winterrose Loc: Kyneton, Victoria, Australia

There is a lot of reference to the use of light meters in evaluating lighting conditions to facilitate shooting in Manual Mode.
In the olden days, once the film was loaded, for any given lighting condition there were only two adjustments available. Shutter speed and Aperture. Of those two, for any given subject there is usually one which is of priority and as camera manufacturers introduced "automatic" mode they provided the user the ability to manually set one and let the metering system set the other.
Also in the olden days, there was no way to view the result of the selected exposure settings until the entire film developing process had been completed.
The many references to light meters and manual exposure would have us believe that there is something almost magical to be gained by this methodology under all conditions.
Digital cameras provide say 12 f stops of latitude, to use a term from those film days, and our aim is to place those 12 stops nicely within the range to best capture the luminance range of reflected light from the given subject. But what if it is beyond the capability of the camera? In that case we would be forced to accept a loss of detail in either the shadows or the highlights. Or both. There is one other variable over which we have control, you might say. True, we could provide more or less light as necessary but that is not really practical under many or most normal situations.
Shooting in a studio is of course a whole different set of circumstances but I am not talking about shooting under tightly controlled lighting conditions.
The point or question that I pose is, how, in all practicality, is there any advantage in setting ISO on a meter, selecting Aperture or Shutter speed as the priority setting, reading the appropriate metered F stop or speed and shooting the scene with those settings set manually OR simply setting ISO and "A" or "S" and having the camera instantly compute and set the remaining parameter?
Or better still, just setting "P" and monitoring the result.
Mr. Rockwell was unfairly lambasted for referring to "P" as "professional mode".
I agree with him if it was his little dig, which, to his amusement, so many bit, at all those people who think they can do better, or rather, be seen to be doing better and being a better photographer by not needing to rely on such amateurish stuff as anything automatic.
In truth, "P" is referred to as Program Auto which takes into account, and I can only speak of Nikon here, a whole lot more than some may have us believe.
The metering system in a modern Nikon is profoundly more sophisticated than the everything averaged down to 18% gray "dumb" light meter portrayed by some.
There are a great number of controls and combinations of controls available, and there are many which most people will never use.
The Nikon D3 was designed for professional use and it incorporated only those features required by a professional in order to get the "money shot". I refer, of course, to the type of subject affording little time and no second chance to get the shot. "Mr President, would you mind falling over again, I need a meter reading..." There are no bells or whistles. It is ready long before you are and it will always get the shot if used correctly. It is very rare indeed that setting "P" and releasing the shutter fails.
I am in no way saying that using external light metering and making careful accommodation of all things considered etc. etc. has no place but I fail to see the advantage in real terms of making photography more complex an activity than is necessary, especially if shooting manually is dressed up as being some sort of elite club to be revered by we lesser beings who happen to have a lean towards the practical use of technology.
Light meters and shooting manually does not magically expand the performance of your camera. All it can ever do is allow the photographer to stand up and take "credit" for some of the numbers on his photo's exif data.
As I said, shooting in a studio and all the control over lighting that affords is a different thing altogether but I am not referring to that.
Over to you….Rob.

BHC Loc: Strawberry Valley, JF, USA

Good grief, Rob. Are you trying to set a page record all by yourself? I've never seen one of your posts that long, and I have seen very few when you didn't skewer someone. Are you losing your touch or are you getting old? We're going to have to hurry to get that beer before one of us kicks the bucket because of old age.

Seriously though (as serious as we can get), I like my toys, especially my light meter and color temperature meter. The Sekonic doesn't tell me what I can do; it merely suggests what I shouldn't try to go. And my Sixti-color keeps me from coming up with pink locomotives and purple cabooses under all the crazy lighting in the museum. I still don't trust "automatic white balance" and a lot of other bells and whistles (not to mention toot, whistle, plunk and boom). Tell me, compadre, am I just getting to old for this stuff. Best regards. Bill

winterrose Loc: Kyneton, Victoria, Australia

Yeah, sorry Bill, after the potato thing, (which is still dribbling sporadically so to speak by the way) I was a bit out of breath, but now that I find myself feeling lonely with no-one sending kind words it's really supportive of you to take the time to offer me some good ol' abuse. Skewer? Me? Old age? Hasn't got me yet! Aside from dribbling sporadically I haven't forgotten what the flap in the back of my long-johns is for and I bet you're good too otherwise your toot, whistle, plunk and boom would take on a whole new meaning....
Your Sekonic reminds me that the old Omega VLF global nav. system tells you where you are by calculating all of the places that you aren't...
P.S. I really don't want to hear about you purple caboose. Too much information, thanks.....Cheers and best regards, Rob.

