Light meter for landscapes

[dowden photography]

Hi Team

I have a Sekonic and use it quite regularly as a spot meter when I want very accurate readings and don't have time to reshoot. To use the spot meter it is a good idea to have some knowledge about the zone system.

The incident meter on a handheld is not that good for landscapes as you need to take the reading in the same light as the subject. A bit difficult if your subject is at infinity or the ocean etct etc

Becareful when reading a shot off an LCD screen. Most cameras have ok'ish screens but it'll look nothing like it does on a calibrated screen.

[jjphoto]

This is the biggest load of rubbish I've ever read on the subject.

A light meter is a Grey Card, its that simple. Taking a light reading before you shot is a key part of landscape photography or any kind of photography for that matter weather its digital or film.
Yes cameras have come a long way in the last 10 years, but they still fall miles behind when it comes to reading the light.

If you have a light meter you should use it for EVERY shot you take.

Cameras and it doesn't matter what brand, make or model don't do a good enough job.

The best way to see this is find a white wall, set the colour space to B&W (colour might also work but B&W is the best).
Take a reading of the wall, take a shot.
Take a reading with a Grey card, take the shot.
Turn both images into B&W images in photoshop and the first will show up as middle grey, the second will show the Grey card as middle Grey, the wall white.

How are you going to work out studio flashes without one? change the shutter speed? shutter speed means NOTHING with flash photography, your aperture changes the exposure because a flash of light is around 10,000 of a second. in other words you get the same results at 160/s @ ƒ8 than you would at 10/s @ ƒ8.

I shoot with strobes (outdoors) almost all the time and my Sekonic L-358 flash meter never come out to play any more since digital. I don't even bother with meters when shooting cars in a studio (ie expensive jobs), even though I usually bring them just in case, but there is never any need and they don't benefit the situation in any tangable way. It's not like shooting film where you needed to know your meters, lenses, camera, films like the back of your hand because you had to rely on them. Now a Histogram tells you virtually everything you need to know (not colour temp). I also don't bother using my Pentax digital Spotmeter or Minolta Colour Meter either, no point since digital. The Minolta Colour Temp meter comes in handy at times.

The amount of light that passes through a lens can also be quite different when the lens is focused at infinity compared to the same aperture but focused much closer, your light meter won't tell you that but your histogram will. The difference is over a stop with a lens like the Canon 100/2.8 Macro. Of course you can learn the quirks of each and every meter and lens that you own but there simply isn't any need to. It doesn't make sense to use meters when you have a much more efficient and I believe accurate method.

How do you think you benefit from using a meter?

JJ

[jjphoto]

Review screen histogram is more than accurate enough for capturing a landscape scene.

The only issue if you shoot raw and use Auto WB, is that if the camera shoots the scene too blue for the actual conditions at the time, your histogram may tend to look correctly exposed(ie., not blown out if that's what you want).
But if you load the images onto the PC and 'correct' the WB for the image, which will almost certainly be warmer from my experience), then the red channel may immediately blow out depending on how close to the right you've exposed.

I have no idea on how good/bad/ugly spot metering is on a Canon 7D, but on a Nikon D300 it's usually spot on

I take spot meter readings via the camera's metering system at various points, use filters if they're required.
Metering on the mid to dark tones, I'll shoot a 3shot - 0.7 bracketed burst(ie. 0 -0.7 and -1.3EV) to push the highlights as far as I can with the neutral exposure.
Almost certainly I'll end up using the -1.3Ev exposure on most of my resultant assessments of my images.

i've never seen any reason to use a light meter with a digital camera.

As far as I'm aware anyhow, each camera's sensor seems to have slightly different exposure characteristics anyhow, and the light meter won't take lens characteristics into account either.

Things like vignetting, contrast colour etc.
The best light meter for a digital camera is the cameras own sensor!

You have a tri colour histogram, use that and be mindful of WB warming later on in PP.

+1
JJ

[arthurking83]

There seems to be a misconception that digital sensors work the same way as film used too.

As I've said, and having briefly borrowed a light meter for landscapes... I've never seen any reason to use a light meter for landscapes

And we are referring to digital here, not film!.. as that was how I understood the premise of the OP's opening question.
Of course that was an assumption I've made, as there is no listing in his sig of any film equipment.. so I may be wrong(again).

