crazydaddio Loc: Toronto Ontario Canada

Anyone have any insight into the relative benefits of the "methods" for metering? Which is better, incident light (light falling on subject metered by a handheld meter) reflected light (light metered by your camera and autoISO being the decision maker) or straight guess/chimp/histogram and repeat x2.
(Full disclosure: I use the camera meter/spot focus and chimp/histogram in Manual mode)

Specifically, what are the pros/cons of these methods and is one more likely than the other to create the best IQ?

If there is a specific technical reason other than "I prefer to...." would be what I was hoping to learn here....

Apaflo Loc: Anchorage, Alaska

Using the camera's histogram (with or without some auto feature) will produce the best IQ. Assuming it is used correctly of course, which requires understanding how it is done and how to make adjustments.

Gene51 Loc: Yonkers, NY, now in LSD (LowerSlowerDelaware)

Incident meter afficionados will likely respond with "it always works" but to put this into perspective these are usually portrait or street shooters, and they do not shoot concerts, wildlife, stage performances, sporting events where players are partly in shade and sun, etc or anywhere the light falling on their subjects cannot be easily measured with an incident meter.

But to take it a step further, using an in camera meter, like reading a histogram, requires a thorough understanding of what goes on under the hood, and which mode will provide the best results in what situations. Matrix or evaluative, average, center weighted and spot each have their benefits and best applications. Though, I will argue, that using the zone system and spot metering, whether in camera or with a hand held meter, is the only exposure reading and evaluation system that can be applied to all situations with the exception of in studio strobe use. And the histogram, with proper understanding, can also serve as confirmation in all situations. Chimping, with highlight warning turn on, is also helpful to a degree.

rehess Loc: South Bend, Indiana, USA

Bottom line is that photographer has to use her/his intelligence.

CaptainC Loc: Colorado, south of Denver

What? I have to think? Ooooooh noooo!

selmslie Loc: Fernandina Beach, FL, USA

There is no single method that will produce the best IQ consistently. For each method there are situations where it is likely to fail.

The histogram can be misleading, the blinkies might be better, the sunny 16 rule (and a table of exposure values) might be sufficient in many cases and so can an incident meter reading. But none of these is foolproof.

In a scene with a low dynamic range, getting the ideal exposure is less critical - easy to adjust in post processing.

If all you have is the camera's reflected meter reading and have any doubts in an unfamiliar situation, bracket and pick the best image. With digital it cost you nothing.

It's not rocket science. It's common sense.

BJW

"...it's common sense."

And, I would add, a bit of experience helps it all come together.

cameraf4 Loc: Delaware

Kinda like asking "What's best for dinner?" Generalizations can be fun, but hardly productive.

billnikon Loc: Pennsylvania/Ohio/Florida/Maui/Oregon/Vermont

The incident light reading WILL be accurate. That said the histogram is a good tool to assure correct exposure. Using the histogram correctly could be slightly faster AND MORE PRACTICAL IN MOST SHOOTING CONDITIONS than using a hand held incident light reading.

crazydaddio Loc: Toronto Ontario Canada

Thanks everyone for your responses. So far, nothing new. "It depends" with situational implications seems to be the answer.
...Net : I think I will pass on the big bucks for an incident light meter which was part of why I was asking the question....

If I start making a living doing studio photography where I control 100% the lighting and looking for SOOC perfection I may reconsider...

selmslie Loc: Fernandina Beach, FL, USA

It can be accurate but not correct.

The most common example is a white cat on snow or a black cat on a coal pile. The "accurate" reading would make them both gray and both incorrect. The in camera meter and histogram would mislead you unless you override the camera's "accurate" reading. An incident reading would be correct.

If you give it some thought you can to come up with more examples.

As I said earlier, "For each method there are situations where it is likely to fail."

Notorious T.O.D. Loc: Harrisburg, North Carolina

Personally I think meters like a Sekonic 758 can be of great value if one learns how to properly use it and calibrates their bodies to it. It is another tool for one's kit. You may or may not need or want it in your kit. That is your choice.

There are YouTube videos that talk about and demonstrate the value of meters including ones by Joe Brady, Mark Wallace and The Angry Photographer. The ColorChecker Passport is another useful tool. The reality is that 95 percent of people don't want or feel they need these tools and would rather have a 10th body or 15th lens than spend $500 on a great meter and ColorChecker Passport combination. What they may not realize is the meter would give them a better value than that next lens or body ever could. But most will say they don't need it or don't want to be bothered with learning it. It is easier to buy some new lens...

Best,
Todd Ferguson

PGHphoto Loc: Pittsburgh, PA

I agree - Although a histogram does give you information, I never understood how people use it to get their best exposure. All a histogram tells you is how many pixels of a certain luminosity you have. I understand that if you are a snapshooter, you will most likely get the best results when you make sure the histogram is balanced but when you shoot for specific results, the histogram only gives you objective information.

Sometimes (most of the time ?) I want the exposure to be to the left or right to create mood or texture. High key or low key portraiture yields histograms that suggest incorrect exposure. In my opinion, the histogram can only tell you what was recorded and does not help in any assessment of proper or 'good' exposure. As stated previously, I think it does assist the 'point and shoot' crowd from the standpoint that they have a better expectation of good overall results when the histogram is checked and the exposure is adjusted prior to taking the next shot - but to say exposure is good or bad based on histogram in my opinion is like saying the photo is good because it has a horse in it.

Just my 2 cents worth.
-- k --

wham121736 Loc: Long Island, New York

All three methods require you to understand how they work or you will be mislead. Incidence readings need to be made at the subjects location. Reflected readings will be affected by the area the camera is evaluating. Spot metering, for example must be carefully used. There is no right or wrong histogram. It simply charts the number of pixels of each luminosity, not their location. It will show clipping of excessive lightness or darkness but not the region of the clipping. The blinkies will show the region's causing clipping. Light subjects on light backgrounds will have the histogram bunched to one side, dark subjects on a dark background will have the histogram bunched to the other side. The. Bottom line is that these techniques used alone or together all have their strengths and weaknesses depending on what and how you shoot - landscapes, sports,
Portraiture, all have different constraints, so you need to study their capabilities in light of your shooting.

selmslie Loc: Fernandina Beach, FL, USA

Anyone who thinks that only one method "will produce the best IQ" has more to learn. When all you have is a hammer, everything looks like a nail.

After you actually use each method you will understand their strengths and weaknesses.