clipped - 24 lines] > light meters, internal or external, but instead is a > function of the LCD display on the camera! I hate to correct you so lets say you are right. >>>>> Those are the simple examples, and with digital camera you don't need >>>>> light meter *unless* you photograph in studio using strobe(s) then light [quoted text clipped - 27 lines] > > I hate to correct you so lets say you are right. In my experience light meters and digital cameras do not tally. I have a Minolta Flashmeter V which is very accurate with film cameras (Hasselblad, Canon) and slide film but way off with digital (Canon 1ds and 5d), up to 2 stops sometimes. This lends me to believe that the ISO system on digital cameras is not equivalent to the ISO system of film. >>>>>> Those are the simple examples, and with digital camera you don't need >>>>>> light meter *unless* you photograph in studio using strobe(s) then light [quoted text clipped - 29 lines] > stops sometimes. This lends me to believe that the ISO system on digital > cameras is not equivalent to the ISO system of film. Thank you. This is exactly what I found in comparison tests between the camera settings and the setting suggested by the two meters - which is why I asked the question. The camera settings invariably produced a good result, while when I used the meter values they were totally unacceptable. Maybe that is what it is, a subtle difference between film and digital. Some digital cameras have a setting that is supposed to more accurately emulate various type and brands of film, so there must be some real differences. Thank you for your input. ( I am not about to thank spam, Royal or not :) ) Vicki >>>>>>> Those are the simple examples, and with digital camera you don't need >>>>>>> light meter *unless* you photograph in studio using strobe(s) then light [quoted text clipped - 46 lines] > > Vicki When I think about it, I used to compensate the light meter according to the type of film I used. Transparency film tended to be rated slightly higher than indicated (underexposed) to protect the highlights and negative film would be lower than indicated (overexposed) for the shadow detail. Colour negative is invariably rated too fast by the manufacturers, Kodak Portra 400 is more like 200 in reality. Digital is more akin to slide film and as such is underexposed to protect the highlights. > >>>>> Those are the simple examples, and with digital camera you don't need > >>>>> light meter *unless* you photograph in studio using strobe(s) then light [quoted text clipped - 33 lines] > stops sometimes. This lends me to believe that the ISO system on digital > cameras is not equivalent to the ISO system of film. Me? I have the - Sekonic light meter connects to a Radio Wireless Trigger to fire up the strobes. Or the camera has no business at this point - Setup the camera to match the reading from light meter, or to my liking - When ready, the camera with radio wireless trigger will fire the strobe(s) remotely when I press the Shuttle Button. Or now the camera is talking. See? it has nothing to do with camera sensor or anything, or I only need to measure the power of the strobes to have the idea to adjust the camera setting to match the lighting condition. > > >>>>> Those are the simple examples, and with digital camera you don't need > > >>>>> light meter *unless* you photograph in studio using strobe(s) then light [quoted text clipped - 47 lines] > to measure the power of the strobes to have the idea to adjust the camera > setting to match the lighting condition. I may need to be a little more clear on the relationship between Camera + Light Meter + Light Source. Or in the previous I mention adjusting the Camera to match the Reading which is true with the natural light that we don't have much or any control of it (besides waiting or moving to different spot), *but* with flash (strobe) we can adjust the flash power to match the camera setting (or camera to match the flash either way) That's one of the reasons why I like indoor photography, I don't worship the idea of natural light or available light, because I can make the light available and adjust to meet my need or liking. > That's one of the reasons why I like indoor photography, I don't worship > the idea of natural light or available light, because I can make the light > available and adjust to meet my need or liking. Difficult to make landscape images, indoors. <g> SignaturePeter > > That's one of the reasons why I like indoor photography, I don't worship > > the idea of natural light or available light, because I can make the light > > available and adjust to meet my need or liking. > > Difficult to make landscape images, indoors. <g> That's why I am not a landscaper. Yes, I have tried (just for fun) many many many times, but it just isn't my style. Or I pretty much enjoy detail work, and I can't get that from landscape. For many years, I used to spent many hours shooting autumn and winter sense to use as background, but haven't done much in the past 4-5 years. >> > That's one of the reasons why I like indoor photography, I don't >> > worship [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > For many years, I used to spent many hours shooting autumn and winter > sense to use as background, but haven't done much in the past 4-5 years. You have just illustrated one of the beauties of photography as a form of artistic expression. There's lots of room for different approaches. You do what's right for you and I do what I am more comfortable with. Although I have little interest in table top and set ups, neither of us is wrong.. SignaturePeter > >> > That's one of the reasons why I like indoor photography, I don't > >> > worship [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > what's right for you and I do what I am more comfortable with. Although I > have little interest in table top and set ups, neither of us is wrong.. That's why I never force nobody to do thing they ain't good as or against their will. And I can enjoy someone else's landscape as I did post the link here few times before, but it just ain't my style. >>>> Hi. New here. >>>> [quoted text clipped - 34 lines] > the MUST HAVE because it's the best or only way you can measure the flash to > be able to setup your camera to match the lighting condition. Ok, I really appreciate that you are taking the time to reply to me, and don't want to seem augmentative, but I have a problem with this. The camera DOES have a way to measure the only light that it is concerned with, TTL metering. If you are using strobes that are too high in output, yes you can create a problem, but that will immediately be apparent in a test shot, either with the camera or some intelligent TTL flashes. In that case you reduce strobe/slave output until the fill added by the TTL controlled flash is not overpowered by the strobes or slaves. It always has to a combination of a camera TTL controlled flash with additional light in order to work effectively, but that is not hard to do. I have become sufficiently used to my slaves that I seldom have reduce output from them. I use a powerful camera mounted flash and reduce the output from my slave/s so that they only produce sufficient light in combination with my camera flash either direct or bounced, for full illumination, but do not overpower and flood the TTL function. This has been working for several years, my interest in the meter only began when I was given one. >>> And for outdoot, I think you should be ok with >>> either AV or TV mode those work quite well outdoor. [quoted text clipped - 27 lines] > not what you want then you can change the ISO or adjust the Lighting Power > then fire the strobes to get a newer measurement. What is the difference between using a meter and the camera itself with a test shot? Surely the camera is better, particularly when tethered to a computer as I do when shooting indoors. > That's why Lighting Meter is thew MUST HAVE for studio photography (or > external strobe/flash doesn't