On May 15, 2012, at 12:34 AM, Larry Colen wrote: > I was asking a serious question here. I grew up using the meter in my > camera, or occasionally the luna pro, or some other meter. Once I learned > about the histogram I was blown away by how much more information it gave me. > It's the difference between a scalar and a vector, the light meter just > gives you a single number, but the histogram gives you a lot more information > across the whole range, and in each color channel. Not only that, you don't > have to worry about reciprocity, not being able to see the meter in the low > light, you get pretty much exactly what the sensor is seeing (modulo jpeg > processing, a huge gripe of mine). > > People seem to have taken my question as a challenge to their adulthood or > something. I seriously don't see what light meter will get you that a > little creative work with the camera and histogram won't. > > On May 14, 2012, at 7:44 PM, Bruce Walker wrote: > >> On Mon, May 14, 2012 at 10:08 PM, Mark Roberts >> <postmas...@robertstech.com> wrote: >>> >>> Bruce Walker wrote: >>> >>>> Bob and Darren have actually said all that needs to be said in defense >>>> of using a meter, and nothing more needs to be said, so here I go ... >>>> >>>> You're in the studio. There's seamless setup, the model has come out >>>> of makeup and hair and is raring to go. The studio costs $50 an hour. >>>> So does the model. The lights are setup: a couple on the background to >>>> blow it to white, two on the model. >>>> >>>> Larry: I'l take a test shot. >>>> Model: okay. >>>> L: POP >>>> L: hang on, I'm checking the histogram. >>>> L: ... >>>> L: hmmm. I think that's underexposed. Let me fix that. >>>> L: POP >>>> L: hang on, I'm checking the histogram again. >>>> L: Um. That might be overexposed. Shit, there's a huge spike at the >>>> right. WTF? >>>> M: I think my lipstick is smeared. <exits left> > > You are also assuming that when setting up the lights, you don't have anybody > to stand in place for a couple of minutes while you adjust the lights, and > take a few test shots to check the exposure. > > Which is right up there with doing the whole expensive shoot, and afterwards > finding that every shot of the white dress is blown out because you never > checked the histograms or blinkies. > > Or, taking photos of flowers and finding that the blue channel, or the red, > is completely blown out, because the meter averages all of the colors > together. > > >>>> >>>> Versus: >>>> >>>> Bruce: I'm going to meter the light. >>>> Model: okay. >>>> B: POP >>>> B: f/8 >>>> B: okay, Shel, I want you to pout. Great! Now smile. Super! ... > > My experience has more often been along the lines of.. The big light is 6 > feet away, I'm shooting through an umbrella, ISO 80, let's try f/16. > POP > hmm, looks like I'm have a stop under. > > I've actually been boggled by the number of times that I'll do a SCWAG on the > exposure, and nail it dead on. > >>> >>> Of course, Bruce, in a studio situation, that only applies to the very >>> first shot. After that you've got the exposure nailed and you just go >>> on. I think Bill's example of using the meter to get lighting ratios >>> is the real advantage of an incident meter here. > > Serious question: Rather than spending $BIGNUM on a light meter, why not get > an ExpoDisc, or the equivalent, and use the the camera? > >> >> Definitely, that's one of the big advantages. But there's more. >> >> The histogram is fooled entirely by the scene as it's showing you >> what's reflecting from it. If the scene is a white dress against a >> white backdrop, or a largely black business suit against a black >> backdrop, I wish you good luck histogramming that. > > I dunno about you, but my K-5 isn't glued to the tripod that's nailed to the > floor. If I've got a tricky situation I have to histogram, I'll just carry > the camera over close enough that it pretty much fills the screen, take a > photo and look at the histogram. >> >> The meter OTOH tells you the correct exposure for the light actually >> hitting the scene. Put your meter under the model's chin, pop your >> lights, read off the exposure, set it and you are done. It doesn't >> matter the clothing or skin colour, the textures, the backdrop, >> nothin'. You may have issues with hotspots in the scene or areas that >> are too dark, but that's lighting design. You need to add reflectors >> to get fill into too dark areas or add gobos to solve hotspots, but >> that doesn't alter the basic exposure. > > I'm confused here. Because if I set up the lights, and I have two scenes. > One of which has a black backdrop, perhaps cut velvet so there is subtle > details in the dark, and a model wearing dark clothes, and a hat, with their > face in the shadow. The other has white cut velvet, and a blond, fair skinned > model, wearing a white satin dress with white lace and embroidery, I'm going > to need to expose the scene completely differently, even if the incident > meter says the same thing with the same lights.
That's not true. If you determine an exposure based on the incoming light -- an incident reading -- rather than on the reflected light, that value should accurately record both the black dominant and white dominant scene. > I'll want to adjust the exposure to get as much detail, and as little noise, > on the sensor/in the raw file, and then I'll process the the final image to > be as light or dark as I want the final image to be. >> >> Anyways, this is one of those "you get it or you don't" issues, and >> can't be resolved to everyone's satisfaction here. I bought a digital >> flash meter and use it regularly after completely fscking up too many >> frames to count. I'm a happy camper now because when I work, I design >> my lighting and I carefully measure to get the results I want. > > One could write a pretty damned comprehensive book on photography, and > particularly lighting, with just the stuff that I don't know. That's why I'm > asking, what does the meter tell you, that you won't get by looking at the > three color histogram, possibly of detail shots, and possibly of a > strategically placed grey card, or shooting through something like an > expodisc? > > And, for what it's worth, I wasn't suggesting bracketing as a solution, but > more as a backup. There are many times that it just won't work. It is, > however, pretty damned cheap insurance, when you're shooting static scenes > with a digital camera. > > Also, the workflow that Doug describes is pretty damned close to what I do a > lot of. Take a SCWAG of the exposure in a situation, check the test shot, > correct it until it's right, and use that until something major changes. > > -- > Larry Colen l...@red4est.com sent from i4est > > > > > > -- > PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List > PDML@pdml.net > http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net > to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow > the directions. -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