BHC Loc: Strawberry Valley, JF, USA

So tell me, what does VLF stand for?
- Verily Lost Forever
- Virtually Last Found
- Visually Left Foundering

PhotoArtsLA Loc: Boynton Beach

There is a lot of reference to the use of light meters in evaluating lighting conditions to facilitate shooting in Manual Mode.
In the olden days, once the film was loaded, for any given lighting condition there were only two adjustments available. Shutter speed and Aperture.

**** These are all that's available in digital photography as well.

Of those two, for any given subject there is usually one which is of priority and as camera manufacturers introduced "automatic" mode they provided the user the ability to manually set one and let the metering system set the other.

****True.

Also in the olden days, there was no way to view the result of the selected exposure settings until the entire film developing process had been completed.
The many references to light meters and manual exposure would have us believe that there is something almost magical to be gained by this methodology under all conditions.

****False. Dead wrong. And there was no magic, only science. In the olden days, with a surety far greater than the most sophisticate DSLR metering system currently in existence, when we shot a still photo, or ran 400 or 1,400,000 feet of film in an Arri or Panaflex, we KNEW, beyond any doubt, EXACTLY what the final image would look like the instant the exposure was made. There was zero guess work, and no surprises. Everything from camera to lens to lab, was calibrated. I could tell if a lab was off if my footage did NOT look right. Weak unreplenished developer was often a problem. Better labs were always the better choice. Predictability, to the point of knowing the printer light on set, was key.

Digital cameras provide say 12 f stops of latitude, to use a term from those film days, and our aim is to place those 12 stops nicely within the range to best capture the luminance range of reflected light from the given subject. But what if it is beyond the capability of the camera? In that case we would be forced to accept a loss of detail in either the shadows or the highlights. Or both.

****Digital cameras with 12 stops of latitude suffer from non-film level latitude, which is at least 13 stops. This is not a big problem, though, as when shooting digital, you always expose for the highlights, because the shadow detail can be recovered. Digital excels at offering great ability to recover underexposure. The only question is will the given digital camera go to noise in the underexposure.

There is one other variable over which we have control, you might say. True, we could provide more or less light as necessary but that is not really practical under many or most normal situations.

****It is always practical.

Shooting in a studio is of course a whole different set of circumstances but I am not talking about shooting under tightly controlled lighting conditions.
The point or question that I pose is, how, in all practicality, is there any advantage in setting ISO on a meter, selecting Aperture or Shutter speed as the priority setting, reading the appropriate metered F stop or speed and shooting the scene with those settings set manually OR simply setting ISO and "A" or "S" and having the camera instantly compute and set the remaining parameter?


****Light meters in DSLRs fail. Handheld meters do not in skilled hands. Ever. Yes, in fully manual mode, where everything digital is calibrated, a full manual exposure as determined by a handheld meter will always perform at LEAST as well as the internal camera meter, regardless of mode. In most cases, the fully manual exposure will be better. Further, in a studio, unless it's the movies, it's studio flashes, and these are SOOOO much simpler to set with a handheld meter and then set the all manual camera. When you light, you light for the shot and look you need, and when you're done lighting, any camera will take a great image.

Or better still, just setting "P" and monitoring the result.

****Program Mode is fun if you know your exposure compensation, and work it on nearly every shot. Basic Program Mode images are often simply wrong for a subject, but with the right amount of exposure compensation, up to 3+ f/stops or so this way or that, can make a huge difference.

Mr. Rockwell was unfairly lambasted for referring to "P" as "professional mode".

I agree with him if it was his little dig, which, to his amusement, so many bit, at all those people who think they can do better, or rather, be seen to be doing better and being a better photographer by not needing to rely on such amateurish stuff as anything automatic.
In truth, "P" is referred to as Program Auto which takes into account, and I can only speak of Nikon here, a whole lot more than some may have us believe.
The metering system in a modern Nikon is profoundly more sophisticated than the everything averaged down to 18% gray "dumb" light meter portrayed by some.