connect/communicate with the camera). I do not have a "real" studio, although I do have a makeshift one for taking "Pet Makeover" shots in conjunction with several dog grooming businesses. I can't see an advantage so far over what I already do. Even outdoors I will often use a tethered computer mounted on my tripod. I bought an Asus EEE and a 16MB card purely for that purpose. I don't use Photoshop on the Asus, as I don't do any processing work on it, I use SilkyPix just to look at the raw files and assess my test shots. Thank you Joel, I am not trying to argue with you, just understand. Vicki Psycho-Deli <Hell@Back.org> wrote: <snip> > > Why MUST HAVE? because strobe is external flash doesn't connect to camera, > > the camera has no way to measure the light *before* it happens. And it's [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > yes you can create a problem, but that will immediately be apparent in a > test shot, either with the camera or some intelligent TTL flashes. In that You seem to have problem with the whole thing here. 1. When we talk about STROBE (external FLASH) then it has nothing to do with TTL or built-in flash 2. When we talk about STROBE, then it means the camera has no way to measure the light source, then that's the job of Light Meter, and that's why Light Meter is the MUST HAVE. *If* you try to compare or combine the relationship between Camera + External Light Meter vs Built-in Light Meter (remember NO STROBE or external flash) then it's a different story. And now the TTL may have something to do with the difference. > > That's why Lighting Meter is thew MUST HAVE for studio photography (or > > external strobe/flash doesn't connect/communicate with the camera). [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > > Vicki As I have mentioned that you have problem seeing the whole picture of the setup. I would suggest you to Google for some information like. - Studio setup. It may not give small detail of how the strobe works - Strobe (flash), and pay attention to the Flash TRIGGER which is part of what you haven't got. - Wired or Wireless TRIGGER for Camera & Light Meter. This is part you haven't got. Do I mention about TTL, built-in flash? NO, because they have nothing to do with the whole thing. > <snip> >>> Why MUST HAVE? because strobe is external flash doesn't connect to camera, [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > 1. When we talk about STROBE (external FLASH) then it has nothing to do with > TTL or built-in flash You are talking about strobes. She is asking what use a meter is to someone with the equipment that she has listed. > 2. When we talk about STROBE, then it means the camera has no way to measure > the light source, then that's the job of Light Meter, and that's why Light > Meter is the MUST HAVE. Of course a TTL camera can measure output from a strobe. It measures light, it doesn't know or care what the source of the light is. Do you even understand how TTL metering works? If light from a strobe is less that the amount of light required and a TTL controlled flash, on or off camera is used to add sufficient light for a correct exposure then a TTL camera exposes perfectly. I have a bunch of old light meters going back to simple selenium models, but I haven't needed one for years. > *If* you try to compare or combine the relationship between Camera + > External Light Meter vs Built-in Light Meter (remember NO STROBE or external [quoted text clipped - 24 lines] > - Strobe (flash), and pay attention to the Flash TRIGGER which is part of > what you haven't got. She says she has a Speedlight SB600 as a slave. That is a wireless remotely triggered flash as well as an on camera flash. If she is using a SB800/SU800 on camera, or has a D70 or a D200 with pop-up flashes she can use them as a master. I do something similar with an old SB600 and an SU800. > - Wired or Wireless TRIGGER for Camera & Light Meter. This is part you > haven't got. > > Do I mention about TTL, built-in flash? NO, because they have nothing to > do with the whole thing. They have everything to do with what she has and uses, nothing to do you apparently. Her question seemed basically to be asking can she gain advantage over her existing setup by using a meter. The answer is no, because she probably isn't about to go and buy basic strobes to replace her wireless remotely triggered TTL flash/es for something that doesn't offer advantage. Cal > Hi. New here. > [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > > Vicki Two things come immediately to mind. First, the in-camera meters are calibrated to 18% gray. If you are shooting a snow scene, white on white, black on black, etc., you will get gray. You'll be off several stops according to the TTL. The second thing is that the TTL will only measure the light that is being reflected from the subject. It cannot measure the light that is hitting the subject. And, depending on how reflective the subject is, that can make a huge difference. So, in my opinion, probably 90-95% of the time, you can do just fine with the TTL. The other 5-10% of the the time, though, a separate incident light meter is not only helpful but often necessary. >> Hi. New here. >> [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > black on black, etc., you will get gray. You'll be off several stops > according to the TTL. I always pre-compensate if shooting snow or water. > The second thing is that the TTL will only measure the light that is being > reflected from the subject. It cannot measure the light that is hitting the > subject. And, depending on how reflective the subject is, that can make a > huge difference. Why? The only light that is of real concern would surely be the light that actually hits the sensor - wouldn't it? And the TTL is designed for that. > So, in my opinion, probably 90-95% of the time, you can do just fine with > the TTL. The other 5-10% of the the time, though, a separate incident light > meter is not only helpful but often necessary. You have aroused my curiosity, aside from dynamic range issues, which a look at a histogram will make obvious if it isn't already, what advantage is there in knowing how much light hits the subject as against how much light from the subject reaches the camera? I seem to have a bit to learn here. Thank you aglet. Vicki > You have aroused my curiosity, aside from dynamic range issues, which > a look at a histogram will make obvious if it isn't already, what > advantage is there in knowing how much light hits the subject as against > how > much light from the subject reaches the camera? I seem to have a bit to > learn here. Light hitting the subject - incident light - isn't influenced by the reflectance of the subject or parts there of. Using such, one can get accurately metered and exposed photos of that bride in a white dress against a white background. SignaturedadiOH ____________________________ dadiOH's dandies v3.06... ...a help file of info about MP3s, recording from LP/cassette and tips & tricks on this and that. Get it at http://mysite.verizon.net/xico Psycho-Deli <Hell@Back.org> wrote: > >> Hi. New here. > >> [quoted text clipped - 38 lines] > > Vicki Before DSLR is available, and I was much younger I used to shoot winter sense with P&S camera(s) and I can see the color of snow is lot different between P&S and DSLR. I don't remember I have 8-10 P&S and 4 DSLR cameras (now I have 2 DSLR left and around 3-4 P&S still laying around collecting dirt). > Before DSLR is available, and I was much younger I used to shoot winter > sense with P&S camera(s) and I can see the color of snow is lot different > between P&S and DSLR. I don't remember I have 8-10 P&S and 4 DSLR cameras > (now I have 2 DSLR left and around 3-4 P&S still laying around collecting > dirt). Are you sure you weren't seeing digital noise? SignaturePeter > > Before DSLR is available, and I was much younger I used to shoot winter > > sense with P&S camera(s) and I can see the color of snow is lot different [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > Are you sure you weren't seeing digital noise? I dunno, cuz both P&S and DSLR are digital. >> > Before DSLR is available, and I was much younger I used to shoot winter >> > sense with P&S camera(s) and I can see the color of snow is lot [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > > I dunno, cuz both P&S and DSLR are digital. Since generally the P&S has a smaller sensor, it tends to generate more noise. Think of it this way, take a small radio and crank up the sound. The hissing sound you hear is digital noise. With a higher end audio unit you can get the same sound level with less static. SignaturePeter > >> > Before DSLR is available, and I was much younger I used to shoot winter > >> > sense with P&S camera(s) and I can see the color of snow is lot [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > sound you hear is digital noise. With a higher end audio unit you can get > the same sound level with less static. P&S has lesser detail compare to hi-end DSLR and good lens, but I can't really agree about noise. IOW, with P&S when zoom in %'s it will start showing the block (pixel) when with DSLR we can zoom in more. Noise, it depends on the lighting situation and quality of the lens. IOW, yes, with the same poor lighting and great distance the P&S may have more noise because the small lens and poorer glass quality, but within the good range and lighting (more light can get into the small window) then the P&S could have a much cleaner (less noise) than DSLR with cheapie lens. >> Since generally the P&S has a smaller sensor, it tends to generate more >> noise. [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > range and lighting (more light can get into the small window) then the P&S > could have a much cleaner (less noise) than DSLR with cheapie lens. Noise is more related to ISO. Using my example, cranking up your ISO is the equivalent of increasing volume an an audio system. You seem to be confusing optical chromatic artifacts with digital noise. SignaturePeter > >> Since generally the P&S has a smaller sensor, it tends to generate more > >> noise. [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > equivalent of increasing volume an an audio system. You seem to be confusing > optical chromatic artifacts with digital noise. In general I agree with you, or in general we have to crank up the ISO in order to get either enough aperture or shutter speed. Or one of the reason we crank up the ISO because of low light issue, and DARKNESS (dark pixel) is part of the noise. And same with cheapie lens because it's lower quality of glass so it often end up with noise, blur etc.. And I don't think I am confused between them. As I often work with detail photo, closeup and zoom up to 200-300+% so I do know the difference between noise vs pixel (artifacts). ... >> The second thing is that the TTL will only measure the light that is >> being reflected from the subject. It cannot measure the light that is [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > Why? The only light that is of real concern would surely be the light that > actually hits the sensor - wouldn't it? And the TTL is designed for that. The TTL will pick up light reflected from backgrounds, etc., giving you an improper reading for the main subject. Yes, you can use different types of TTL metering -- spot, etc. But for a "true" reading of the incidental light, you MUST use a separate light meter. It is impossible for the TTL to measure this. That said, I'm not saying that you need it. I know a couple of photographers who do not need to use any light meter -- they have a perfect eye for the light and can get the settings correct without any meter. They are scary people. But, in my case, I need one 5-10% of the time. The TTL simply isn't sufficiently accurate. > ... >>> The second thing is that the TTL will only measure the light that is [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > meter. They are scary people. But, in my case, I need one 5-10% of the > time. The TTL simply isn't sufficiently accurate. My TTL seems tied to the focus. If I use spot, moving it just a few inches in any direction can change both the focus and the histogram display. The reality is that I get good results as long as I do change the focusing method when there is a variation in background distance or lighting. Vicki Psycho-Deli <Hell@Back.org> wrote: > > ... > >>> The second thing is that the TTL will only measure the light that is [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] > > Vicki I have read some about the TTL stuff but it seems a little too much for me to remember and wishing, so I stick with my own experience of both camera and Photoshop. I read it may depend on the background's, the color's, the distance's, the lighting situation etc.. yup! before the newer and better technology, I used to have everything setup manually (the flash has 4-5 setting like ISO, F-Stop, Flash Power, Power Range etc.) and wrong setting can cause disaster. Now with all the new technology, I am 1/2 lazy and 1/2 can't no longer trust myself on the manual setting. >> ... >>>> The second thing is that the TTL will only measure the light that is [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] > reality is that I get good results as long as I do change the focusing > method when there is a variation in background distance or lighting. Are you sure? With many DSLRs you can adjust this. SignaturePeter >> ... >>>> The second thing is that the TTL will only measure the light that is [quoted text clipped - 21 lines] > > Vicki Okay. Let me just say one more thing. If you can get great pics using only TTL, then I congratulate you and, if I were you, that's all I'd use. But it is a fact, not an opinion, that an incidence light meter is the only way to get proper readings in some situations. A TTL will not do it. Maybe I'm not explaining it right. And maybe you've just never encountered those situations. But it is fact. That does not mean that you need one, or should use one. But if I remember right, your original question dealt with whether or not the TTL did everything a hand-held meter does. And it doesn't. It can't. Again, I'm not arguing your ability to photograph using only TTL. Nor am I advocating the use of a hand-held meter. Wishing you good shooting. >>> ... >>>>> The second thing is that the TTL will only measure the light that is [quoted text clipped - 29 lines] > should use one. But if I remember right, your original question dealt with > whether or not the TTL did everything a hand-held meter does. What I was wanting to know was there anything that would make it worthwhile keeping and using the meter. I found that the readings both of them (my meter and the one I borrowed) gave resulted in a shot with poor exposure when compared to the camera's own metering. There are definitely times when I need to change the camera's available metering options, something I am aware of and have been doing for quite some time. In the past two days I have Googled and found a number of online training courses that include sections on lighting and meter use. Some of them are excellent, but the conclusion that I have come to is that there is nothing that I can't do with the camera alone. I don't use strobes, am never likely to, I use either TTL slave flashes, controlled either by an on camera (or bracket) bounced flash, or a Wizard, plus powerful continuous xenon lighting (2000 watts in total) on tracks. I have a number of diffusers, reflectors, and umbrellas for the Xenon lighting. The only advantage I can see for strobes it possibly in summer when the Xenon gets my pretend studio very hot if I don't keep turning them off while composing shots. There are times when I do need to take a few test shots to evaluate a situation before deciding on my approach, but in reality what I am doing then is using the camera as a meter with more function than most meters. I work tethered in situations like that and I truly