 Tara R. Swartzendruber |
light meters I've looked through past threads and didn't see anything recent on this, but forgive me if this has all been explained. I started a photography business 3 years ago and have done well. However, I still tend to underexpose photos, both outside and in the studio. I am thinking about a light meter, but don't know much about them. I know an incident meter is probably better, but what about a flash meter.....how do I learn how they work and what is best? Also, I don't change my lighting too much in my studio as it is a very tight space. For awhile I found a perfect setting for my lights and my camera that yielded me the exposure I wanted. Now, with those same settings, things seem more often underexposed. Anyone have suggestions on both of these questions as pertains to metering light? Thanks!
|
|
|
|
||
|
John H. Siskin |
Hi Tara, I know there are people who will disagree with me, but a meter is basically stupid. It doesn’t have access to a sophisticated optical system, like the meter in your camera. A hand held meter does not allow you to evaluate the whole image. I would suggest that when you set something up in the studio you tether your camera to a laptop and look at a histogram. If you are working out of the studio you can still use the histogram and the image on the camera back. But you, as the photographer, need to pay attention to this, relying on a meter isn’t going to improve the situation. Experience is important. Hand held meters were important with film, because we didn’t have access to instant images except for Polaroid, and Polaroids cost several dollars a piece. If this is an overall problem you might want to look at your exposure compensation correction, you can change your overall exposure there. If there is a studio problem I would certainly set up the camera tethered to a lap top and look for the problem using that tool. You can look at the light from each light and evaluate it. The bottom line is that your camera will give you the information you need, but you have to pay attention to that information and integrate it into your image. Thanks, John
|
|
|
|
||
|
Tara R. Swartzendruber |
well thank you. Seems like everyone says "get a light meter, it will vastly improve your images." I don't have a calibrated laptop, but I spent a whole day going back and forth between my camera and computer getting everything "just right" for different situations. But the photos seem to be darker now (using the same light and camera settings as before).... I'll have to do some re-evaluating. I was also thinking about compensation adjustment. I need to check some thing out, but wondered if I was being stupid for not having another meter.
|
|
|
|
||
|
John H. Siskin |
Hi Tara, This is some information about metering from one of my classes. The key is that you need to learn to rely on eye and experience rather than a magic box like the meter. Getting a good exposure is important, but getting the right light is MUCH more important. Digital cameras make this much easier than ever before! People often rely on a meter when they should look at what they are doing. But even when I shot film for a living I didn’t rely on the meter, I relied on the Polaroid I made with the camera. I suspect part of the difficulty is that it is frightening to turn the meter off and rely on your eye and proof image and histogram, but now that we have these tools we should not be so afraid to turn off the meter. In teaching this class I keep trying to find ways to say that you have moved into the land BEYOND metering. When you use a strobe meter you get a response that tells you how to make a middle density, but it doesn’t tell you how to make it look right. There is no automatic way to make it look right, only the application of brains can do that. When I make a shot with strobes and a digital camera, the first thing I do is to put the camera on manual. The camera meter can’t read strobes, except for the proprietary strobe. So the camera meter is useless. I do not use a hand held strobe meter, it doesn’t give me enough information. The only things I pay attention to are the histogram and the proof image on the camera back, or, even better, an image on a computer tethered to the camera. More than metering these two tools tell you about your image. Let me suggest a plan for seeking the right exposure: 1) set the shutter speed to the sync speed, 2) set the aperture to your middle aperture, whatever that is on the lens you are using, 3) take a picture, it will be wrong, 4) move the aperture dial to let in more or less light based on test exposure 1, you can look at the histogram to help determine how much to change the aperture, but the proof image should tell you if you need to change a lot or a little. If you are using more than one light consider the balance of the lights. 5) more test exposures and changes of light placement and light power until the strobes are right, 6) change shutter speed to balance values between existing light and strobe light, this will require more test pictures. This same technique will work if you are mixing strobes and daylight. This was why the Polaroid bill was so high with film cameras, but with digital these test exposures are free, so we should not be afraid to make them. If you practice this you will actually end up being able to find the right exposure quite quickly. This is the essential trick with strobes, to evaluate and change our images in search of the right levels for our lights and our exposures. With the histogram and the proof image on camera or in the computer we have better tools for creating the right exposure than any meter could give us, but it does take repeated testing. If you use a hand-held meter you will get an answer, but very often it will be profoundly wrong.
|
|
|
|
||
|
Tara R. Swartzendruber |
awesome. This is basically what I've done....lots and lots of testing. I also mess just a bit with the light settings, but I have rather powerful lights in a pretty small room, so they stay pretty low as to not overpower. I am confused by #6. Can you explain why I would then, after I get the aperture correct, would I want to change shutter speed? Thanks!!!!
|
|
|
|
||
|
John H. Siskin |
Hi Tara, You might want to change the shutter speed to get more ambient light, if you wanted brighter windows or other light sources in a shot. You probably wouldn't do this in a studio shot. Thanks, John Siskin
|
|
|
|
||
- Gregory LaGrange Contact Gregory LaGrange Gregory LaGrange's Gallery |
Light meters can be useful. I wouldn't call them stupid. I wouldn't call a ruler or tape measure stupid either. They measure things. The builder wants wood a certain size, he measures it. A photographer wants a light a certain brightness, he measures it. A light meter can expedite the test shooting, or eliminate it if you already have in mind what you want, but with a digital camera the expense of it may not be worth it to you. As far as you lights, your flash tube may be getting old if the same power levels and apertures are resulting in darker pictures.
|
|
|
|
||
|
Tara R. Swartzendruber |
how old is old for a flash tube?? I've never had to replace it in 2 1/2 years. I figured it would just go out someday and I would have to put a new one in. I didn't know they weakened.
|
|
|
|
||
|
- Gregory LaGrange Contact Gregory LaGrange Gregory LaGrange's Gallery |
I don't have a number for how old is old. But if everything is how everything was, then that's my first thought, the flash tubes are showing signs of decline.
|
|
|
|
||
|
John H. Siskin |
Hi Tara, I have some strobe tubes that are more than 25 years old. They still work fine. Use them till they break. The problem is somewhere else, like the power control or the distance to the subject. Thanks, John Siskin
|
|
|
|
||
|
This old forum is now archived. Use improved Forum here
Report this Thread |
||