Light meter for landscapes

[arthurking83]

I had a quick search about and found that the old Minolta Color II is selling for approximately US$500 now.

The current gen Minolta CL-200 is listed on a few USA base sites for US$3K!

They only do colour temp measurement.

On the other hand!
The Sekonic C-500 is selling for approx $1K. It's a lot money for the two times(so far) that I've found myself scratching my head re colour temp for a given scene.
Considering the ability to measure light for specific colour channels, I'd prefer the added expense of a colour meter over a standard light meter even if the colour meter was more than twice the price!

[dowden photography]

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

I don't need your help to understand a histogram, nor did I need to see your "latest" for you to prove a point.
Yes you can read a histogram, yes you can try to judge a shot on that, but it will always need PP to fix the changes in the light. Light changes within seconds, thats why you'll see "photographers" taking 5 or 6 readings before shooting. Not just shooting checking a histogram and then saying "oh I think it needs 2 extra stops."

The histograms on cameras can lie, and are about 90 to 95% right, meaning what you camera is telling you could be wrong.

As for what camera I use a Sony/Minolta, Sony make the sensors/chips for Nikon not that cameras matter, its the photographer, not the gear and software I use Aperture, but I get it right the first time and in camera because I use a light meter.

I got these figures from trainers at a leading photo imaging college & the canon rep at my part time job.

[arthurking83]

....

Yes you can read a histogram, yes you can try to judge a shot on that, but it will always need PP to fix the changes in the light. Light changes within seconds, thats why you'll see "photographers" taking 5 or 6 readings before shooting. Not just shooting checking a histogram and then saying "oh I think it needs 2 extra stops."

.... its the photographer, not the gear and software I use Aperture, but I get it right the first time and in camera because I use a light meter.

I got these figures from trainers at a leading photo imaging college & the canon rep at my part time job.

Sorry dude! as I read your answers.... they're wrong answers!

Are we now we're talking video here? Changes in light will really only affect an image at very long exposures and the camera can usually take care of that anyhow if you use the correct mode.
I've never had any issue exposing an image and during that exposure the changes in light have had any affect on the image.
With video, yes.. but with most of my images up to approx 2 seconds any changes in light have never been a problem. And I do primarily shoot landscapes, where light changes all the time.

Firstly you said: but it will always need PP to fix the changes

Secondly you said: but I get it right the first time and in camera because I use a light meter
(and going by your current gallery, I find that statement rather hard to believe!)

So which is it?

you want us to believe(and based on what premise/level of experience?) that by using the light meter, the histogram is going to subsequently be more accurate? Is this what your argument is?

I'm sure whatever you're on... it's the wrong stuff!

I'm just glad I haven't wasted money on trainers to teach me guff like that!

The image I posted for the sake of your clarification was shot without the use of a lightmeter and, as categorically stated, using only the histogram on the review screen provided by the camera, which was confirmed by the correct software, even tho the incorrect software deemed it to be incorrect... and thus requiring PP(as you said).
Which software would be inclined to trust.

As I said.. you're on the wrong stuff.. but thanks for your comments anyhow, I think your comments have allowed many of us an insight into something that we've only suspected .... until now.



.... is this another fried chicken in the making ?

[dowden photography]

Sorry dude! as I read your answers.... they're wrong answers!

Are we now we're talking video here? Changes in light will really only affect an image at very long exposures and the camera can usually take care of that anyhow if you use the correct mode.
I've never had any issue exposing an image and during that exposure the changes in light have had any affect on the image.
With video, yes.. but with most of my images up to approx 2 seconds any changes in light have never been a problem. And I do primarily shoot landscapes, where light changes all the time.

Firstly you said: but it will always need PP to fix the changes

Secondly you said: but I get it right the first time and in camera because I use a light meter
(and going by your current gallery, I find that statement rather hard to believe!)

So which is it?

you want us to believe(and based on what premise/level of experience?) that by using the light meter, the histogram is going to subsequently be more accurate? Is this what your argument is?

I'm sure whatever you're on... it's the wrong stuff!

I'm just glad I haven't wasted money on trainers to teach me guff like that!

The image I posted for the sake of your clarification was shot without the use of a lightmeter and, as categorically stated, using only the histogram on the review screen provided by the camera, which was confirmed by the correct software, even tho the incorrect software deemed it to be incorrect... and thus requiring PP(as you said).
Which software would be inclined to trust.

As I said.. you're on the wrong stuff.. but thanks for your comments anyhow, I think your comments have allowed many of us an insight into something that we've only suspected .... until now.



.... is this another fried chicken in the making ?