doubt that I could get a better shot by using a meter in preference to bracketing an exposure and examining the raw results in SilkyPix before taking my final shots. Being given the meter (from a photographer who has gone digital and no longer used it) simply opened another avenue of experience for me. I have now looked at it and decided it offers me - in my set up, not yours - no advantage. I do a lot of HDR work and had thought it might possibly offer advantage there, but in practical application it doesn't. Thank you though for your input. I appreciate it. Vicki <snip> > > Okay. Let me just say one more thing. If you can get great pics using only > > TTL, then I congratulate you and, if I were you, that's all I'd use. But it [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > I need to change the camera's available metering options, something I am > aware of and have been doing for quite some time. It's very possible that you don't fully understand and use it the wrong way. > In the past two days I have Googled and found a number of online training > courses that include sections on lighting and meter use. Some of them are [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > see for strobes it possibly in summer when the Xenon gets my pretend studio > very hot if I don't keep turning them off while composing shots. And it seems like you still need more reading. This is I suggest. 1. Just FORGET what you think you may know about how the light meter works. 2. Just start reading and learning like you have never read, seen anything relate to Light Meter before. Or you just learn what you need to learn instead of expecting or comparing something you know with thing you don't know. Or as I (and few others) have tried to explain to you that Light Meter has nothing to do with the built-in flash, no TTL, camera beam etc.. NONE, NIL, ZIP 3. Strobe isn't expensive and it can be little cheaper than some expensive flash. > There are times when I do need to take a few test shots to evaluate a > situation before deciding on my approach, but in reality what I am doing [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > > Vicki > <snip> > > > Okay. Let me just say one more thing. If you can get great pics using only [quoted text clipped - 41 lines] > 3. Strobe isn't expensive and it can be little cheaper than some expensive > flash. Also, I forgot to mention that the Light Meter is for either 1. Strobe(s) or any external light source, or without built-in flash 2. Light Meter is *NOT* for the built-in Flash, so you can use *either* without flash or with external light source that don't have anything to do with the camera (TTL). IOW, it must be in <M> mode (to match the light meter reading) *not* any other mode like <P>, <TV>, <AV> or the 100% automatically modes. > <snip> >>> Okay. Let me just say one more thing. If you can get great pics using only [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > It's very possible that you don't fully understand and use it the wrong > way. Well using other responses in this thread as a guide it would appear that I am not the only one who experienced exactly the same thing. >> In the past two days I have Googled and found a number of online training >> courses that include sections on lighting and meter use. Some of them are [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > know. Or as I (and few others) have tried to explain to you that Light > Meter has nothing to do with the built-in flash, no TTL, camera beam etc.. Look, I knew nothing about them to start with. This time last week I never even held one. All I have been doing is "reading and learning". What I have learned is that for me, not you, it offers nothing. I can see no advantage in it. > NONE, NIL, ZIP > > 3. Strobe isn't expensive and it can be little cheaper than some expensive > flash. But I already have and use something better - for me - than strobe? Why would I want to step backwards? What I have works and works well. I'll rephrase my question. Can you describe a situation where I can not manage to get a good result without using a meter? So far, in every example I have heard or seen, I get use what I have to achieve as good an exposure as my equipment is capable of, although I use quite different approaches. For instance, if I look out of my back door I have bright sunlight, lots of greenery and water about thirty yards away. Inside it is just normal incandescent lighting. If I want to shoot wide enough to show the interior walls an doorway I have a huge difference in lighting. If I meter for the external view I will have nothing but shadow on the internal part of the composition. If I meter for the room, the view of the back area is going to look like a snowstorm whiteout. What I would actually do is take three shots and use Photoshop's HDR capabilities, and I would use the camera to take several shot to determine the best setting for those shots, high light level and low. I can't see a meter helping me there. If I am shooting some jewelery for eBay for instance, I am going to select my aperture and meter for the shutter speed, as I am concerned with depth of field. I set the camera up on a tripod, put the jewelry in my lightbox and check the camera's speed suggestion with a test shot. I then bracket that setting and shoot. Where is a meter better than what I am doing? The way I am doing takes only seconds and I have a test shot to verify that the setting are working. With a meter I am still unsure until I have actually taken the shot. In actual fact I am so used to my lightbox that unless I am shooting something like a large sapphire or diamond, I know pretty much without even looking what setting to use. But the technique is how I got to that stage. Try giving me an example where I am facing a problem that only use of meter can solve. You are telling me that I don't understand, that I am not going about things in the right manner, how about an example, not of how to use a meter, but where ONLY use of a meter is appropriate. My histogram will give me a visual indication of exposure, I have an LCD that will show any potential blow outs. I shoot raw, I expose just under blown highlights and play with shadows in Photoshop if necessary. If the subject is suitable I use HDR to increase dynamic range and reduce noise, if I can't do that, and need that range, I use a Fuji S3. It is a difficult camera but once you get used to it is has impressive dynamic range. I have been involved in photography for six years, professionally for two, and I have never had a situation that even in retrospect posed a problem that having a meter would have solved. I am open to being convinced, but that isn't happening so far. I can definitely see the value in a meter in film days when you can't take a shot and be "pixel peeping" at the results a few seconds later if necessary. Tethered shooting means you are absolutely sure of your results on the spot. Even a large LCD display with a histogram and blown highlight indication has to be better in a practical sense that relying on a meter only, and if even with a meter, you are going to spot check your results, then I can't see the value. You might just as well rely the camera and shoot again on those very rare occasions when the shot bombs. Convince me with a practical example, I love to learn so I would be more than happy to proved wrong. Thank you Vicki > > It's very possible that you don't fully understand and use it the wrong > > way. > > Well using other responses in this thread as a guide it would appear that I > am not the only one who experienced exactly the same thing. Then it's possible that you and others have the same or similar problem, and if it's the case then I would suggest all of you not to listen to adapt the same mistake from other. > > And it seems like you still need more reading. This is I suggest. > > [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > have learned is that for me, not you, it offers nothing. I can see no > advantage in it. As I have mentioned learning isn't just by reading and believe what you want to believe, but a technique of learning which is why some people can learn much faster than other. Or you may not be able to learn anything could be. 1. You refuse to believe what you read 2. You read the wrong information. As you mention others have the same problem, and you DO NOT want to learn from one with problem *but* one with no problem. 