A grey card can in fact come in handy for some uses, and my only use for it has only ever been to take a WB reading. I've found that in every situation I've found myself in, my camera's spot meter has been more than accurate.

of course others experiences may be different.

of my statements:

*i've never seen any reason to use a light meter with a digital camera.

*As far as I'm aware anyhow, each camera's sensor seems to have slightly different exposure characteristics anyhow, and the light meter won't take lens characteristics into account either.

*Things like vignetting, contrast colour etc.
The best light meter for a digital camera is the cameras own sensor!

*You have a tri colour histogram, use that and be mindful of WB warming later on in PP.

So with all those highlighted comments are you in fact saying that without a light meter, successfully exposing a landscape scene is impossible?

or are you inferring that an external light meter(thats not calibrated to the specific sensor) is going to allow that digital sensor to expose the scene more accurately than the cameras own meter can?

My D70s and D300 expose the same scene with the exact same camera/lens settings differently, by up to 2/3Ev difference.

maybe your experience with your lenses is vastly different to my experience with my lenses(which all seem to have subtle differences in exposing a scene)

if you have evidence to the contrary, I'd be interested to see it.

Due to my slower than molasses internet connection I will endeavour to post my collection of experiences.

note, no one ever mentioned reading the image or scene off the review screen!
Every reference so far has been to use the histogram on the review screen, not the image itself.
If your PC software is displaying a different histogram to the one on your camera's review screen, I dare say you're using the wrong PC software!... they should be identical!

I've had limited use of my SB-800 for a few 'interested to see what happens' landscape scenes, but for all intents and purposes, the use of any form of external lighting for a LANDSCAPE scene is generally impractical. The transportation of studio flashes and generators to run them into the bush is too much hard yakka for my back and leg.

I'll post up some sample images in due time to highlight some differences between cameras and lenses... etc.

[TOM]

This is the biggest load of rubbish I've ever read on the subject.

A light meter is a Grey Card, its that simple. Taking a light reading before you shot is a key part of landscape photography or any kind of photography for that matter weather its digital or film.
Yes cameras have come a long way in the last 10 years, but they still fall miles behind when it comes to reading the light.

If you have a light meter you should use it for EVERY shot you take.

It depends on the type of photography you are doing. No you don't need to use your light meter for every shot. Man if I did that at a wedding, I'd miss alot of shots. My primary source for metering is a dedicated Sekonic L-358 (??flashmate), but once you take a meter reading, and that's not always neccessary, then you learn to adjust as the light changes. A lot of the time, you can nail the exposure instinctively, and with film, you have a lot of latitude, especially with b&w films like Tri-X. With digital, the LCD screen has alleviated a lot of the need for a meter. For static work like still life or landscape, why not use a meter? It doesn't really have to be a dedicated one though. Particularly if you are using the zone system right through your workflow (capture, develop, print).

The best way to see this is find a white wall, set the colour space to B&W (colour might also work but B&W is the best).
Take a reading of the wall, take a shot.
Take a reading with a Grey card, take the shot.
Turn both images into B&W images in photoshop and the first will show up as middle grey, the second will show the Grey card as middle Grey, the wall white.

Yes that will happen, of course the camera doesn't know what it is pointing at. But you will learn to compensate for that, even subconsciously over time. There is no reason why you can't use a camera's relfective meter becasue of a scenario like that. Most of the time, the camera's meter won't need compensation - hence this is why meters are calibrated at 18% grey (I know that is debatable). The average scenes luminance is just that. But you have a type of grey card with you at all time. Meter the back of your hand, and compare the difference with a grey card (everyone's skin is different). Now you know that if you add the compensation to your spot meter's reading, then you should get 18% grey - no need to carry a grey card, or at least it will do in the absence of one.

[arthurking83]

.... The difference is over a stop with a lens like the Canon 100/2.8 Macro. Of course you can learn the quirks of each and every meter and lens that you own but there simply isn't any need to.....

JJ

That's apparently because the Canon version doesn't display or relay the correct aperture info at macro(or close up) distances.
Not wanting to start a N vs C war but the Nikon version does, and it drops as far as f/4.8 at about 1:2 or thereabouts.

But the other thing to note is that every lens may have real different aperture values as opposed to the indicated(or marked) values.

Eg. many f/2.8 lenses may in fact be more like f/2.92 or so(and I think the Tammy 90/2.8 is??) coupled to a little known fact that some lenses apertures are not as precise as the manufacturers make them out to be(be weary of kit lenses!) or can become sticky over time ... I see no reason to believe a virtual reading(external light meter) over an actual reading(histogram).