****I have a modern Nikon. My exposure meters, and my brain, trained through millions of frames, countless miles of movie film, and for years, owning a lab, is unfathomably more sophisticated than anything Nikon will EVER come up with, exposure system wise. For a pro, the exposure system begins with the light, which he controls. The camera just records the work done with the light.

There are a great number of controls and combinations of controls available, and there are many which most people will never use.
The Nikon D3 was designed for professional use and it incorporated only those features required by a professional in order to get the "money shot". I refer, of course, to the type of subject affording little time and no second chance to get the shot. "Mr President, would you mind falling over again, I need a meter reading..." There are no bells or whistles. It is ready long before you are and it will always get the shot if used correctly. It is very rare indeed that setting "P" and releasing the shutter fails.

****It will not fail to get a mundane image, true, simply not a professional one with considered exposure. Mundane reportage is becoming commonplace. In photojournalism, with a handheld meter, you work with zones, knowing the exposure for each, sometimes with a camera for each. These images will always work, in every situation, including grab shots, and ESPECIALLY with film, which was a wonderful animal which could be brutalized in the lab to great effect.

I am in no way saying that using external light metering and making careful accommodation of all things considered etc. etc. has no place but I fail to see the advantage in real terms of making photography more complex an activity than is necessary, especially if shooting manually is dressed up as being some sort of elite club to be revered by we lesser beings who happen to have a lean towards the practical use of technology.

****Well, first off, it isn't more complicated. It's the business, the method. Light meters and manual shooting are the stuff of professionals often safeguarding images steeped in investments mounting to hundreds of millions of dollars. Amateurs, who are taking snapshots without consequence, hoping for an occasional photograph and happy when that happens, are fine with Program or any other auto mode, and there is nothing wrong with it. This is especially true now that film and lab cost are zero. People should just have fun!

Light meters and shooting manually does not magically expand the performance of your camera. All it can ever do is allow the photographer to stand up and take "credit" for some of the numbers on his photo's exif data.

****Well light meters and manual shooting is not magical, simply necessary to guarantee results. This is the nature of professional shooting. The camera is absolutely irrelevant as is EXIF data, except when lens matching later. An old box camera offering shutter speeds and f/stops shooting roll film is the equal of anything that will ever be in digital. The camera is meaningless. Only the image matters. How to get to the image differs between the professional mindset and the amateur. If you had to bet on who will get the image, side with the professional. Depth of experience really does matter.

Sheesh! And we haven't even covered composition.

winterrose Loc: Kyneton, Victoria, Australia

Thank you for your comprehensive reply however if we take out everything pertaining to shooting in a studio, which I specifically stated does not apply to my tread and if we ignore the support and equipment available to professionals, which most of we UHHers are not, then you have added nothing to enlighten us.

I really wish that you could be standing next to me every time I wish to photograph a scene or a subject and hand me some of the millions of dollars worth of equipment to which you refer.

Or that you could set up lighting for that shadow in the trees at the top of the next hill.

I stated: "There is one other variable over which we have control, you might say. True, we could provide more or less light as necessary but that is not really practical under many or most normal situations."

You replied:

"It is always practical."

Rubbish, I say and please don't insult my sensibilities.

Perhaps if you read my thread again you may see that I do not trivialize your profession or what professional photographers know or do. I do however feel that a number of people replying offering advice and information fail to understand that there are many levels from which different people gain satisfaction from their hobby.
There would be many who have an eye for a good image who have no real interest or aptitude in the technicalities other than what is absolutely necessary for the result.
Not everybody is as clever or as knowledgeable as your kind self and not everybody has access to the equipment, manpower, resources and logistics that you appear to take for granted.
So if you have something to contribute which does not compare full on Cinematic film making to the hobbyist then feel free.
And do not underestimate my level of knowledge or understanding.
Rob.

PhotoArtsLA Loc: Boynton Beach

Even with basic equipment, you can achieve control over the trees at the top of the next hill. That control is time. To simply control the world as the sun lights it, you wait. For the moment, for the season, for the exact time when the image will be best. Then you shoot.

This was part of the power Ansel Adams had over nature. The other was good lab work.