3. You may try to compare the information with your own experience and which may not have anything to do with each other. And as I have been trying to tell you several time that Light Meter has nothing to do with the built-in flash (it's a NO NO), no relationship with the TTL (another no no), no Auto-setting (another NO NO) but 100% manually etc.. If you use any of the NO NO then understanding is one of your main problems. > > NONE, NIL, ZIP > > [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > But I already have and use something better - for me - than strobe? Why > would I want to step backwards? What I have works and works well. I don't tell you to step Backward or Forward but trying to follow the requirement which you don't seem to get it. And it's the problem why you have the problem. > I'll rephrase my question. Can you describe a situation where I can not > manage to get a good result without using a meter? Because YOU DO NOT DO IT RIGHT! just like my English, I have no problem understanding what other may say, but I can't do like the English speaking person. And yes, I have been studying much longer, much harder than most English speaking people. IOW, I never try to correct English speaking person on the English language, and I think it could be same with your Light Meter you may want to pay more attention on the learning instead of argument. Especially you don't seem to response directly to the specific issue but general WHY. > So far, in every example I have heard or seen, I get use what I have to > achieve as good an exposure as my equipment is capable of, although I use > quite different approaches. NO, Light Meter has nothing to do with what you get used to and the none light meter related equipment's. It's a NEW GAME (technique) which requires a NEW RULE (equipment), and this seems to be the biggest part of your problem. > For instance, if I look out of my back door I have bright sunlight, lots of > greenery and water about thirty yards away. Inside it is just normal [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > take several shot to determine the best setting for those shots, high light > level and low. I can't see a meter helping me there. The information above telling me that 1. You didn't read some of the information I gave you in some previous message. May be because you refuse to trust what you don't want to believe 2. You don't give much or pretty much NO important information which could be because you still shooting in the dark Or I don't have to be at your back door where you shoot, but just by reading the information you provide I can see that you don't read the information other gives you carefully, and you don't seem to get the idea. Or I can pretty much warrantee you that when you be able to provide some important information, then it's the time you have no problem what whatever you try to do. Can you image WHY I can give you the small detail (the ones you refuse to believe)? > If I am shooting some jewelery for eBay for instance, I am going to select > my aperture and meter for the shutter speed, as I am concerned with depth [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > setting are working. With a meter I am still unsure until I have actually > taken the shot. I am not jewelery shooter, but this is my suggestion. 1. Make a small BOX covered with right material which won't mess up the lighting (causing glare or similar) 2. Have couple light sources around the box to make sure no shadow 3. Shoot in 100% MANUAL Mode, no flash, no TV, AV, P, and no bracket required etc.. That's it! you have created your own STUDIO right there, and it should work at least 95-99% of the time. And after few tests, you may not need Light Meter and TTL is still the NO NO. NO NO NO NO NO there is some GOOD practice and some BAD practice, and you may need to want to learn what may be the right tool for the right job. > In actual fact I am so used to my lightbox that unless I am shooting > something like a large sapphire or diamond, I know pretty much without even > looking what setting to use. But the technique is how I got to that stage. Lightbox? is the same with the BOX I mention above? if it's the same one then as I mention after few tests you you be able to get 95-99% hit. But it may not have much or anything to do with the Light Meter. I mention "may not" because depending on the SIZE of the box, the light source(s), and the contruction of the box & light etc. > Try giving me an example where I am facing a problem that only use of meter > can solve. You are telling me that I don't understand, that I am not going > about things in the right manner, how about an example, not of how to use a > meter, but where ONLY use of a meter is appropriate. I believe I gave you more detal information than I have ever given to anyone in my whole life. > My histogram will give me a visual indication of exposure, I have an LCD > that will show any potential blow outs. I shoot raw, I expose just under > blown highlights and play with shadows in Photoshop if necessary. If the > subject is suitable I use HDR to increase dynamic range and reduce noise, > if I can't do that, and need that range, I use a Fuji S3. It is a difficult > camera but once you get used to it is has impressive dynamic range. Correct me if I am wrong, but just base on what I read I think you are trying to say you are using FLASH or something lime that? If you do then it's one of many NO NO NO I have been saying but you don't seem to agree. > I have been involved in photography for six years, professionally for two, > and I have never had a situation that even in retrospect posed a problem [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > well rely the camera and shoot again on those very rare occasions when the > shot bombs. My first time using camera was in early 60's, and it doesn't matter how long I have been photographing, I still have to spend lot of time practicing on new model of camera, new lens, new flash etc.. Same with software, even I have been using Photoshop for over a decade, quite often I don't need newer version but I often upgrade (at least every other version) to have the chance to practice the newer features to keep up with the newer technology. Same with LightRoom, I am not LightRoom user (still using ARC) especially I am not well to use, but I also upgraded to v2.0 so I can learn newer command just to keep up with all the newer features. > Convince me with a practical example, I love to learn so I would be more > than happy to proved wrong. Hahaha I don't think it needs to be proven, because to me "if something is not right then must be wrong", and since you can't get it to work right then it must be wrong ... or tens of thousands of other photographers, fim makers are wrong, and most people wouldn't want to spend hundreds of dollars (it's much cheaper these days) to be wrong (or you are talking about upto more/less $1000 tool). And if you have the chance to watch some professional doing some model shoot on TV, then you may see how they use the light meter (not just how they press the button but the whole setup). > Thank you > Vicki >>> It's very possible that you don't fully understand and use it the wrong >>> way. [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > and if it's the case then I would suggest all of you not to listen to adapt > the same mistake from other. You are truly a moron. Anyone who disagrees with your very limited experience and photographic world view is "having a problem"? What a jerk. >>> And it seems like you still need more