If anyone can prove the opposite to be true, it'd make for an interesting tutorial.
(Since I have no need for a light meter, I'm not in any position to prove or disprove anything).. only that WB can make a difference.

[TOM]

There seems to be a misconception that digital sensors work the same way as film used too.

Film does still work AK

[arthurking83]

LOL!

I know!.. I stuffed my last roll up tho... I need to find a better film processing lab first.. and I in need of a film scanner that costs next to nothing. the digital scans they supplied are woeful... even my flatbed scanner could have done a better job of them, but it can't connect to Win7!.. no drivers and I suspect that many old banger slide scanners may also die with the newer Windoze version?

[dowden photography]

and when you all overexpose an image I'm sure you'll say "I'll get it right in photoshop"

[arthurking83]

LOL!

And in reply: that's part of the reason I prefer to use my camera's meter and the histogram. It doesn't lie.


well... mine doesn't at least, so I'm not sure what brand of camera or what software you prefer to use, so that could be a telling factor.

Sometime later today I'll post up one of my new "big loads of rubbish" to help you understand how the histogram never lies(1)


author reference notes:
(1) the assumption is made that this condition can be variable, dependent on software used to view, process and convert the images

[Kym]

and when you all overexpose an image I'm sure you'll say "I'll get it right in photoshop"

I think AK's point was to not just use the full histogram but also the tri-colour histogram.

This point got buried in the thread noise.

If you use a tri-colour histogram - you will get a spot on exposure.
http://www.luminous-landscape.com/co...exposure.shtml

[ricktas]

Considering this was a thread about lightmeter usage for LANDSCAPES, I am not sure how we got Studio work in the mix, they are to very different genre

[Dwarak]

I think AK's point was to not just use the full histogram but also the tri-colour histogram.

This point got buried in the thread noise.

If you use a tri-colour histogram - you will get a spot on exposure.
http://www.luminous-landscape.com/co...exposure.shtml

Thanks kym only recently I have learnt about histograms and been able to understand them the 7d does have the three color channel histogram lucky for me. Thanks for all your comments will try and use the light meter for portraits cannot fiddle around with it when we are loosing light fast rather take the trial and error approach take the shot not happy compensate and retake.

Just need to know how to work out the correct exposure after taking the meter readings. If I am shooting in av mode and here I can only see the change in the shutter speed when I focus on different points in the scene how do I then calculate the right shutter speed for my exposure do I calculate the average shutter speed.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Dwarak]

Considering this was a thread about lightmeter usage for LANDSCAPES, I am not sure how we got Studio work in the mix, they are to very different genre

Thanks for pointing out this I guess it just got sidetracked. But I have learnt a great deal from the replies most appreciated.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[jjphoto]

Considering this was a thread about lightmeter usage for LANDSCAPES, I am not sure how we got Studio work in the mix, they are to very different genre

It has nothing to do with the OP's question but is just in relation to one of the replies about using strobes and meters.

Macro lenses have nothing to do with shooting landscapes either, at least not at close focus distances, but the way lenses transmit light at different focusing distances potentially does.

JJ

[ricktas]

It has nothing to do with the OP's question but is just in relation to one of the replies about using strobes and meters.

Macro lenses have nothing to do with shooting landscapes either, at least not at close focus distances, but the way lenses transmit light at different focusing distances potentially does.

JJ

Agree, not a problem, just wanted to get this back on track. If we want to discuss lightmeters and studio setup, probably the strobist forum would be more suited as lighting in studio can be very complex, meaning this thread could deviate even more from its intended discussion, that's all.

[Steve Axford]

and when you all overexpose an image I'm sure you'll say "I'll get it right in photoshop"

Yep. And it happens quite a lot with macro photography. It may just be a small highlight, but being able "to get it right" is invaluable. I must say that the colour or the subject sometimes seems to stuff up the meter reading, particularly with reds. Still, that ability to "get it right" after the event makes a huge difference. Anyway, the "correct" exposure may be so far down the scale that I would lose shadow detail, so I have learnt to accept a bit of post processing recovery.

[arthurking83]

.... but the way lenses transmit light at different focusing distances potentially does.

JJ

and also the glass elements used in the various lenses, brands of lenses, the lens's ability to control aberrations, etc, etc...