The problem with the instant nature of the digital world, is the world generally looks awful most of the time. Thus the pictures suffer. But, waiting for the light, as Adams called it, the "eloquent light," is the stuff of more serious photographic endeavors.

As an example, here is an an image, shot in Program mode, with exposure compensation. The native Program mode shot was way too bright and awful. Pedestrian. By dialing down with exposure compensation, I got a better look. Most importantly, I waited for the shot, getting to the location before the sun rose. Furthermore, I did it daily, for weeks. I have hundreds of decent images, using nothing but a DSLR, program mode, and exposure compensation.

This is why controlling the light is always practical, not just that we can throw monstrous lights brighter than the sun at the problem.

Program Mode with Exposure Compensation

rpavich Loc: West Virginia

No...no magic..just more control over the process. Don't unfairly characterize the view of some here. :)




They vary but this is a good ballpark number.





I didn't understand the question...can you rephrase?



Again...you unfairly characterize a setting choice and ad hominem those who choose to meter that way.

It's not elite, it's not that we are smarter or more macho :)

I just don't like the camera making half of my choices for me. I also don't like a steering while on the passenger side of the car for the same reason :)

And light metering with a hand held is LESS complicated than in-camera metering when you factor in the "second guess" factor that must go into figuring out "if" or "how much" your meter is (as the captn would say) "lying to you"

I can't see anything easier than:

1.) Pop the meter

2.) Set the camera

3.) Fire away at will, happily ignoring the in-camera meter no matter what it says and know that your exposures are going to be consistent and correct as long as the prevailing light conditions don't shift dramatically.


How is that complicated? I've shot for HOURS like that in MANY situations.....I don't get it.





No...it doesn't. It just allows more control over the variables as I said...and sneaking in another insult doesn't bolster your position, it just looks bad...nobody want's "credit" for the exif...just good shots...your bias is showing. :)




And I understand that.

I guess I don't get the rants about meters...and how evil they are and how those who say that they afford advantages over in-camera meters are proud know it alls who just want the glory of the home-grown exif info.... :(

GHK Loc: The Vale of Eden

[quote=winterrose]
I think that, except for one or two specialist situations, hand held meters have more or less, passed their sell-by date. There is no reason why you shouldn't use one if you want to, but a modern, built-in meter can cope with almost anything if used in multi-sampling or spot mode, with the added support of a histogram display.
I speak as someone who used a Weston for many years; it was a fine piece of equipment and I still keep it at home because I can't bear to let it go.
On your other point, a modern digital camera sensor can record over a range of about 6 stops (not 12). If anyone thinks otherwise, the should carry out some proper tests.
Still, 6 is better than film, which was pushed to make 5.
GHK

jenny Loc: in hiding:)

winterrose...Yes,okay,so it was long,so what,this happens when thoughts begin to spill over after observing much discussion by others. Absolutlely nothing basically in your thread to argue about or pick on!!! People need to read it again and slow down,THINK,before replying.
Agreed,we have a very accurate in-camera meter these days. After someone has figured out a manual shot,it just may be the same as the camera would choose anyway..(someone will pick up on that statement and chew the bone I'm sure,haha).
No sense rehashing the whole thing about special situations such as studio shots.You really said everything well.
From the day I joined UH I have sympathized with the poor newbies who never saw the inside of a film camera,haven't a clue as to why f/2.8 is more than f/11,and are encouraged to
think of some equilateral triangle in order to produce a decent picture. Let us keep in mind info to carry them over to the newer technology by advising them to set the lowest possible ISO,then they have only ONE decision,not three.
From there they can learn to use PASM and explore refinements such as exposure comp.
To see newbies advised to buy books,buy PP programs or handheld meters they may never need if not advancing to more serious photography without learning exposure, is painful to most of us who would rather help them enjoy their photography while actually learning how to fully use their cameras.

OddJobber Loc: Portland, OR

Some insightful (and not inciteful) posts. But will you guys PLEASE quit referring to the "olden days"? It makes me feel, well, old. :(

OddJobber Loc: Portland, OR

[quote=jenny]... I have sympathized with the poor newbies who never saw the inside of a film camera,...[quote]
I looked. It's an empty box. :shock: No wonder newbies don't understand it.

rpavich Loc: West Virginia

We did. Just because we disagree doesn't equate with not being thoughtful, and not giving due consideration to the situation.