reading. This is I suggest. >>> [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > learn much faster than other. Or you may not be able to learn anything > could be. When was the last time you learned something? Can you remember that far back? > 1. You refuse to believe what you read Where did she say that? She said that what she read didn't provide a reason for her to include a light meter with the methods and equipment she already has and uses. I own several ligh meters, used to use then consistently until a few years ago, now have no need at all. You going to tell me I need to learn? > 2. You read the wrong information. Any information that doesn't agree with you is "the wrong information". Yeah, sure. > As you mention others have the same > problem, and you DO NOT want to learn from one with problem *but* one with > no problem. You don't even read the threads you respond to, do you? That is where other have agreed with her, some of the others with a great deal of photographic experience. > 3. You may try to compare the information with your own experience and which > may not have anything to do with each other. And as I have been trying to > tell you several time that Light Meter has nothing to do with the built-in > flash (it's a NO NO), no relationship with the TTL (another no no), no > Auto-setting (another NO NO) but 100% manually etc.. She has never said it does, you are the only one saying that. She said that she uses flash, and that she uses her built in flash to control slave flashed, just like the manufacturers who built the equipment intended. I guess that they are all wrong too. You'd better write them a letter and set them straight. > If you use any of the NO NO then understanding is one of your main > problems. She reads to me like an intelligent, experienced polite person (unlike me) who is prepared to add to her experience. You read like a total bozo. >>> NONE, NIL, ZIP >>> [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > requirement which you don't seem to get it. And it's the problem why you > have the problem. She doesn't have a problem, she seems to be doing fine, she asked a question which you have not answered, rather you have decided to tell her that everything she does is wrong. >> I'll rephrase my question. Can you describe a situation where I can not >> manage to get a good result without using a meter? > > Because YOU DO NOT DO IT RIGHT! That is not describing a situation, that is just you being an idiot. > just like my English, I have no problem > understanding what other may say, but I can't do like the English speaking > person. And yes, I have been studying much longer, much harder than most > English speaking people. Oh, you have studied harder than "most English speaking people"? Do we add racism to your character traits now? We can put it right next to "overwhelming stupidity", there is just enough room. > IOW, I never try to correct English speaking person on the English > language, and I think it could be same with your Light Meter you may want to > pay more attention on the learning instead of argument. Asking for clarification is not arguing. You do not provide clarification or examples, you just argue without logic. > Especially you > don't seem to response directly to the specific issue but general WHY. [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > a NEW RULE (equipment), and this seems to be the biggest part of your > problem. Yes, you indisputably are one of the world's prime examples of "homullus stultus". >> For instance, if I look out of my back door I have bright sunlight, lots of >> greenery and water about thirty yards away. Inside it is just normal [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > 1. You didn't read some of the information I gave you in some previous > message. May be because you refuse to trust what you don't want to believe I have read everything written in this thread, including your nonsense, there was nothing you wrote applicable to this. > 2. You don't give much or pretty much NO important information which could > be because you still shooting in the dark Maybe you are nearby? I have a feeling that wherever you are you drive away all light > Or I don't have to be at your back door where you shoot, but just by > reading the information you provide I can see that you don't read the > information other gives you carefully, and you don't seem to get the idea. > Or I can pretty much warrantee you that when you be able to provide some > important information, then it's the time you have no problem what whatever > you try to do. Give an example fuckwit, don't just say someone is wrong. > Can you image WHY I can give you the small detail (the ones you refuse to > believe)? All you give is small (trivial). >> If I am shooting some jewelery for eBay for instance, I am going to select >> my aperture and meter for the shutter speed, as I am concerned with depth [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > 3. Shoot in 100% MANUAL Mode, no flash, no TV, AV, P, and no bracket > required etc.. What the f.ck do you think a lighbox is? It is not a new term in photography. You are obviously very inexperienced in photography. > That's it! you have created your own STUDIO right there, and it should > work at least 95-99% of the time. And after few tests, you may not need [quoted text clipped - 21 lines] > I believe I gave you more detal information than I have ever given to > anyone in my whole life. But you have yet to what she asked and provide an example where only a meter can allow a good photograph, because you can't. A meter is not needed with a modern digital high-end camera. > >> My histogram will give me a visual indication of exposure, I have an LCD [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > Correct me if I am wrong, but just base on what I read I think you are > trying to say you are using FLASH or something lime that? Why the f.ck can't you get away from flash? Did someone beat you around the head with a flash when you were a baby? Why are you so obsessed with flash hatred? NOTHING SHE SAID EVEN REMOTELY IMPLIED THAT SHE WAS USING A FLASH. She already mentioned that she uses xenon studio lights, not strobes. > If you do then > it's one of many NO NO NO I have been saying but you don't seem to agree. Attack of the strawman. > >> I have been involved in photography for six years, professionally for two, [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > long I have been photographing, I still have to spend lot of time practicing > on new model of camera, new lens, new flash etc.. Well spend less time arguing about subject you know little of and you might eventually learn to take a decent photograph. > Same with software, even I have been using Photoshop for over a decade, > quite often I don't need newer version but I often upgrade (at least every [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > much cheaper these days) to be wrong (or you are talking about upto > more/less $1000 tool). In other words you can't. Why not just admit it when you are wrong? You can't make a case for use of a light meter with digital photography. > And if you have the chance to watch some professional doing some model > shoot on TV, then you may see how they use the light meter (not just how > they press the button but the whole setup). What an idiotic comment. > >> Thank you >> Vicki Cal >Psycho-Deliâ,,¢ <Hell@Back.org> wrote: > [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] >and if it's the case then I would suggest all of you not to listen to adapt >the same mistake from other. It is even more likely that Joel is making a big mistake... And Vicki is eating your lunch with her clear logical response too! >> > And it seems like you still need more reading. This is I suggest. >> > [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] >learn much faster than other. Or you may not be able to learn anything >could be. One wonders why you espouse how to use 30 year old technology when