First I want to show the differences between the same image as displayed by two different software manufacturers.
Because I only use Nikon, I use Nikon specific software and now I'm trialling Bibble5(but it's about to go bung on me any second now as the trial expires today!)
Bibble and LR3 have the same degree of differences to how Nikon's software displays the image/histogram and ultimately the exposure you see on your PC.

I took a pseudo landscape image of some grass:

DSC_0605.jpg

I took a photo of the camera's display screen and the image I saw on the PC via ViewNX(Capture NX has some subtle differences, but for all intents and purposes the same as ViewNX)
The two images look basically the same on the camera's review LCD and on the PC but slightly brighter on the camera. I adjusted the D300's LCD to -2(out of +- 3 levels of adjustment) and it looks the same enough. The important point is that exposure is dead bang on target as per the camera via ViewNX histograms are the same identical shape in all three colours and the grey(white) graph. Apologies for the rank photo of a blurry camera LCD tho(I'm a little rushed today).

Note I only shoot using the Standard Picture Control(camera enhancement) with all tweaks zero'ed out. If I want camera enhancements 'in camera', I prefer to use them via the PC software... advantages of shooting raw, and I suspect that other manufacturers software allows the same ability for their respective raw files.

Bibble's idea of how the image looks:

Bibble histogram_DSG_1860_01.JPG
I wouldn't call that rendition anywhere near the same as the camera, Nikon ViewNX, and also FastStone's FSViewer!... in any respect. Neither colour, contrast, brightness, or sharpness look anything like the image I wanted from the camera, and that's Bibble's fault.. but without trying to blame Bibble as an isolated case, as I've seen the same results using LR3 and years ago PSCS2(via ACR.. whatever version I had back then). Bibble tells me both on screen and via the histogram that the image needs either a colour boosting or some exposure adjustment (-ve something). The histogram is completely different!
yet FSViewer shows the exact same histogram as does the camera and Nikon's software.
that's because it displays the embedded jpg image in the raw file.

ps. Bibble is very very fast at processing/conversion(that was my only interest in it)

These results should be different if you shoot a raster format(jpg or tiff) in camera, and most likely looking more similar across different software.
I haven't converted any of the images to jpg yet to load them into Bibble5 to see if there are any differences.

I also took two snaps in fully controlled light in my back room, and the Nikon 105VR macro lens at f/4 required 1/1.6s for the same exposure that required 1/2.5s without changing any other variables when using the Tammy 300/2.8. The Nikon 105VR is 2/3Ev slower than the Tammy300. both exposures are similar with the Tammy shot looking approx 1/6th brighter, but in effect with less contrast than the Nikon lens produced.

Add a polariser into the mix(very common for landscapes!) and any other type of filter used for balancing/controlling light, and the light meter quickly becomes a PITA for speedy work rates.

[arthurking83]

..... The Minolta Colour Temp meter comes in handy at times.

....

JJ

do you find it close to 100% accurate?
ie. is it worth the $

Thom Hogan suggested using one instead of a grey card to preset WB as it's usually more accurate, and I'm a cheapskate and only got myself a grey card!

How much do you reckon they're generally worth?

Thom also specifically mentions the Minolta brand too, and now that's a meter I'd be interested in.

[jjphoto]

do you find it close to 100% accurate?
ie. is it worth the $

Thom Hogan suggested using one instead of a grey card to preset WB as it's usually more accurate, and I'm a cheapskate and only got myself a grey card!

How much do you reckon they're generally worth?

Thom also specifically mentions the Minolta brand too, and now that's a meter I'd be interested in.

I think Colour Temp Meter is potentially as difficult to use as any other meter so it takes a lot of getting used to and learning what it is actually telling you. I only ever used it for a 'ball park' guide when shooting slide film at sunset or in the shade where the colour temp would vary WILDLY, especially just after the sun has set. Picking the colour temp after the sun has set is very difficult regardless of how much experience you have, and I used to do it all the time. If in doubt, use an 85C, was my MO.

Re accuracy, I don't know but I hardly ever used it where the light wasn't changing constantly so it's hard to judge. I think Colour Temp Meters are virtually irrelevant these days as a RAW file is so easy to tweek. The only time I think they are still handy is when gel-ing lights to match existing lighting (a situation where a RAW file won't help you at all).

I also think that accuracy can be over rated. Some thing can be innacurate but look good or the other way around. Of course there are times when accuracy is critical such as when shooting clothes or art work for example.

JJ