True.



Maybe or maybe not, but disagreeing isn't bone-picking...that's just an opinion.



I've cringed when I see the advice given to newbies that they don't need to get a meter and they struggle and struggle with why their camera lies to them and in what situation, and how to second guess it...the posts about this are endless and conflicting and confusing advice abounds in every one of them.

No wonder newbies spend years being confused. :)

I didn't grow up shooting film, I just got my DSLR a year and a half ago...but I learned to shoot manual right off the bat after going through a short period of the nightmare that I described above...my pro-photog friend's advice was to get a meter.

I did that and it was the best advice I've gotten. I think I've learned more about exposure more quickly than I could have the other method.

So you see, it's easy to rant and have a point of view...we all have our point of view but those who use meters are not arrogant, dumb, doing a disservice to newbies nor crippling their learning experience.

We just disagree.

dpullum Loc: Tampa Florida

SUBJECT SUMMARY: GET WITH THE MODERN WAY... LIGHT METERS FOR MOST SITUATIONS BELONG IN A MUSEUM... (STUDIO EQUIPMENT EXCEPTED)
------------------------------------
rpavich said with my injected comments: I can't see anything easier than: 1.) Pop the meter 2.) Set the camera 3.) Fire away at will, happily ignoring the in-camera meter no matter what it says and know that your exposures are going to be
[b] consistent ( YES, BECAUSE NOTHING IS CHANGED SO , YES CONSISTENT)
and correct as long as the prevailing light conditions don't shift dramatically. But what if they did????
How is that complicated? (I will pass that straight line up) I've shot for HOURS like that in MANY situations.. AND NEVER USED POST TO CORRECT PROBLEMS???. (OK) ..I don't get it. (Obviously)
----------------------------------------------------------------
My Comment: Modern Cameras have situation analysis built in, they view and decide what master photographers would do in the situation as described by the scanned information. They can determine if the motion is shake or motion in a moving platform (car window)… “They” determine that my shot is in the dark and hand held and show on the screen that “they” (the people in the Black Helicopters of the New-World Government) will take multi shots and blend them in the camera!! Amazing!! "They" even keep track of my location so that I can be picked up by the Thought-Police for knowing too much Physics, Chemistry, Math and keeping up with the times… GPS...ON MY ZS20!!! within 50 feet !!!

NOISE: "They" remove noise from a sensor the same size as my eyes sensor, retina ,,, 6mm. "They" program my camera to think fast and accurately… and if I wish I can control by up/down the exposure and take bracketed shots … and if my timing is off then it will take rapid fire 10-50 shots per second.

AND you wish to use a hand held meter and set every thing manually How can you???? Amazing!!! If you were a Tanker in the Gulf War,,, Daddy Bushe's… you would surly disable the computer and use ballistics tables to hand calculate the elevation for every shot ??? I that what you are telling me??? You say do not complicate the world... well it is already..
----------------------------------------------------
rpavich said: “Just because we disagree doesn't equate with not being thoughtful, and not giving due consideration to the situation.”

Yes, it does rpavich indeed. You need to be thoughtful and read text and analysis about new cameras AND give consideration to the laws of physics specifically the inverse squares law as I mentioned in another post.

Indeed we are blessed, I date back to when exposure in a spectrograph was affected by film “reciprocity” and other complex light silver interactions… But that was the past. Now, I rely on my camera and its expert advice pre programmed in by the “photographic experts” and “Firm Ware” programmers.
-------------------------------------------------------

rpavich said: “So you see, it's easy to rant and have a point of view (POV)...we all have our point of view but those who use meters are not arrogant, dumb, doing a disservice to newbies nor crippling their learning experience. We just disagree.”

My Reply to that: Rpavich, sir, next you will be telling me that the flat earth guys are right and it is an equal POV. No, there is correct and not correct, time to get with the program and be modern. Read again one of the great poets of the 20th century… Bob Dylan “The times are a’ changin’… Don’t stand in the door way… rpavich.. stop the noble savage approach to a highly technical field, allow your primitive views to be corrupted by modern thought and technology …. http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/noble%20savage

Believe winterrose and Jenny.. and for god sake,,, stop listening to Fox News for technical information….. d/p

OddJobber Loc: Portland, OR

I suppose I have to take that back now. :(