the question concerns recent technology. Vicki seems to be learning *very* fast. And might have learned more in a week than you have in two or three decades; hence it probably isn't a good idea to talk down to her, eh? >1. You refuse to believe what you read Well, some of it was clearly wrong... >2. You read the wrong information. As you mention others have the same >problem, and you DO NOT want to learn from one with problem *but* one with >no problem. That might be why you were asked to provide examples! Why can't you? >3. You may try to compare the information with your own experience and which >may not have anything to do with each other. And as I have been trying to >tell you several time that Light Meter has nothing to do with the built-in >flash (it's a NO NO), no relationship with the TTL (another no no), no >Auto-setting (another NO NO) but 100% manually etc.. That's not true though. > If you use any of the NO NO then understanding is one of your main >problems. If you *can't* use 'em, you're missing something. ... >> I'll rephrase my question. Can you describe a situation where I can not >> manage to get a good result without using a meter? > > Because YOU DO NOT DO IT RIGHT! just like my English, I snipped that. She is doing it right, but you are not providing an example for the simple reason that there is none. She's right! >> So far, in every example I have heard or seen, I get use what I have to >> achieve as good an exposure as my equipment is capable of, although I use [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] >a NEW RULE (equipment), and this seems to be the biggest part of your >problem. So her method works! Wonderful. And you can't top that! >> For instance, if I look out of my back door I have bright sunlight, lots of >> greenery and water about thirty yards away. Inside it is just normal [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > > The information above telling me that It tells me she'll get good results. You still can't top that. > Can you image WHY I can give you the small detail (the ones you refuse to >believe)? Yep... you don't have it. You can't top getting good results, which she *is*. >> If I am shooting some jewelery for eBay for instance, I am going to select >> my aperture and meter for the shutter speed, as I am concerned with depth [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] >3. Shoot in 100% MANUAL Mode, no flash, no TV, AV, P, and no bracket >required etc.. You didn't read what she said, did you? >> Try giving me an example where I am facing a problem that only use of meter >> can solve. You are telling me that I don't understand, that I am not going [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > I believe I gave you more detal information than I have ever given to >anyone in my whole life. But you *cannot* provide the example requested, because it does not exist. (Granted that someone, though probably not you, might be able to come up with an example that Vicki, with relatively limited experience, could not deal with. But some old fart techie who's been solving such problems for years would not much problem showing how to do it with only a DSLR and no external light meter.) >> My histogram will give me a visual indication of exposure, I have an LCD >> that will show any potential blow outs. I shoot raw, I expose just under [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] >trying to say you are using FLASH or something lime that? If you do then >it's one of many NO NO NO I have been saying but you don't seem to agree. She can get good results with modern equipment and you can't... so I'd say the yes you are wrong almost by definition, eh? >> I have been involved in photography for six years, professionally for two, >> and I have never had a situation that even in retrospect posed a problem [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] >> well rely the camera and shoot again on those very rare occasions when the >> shot bombs. Pretty much dead on correct! >> Convince me with a practical example, I love to learn so I would be more >> than happy to proved wrong. > > Hahaha I don't think it needs to be proven, because to me "if something is >not right then must be wrong", and since you can't get it to work right then She's been getting good results, so claiming she can't get it to work right is a fabrication on your part. You keep saying she is doing it wrong, but you can't find any example where what she does will not work! She's way ahead of you Joel, and you aren't getting closer. > And if you have the chance to watch some professional doing some model >shoot on TV, then you may see how they use the light meter (not just how >they press the button but the whole setup). For a TV camera, yes. For Medium Format film, yes. For a DSLR, not necessarily. But the question was not if it is easier, or even better as such, to ever use an external light meter. The question was if it is ever absolutely the only way to get the job done. Fact is, it ain't. SignatureFloyd L. Davidson <http://www.apaflo.com/floyd_davidson> Ukpeagvik (Barrow, Alaska) floyd@apaflo.com > >Psycho-Deliâ,,¢ <Hell@Back.org> wrote: > > [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > > It is even more likely that Joel is making a big mistake... Possible but Joel won't learn to take advice from one with problem. > And Vicki is eating your lunch with her clear logical > response too! And you can have mine too if you can come up with a clear logical. > >> > And it seems like you still need more reading. This is I suggest. > >> > [quoted text clipped - 22 lines] > decades; hence it probably isn't a good idea to talk > down to her, eh? It seems like you have to eat the leftover lunch from Vicki. Hey Vicki, just as I have mentioned you don't want to listen to the clueless, because there is only ONE RULE which is the RIGHT RULE, or there is no such thing of newer or older technology. This clueless is trying to get some score but doesn't know what he is talking about. > >1. You refuse to believe what you read > [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > That might be why you were asked to provide examples! > Why can't you? The exaple is do not listen to the clueless. > >3. You may try to compare the information with your own experience and which > >may not have anything to do with each other. And as I have been trying to [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > That's not true though. Get some clue then it will be true. > > If you use any of the NO NO then understanding is one of your main > >problems. > > If you *can't* use 'em, you're missing something. You may miss some CLUE! > ... > >> I'll rephrase my question. Can you describe a situation where I can not [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > providing an example for the simple reason that there is > none. She's right! With the clueless then she is doing right, and that is why she is can't get it to work. > >> So far, in every example I have heard or seen, I get use what I have to > >> achieve as good an exposure as my equipment is capable of, although I use [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > So her method works! Wonderful. And you can't top that! Another clueless, whatever her mothod which works for her has nothing to do with how the Light Meter work. Clueless! > >> For instance, if I look out of my back door I have bright sunlight, lots of > >> greenery and water about thirty yards away. Inside it is just normal [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > It tells me she'll get good results. You still can't > top that. With the clueless it could be, but so far I only hear she can't get it working. > > Can you image WHY I can give you the small detail (the ones you refuse to > >believe)? > > Yep... you don't have it. You can't top getting good > results, which she *is*. Another clueless! > >> If I am shooting some jewelery for eBay for instance, I am going to select > >> my aperture and meter for the shutter speed, as I am concerned with depth [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > > You didn't read what she said, did you? May be the clueless read more than I do. I only read she can't get it to work right. > >> Try giving me an example where I am facing a problem that only use of meter > >> can solve. You are telling me that I don't understand, that I am not going [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > problem showing how to do it with only a DSLR and no > external light meter.) It requires some brain which the clueless seems lacking of it. > >> My histogram will give me a visual indication of exposure, I have an LCD > >> that will show any potential blow outs. I shoot raw, I expose just under [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > can't... so I'd say the yes you are wrong almost by > definition, eh? Hey clueless, there is nothing can stop her from getting good result with newer technology, but the clueless needs some brain to get some clue that the problem has nothing to do with newer or older technology. > >> I have been involved in photography for six years, professionally for two, > >> and I have never had a situation that even in retrospect posed a problem [quoted text clipped - 21 lines] > keep saying she is doing it wrong, but you can't find > any example where what she does will not work! Hey clueless, getting good result has nothing to do with "can't get the light meter works right", you may need to get some clue. > She's way ahead of you Joel, and you aren't getting > closer. [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > absolutely the only way to get the job done. Fact is, > it ain't. Hey clueless! it has nothing to do with necessary or unnecessary, it has nothing to do with easier or harder to do. And get some clue before asking the clueless question cuz it has nothing to do with doing right or wrong. Joel, I have one question for you. Do you know how TTL flash or strobe works? It really appears that you don't. You seem to be stuck in a manual strobe time warp and be very disparaging of TTL. DeeD > Joel, I have one question for you. > [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > DeeD I have begun to wonder the same thing. Joel keeps telling me that the light meter has nothing to do with TTL or the camera mounted flash, yet if I switch the light meter to flash mode and press the test button it will fire my camera mounted flash by radio and give me a reading. The reading is often out by a stop or more with regard to the camera's setting but it does do it. I have been told by another local photographer that the meter has a setup mode where it can be re-calibrated to suit whatever camera or type of film I choose, but I don't really see the point. I wonder if Joel uses a modern light meter or one that predates TTL with radio flash and strobe control. I'll stick to my camera's metering and use a gray card if it looks a bit unusual and I can't work tethered. The meter might be useful with my HD video camera, I'll have to try that, the video camera sometimes has some exposure problems and the light meter has a cine/video mode. I didn't mean to start conflict between people with my questions, so maybe I'd better not ask any more. Vicki Psycho-Deli <Hell@Back.org> wrote: > > Joel, I have one question for you. > > [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > setup mode where it can be re-calibrated to suit whatever camera or type of > film I choose, but I don't really see the point. No need to wonder but just GOOGLE see if you can find any relationship between Light Meter with built-in Flash, TTL, TV, AV, P mode etc.. And GOOGLE to see if you can fine pressing the button of the Light Meter to measure the lighting, then point the camera to shoot some object miles away. > I wonder if Joel uses a modern light meter or one that predates TTL with > radio flash and strobe control. No need to wonder because Joel keeps saying that Light Meter has nothing to do with TTL, no newer vs older technology. The Light Meter just measure the lighting condition then you set your camera to match the reading, that's it. No more than ONE to talk about the differences > I'll stick to my camera's metering and use a gray card if it looks a bit > unusual and I can't work tethered. The meter might be useful with my HD > video camera, I'll have to try that, the video camera sometimes has some > exposure problems and the light meter has a cine/video mode. And as Joel has mentioned, that's nothing wrong with using the built-in Light Meter of whatever camera you have *BUT* if you use the external Light Meter then you will have to follow the rule of the external Light Meter. Following the general rule of using *external* Light Meter is to disable all the auto-mode of the camera, because it/they have no relationship with the external light meter or it againsts the rule. Same thing, you don't stand in one spot to measure the lighting condition then point the camera to other spot (as you mentioned something about 30 yards away) which isn't the way neither light meter works (both Internal and External). IOW, if you want to capture the object from 30 years away, then you will need to walk 30 yards to the object to measure the lighting condition there (usually it won't work that far because the distance), then walk 30 yards back to press the shutter button. As I mentioned earlier that you can't just measure the lighting condition at where you stand then point the camera to the object miles away, even with 30 yards there is always something in 30 yards to cause wrong reading. 1. Dirt, air, moisture etc.. from where you stand to 30 yards away 2. If you have a cheapie lens then the object from 30 yards away won't be as clear as few feet or yards away. > I didn't mean to start conflict between people with my questions, so maybe > I'd better not ask any more. As I mentioned you don't want to listen to one who has no idea about the difference, even they agree with you. Same as the clueless questioning me for the SAMPLE or EXAMPLE which tells you that the clueless have no clue that there shouldn't be no sample, because it's very simple. - If you measure with the external light meter then using the auto feature's of the camera to destroy the correct setting then you won't get the correct result. - If you have the built-in flash on then it's one of the NO NO, and you should end up with overexposured (if close enough) - If you have the flash OFF but using some auto feature's of the camera then you may end up underexposured, because you don't follow the Light Meter rule. WHY? because when measure it doesn't communicate with your camera, doesn't ask for permission to use any of the auto feature's, and this is why I keep telling it's the NO NO - UNLESS you have the option for the light meter to fire your built-in flash (still NO NO auto), then you can and will have to have the built-in flash ON. And I don't know if there is any option for light meter to trigger the built-in flash, so the answer will remain NO - You need to forget about the TTL, and don't listen to the clueless about TTL, newer vs older technology because it has nothing to do with neither of them - No need to listen to the clueless about you can capture a good image which I have no good reason not to believe. But it has nothing to do with the problem you can't get the light meter to work right. It's very simple and straight foward. 1. The job of the Light Meter is measuring the lighting condition and report the reading (calculating) to you. That's it! 2. And your job is commanding your camera to obey the Light Meter calculating. And your other job is STOP (the NO NO) your camera to do anything it not suppose to do (no AUTO but 100% MANUAL) 3. *IF* you want to shoot the object 30 yards away (most light meter users don't but it's up to you) then your job would be. a. FORCE yourself to walk to the object 30 yards away to measure the &nb |
Enable EMail Alerts
Start New Thread
Reply to this Message