Really? going on what image or images?
Firstly have you sold any images to any gallery anywhere? Yes or no? well I have.
A seascape image, taken with a light meter reading, a HDR (the 17 shots were taken off a light meter reading), these two images sold at a show last month. Apart from the HDR there was no PP needed.


I was talking about the time it takes to read the histogram and then make the changes to shutter speed and aperture. A light reading would be one quicker, and 2 better.

As for the software, you are using the software from Nikon am I right? If so of cause its going to show you whats on the camera, it does on my sony camears when I open the sony software, it does it on canon cameras and it does it on Pentax cameras. These programs are designed to show you what the camera saw using the software built into the camera, open the images up in a program like Aperture, Lightroom or Photoshop RAW and it'll see what you would have seen on a grey card or light reading.
You see every camera will over or under expose an image. The in camera meter is always going to be off by up to 15%, they is going to show up in a histogram in programs such as PS, aperture or lightroom.



Secondly I was talking about your work will always need PP if you don't get a light reading, yes histograms do a good job, but they are nothing like the readings taken from a light meter or with a Grey card.

Now tell me what you've "only suspected" until now? I've starting to get a better understanding of forums in the last month or so, when people are wrong they have a go at someones work, You can think whatever you want, its your hobby.

As for wasting my money on school and trainers, at least I know what I'm doing and when push comes to shove, I know who will get hired, a hobby photgrapher or someone who has the training, the images and knows how to use a light meter.

[JM Tran]

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

LOL, nahhh I'll be alright. Experience comes to the fore, sometimes I know exactly the exposures and settings when I walk into a room, or outside. If I had to meter before every shot with a light meter, I would be out of business by now

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.
__________________

actually a 1/160th at f8 shot will have very dark backgrounds, compared to a shot at 1/10th f8, with a much better exposed and balance background to the main subject

I like hot and spicy fried chicken from KFC

[dowden photography]

I got this from Steven Chee, one of Australia's leading studio photographers, who I've assisted with.

"Aperture controls your exposure with flashes"

I'm finished on this subject, do or don't use a light meter I don't really care.

[I @ M]

Now tell me what you've "only suspected" until now? I've starting to get a better understanding of forums in the last month or so, when people are wrong they have a go at someones work, You can think whatever you want, its your hobby.

Well, as far as forums go, the advice that is given on them by posters ( that is you, me or Joe Blow ) really only ever gains any credibility when backed up by real life examples of the advisors work.

Quite simple really, if people consistently push a certain way of doing things but their images are purely crap then it is little wonder that others simply feel that the poster has it all wrong to start with.

[ricktas]

Now tell me what you've "only suspected" until now? I've starting to get a better understanding of forums in the last month or so...

Yet you stay and continue to post... and you own a photography forum yourself!

[ricktas]

I have banned a member who has been posting in this thread, after a PM was reported to me, where he attacked the other member for posting their views in this thread.

[TOM]

(the 17 shots were taken off a light meter reading)

do you meani that you took one meter reading, then bracketed, or did you actually meter 17 times for 17 frames? Chase Jarvis doesn't use a light meter, and I'm told he knows a thing or two about taking good pics.

[Paul T]

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

Hi team

Not really interested in WW3 only sharing opinions and information etc,so here is some more info to consider.

The histogram on ALL digital cameras (other than some high end cameras) is based on the JPEG setting in camera even if you are shooting RAW. This means that the histogram may be showing you that an image is overexposed, but may in fact be be up to 1 stop underexposed when you bring the image into a RAW converter.

The only (as far as I am aware) way of getting a truly representative camera histrogram is to use a Uni White Balance and a neutral curve in camera. The problem with this is that it throws the colours way out.

Yes a hand held meter doesn't take into account filters etc but that is a matter of the photographer being able to calculate the exposure differences when filters are used and where a hand held meter is used to take the readings.

Spot metering when using the Zone system correctly is extremely accurate and once you are used to it very fast.

Having said all this, beauty is in the eye of the holder and it doesn't matter what method of metering a person uses, it only matters that the persons is happy with their images.

Cheers

[TOM]

it's a fairly crude spot meter, but I also use my iPhone. I use the app called , and it works well for my medium format stuff that doesn't have a light meter. It won't replace my Sekonic, but at least it is always with me.

[Kym]

The histogram on ALL digital cameras (other than some high end cameras) is based on the JPEG setting in camera even if you are shooting RAW. This means that the histogram may be showing you that an image is overexposed, but may in fact be be up to 1 stop underexposed when you bring the image into a RAW converter.

Hence the earlier comment about tri-colour histograms. They let you get it right.

BTW Thanks for being ON topic!

[RaoulIsidro]

It's amazing how a great passion to a certain way of doing photography can bring about unpleasant circumstances.
I tend to avoid people who react to postings using the word: "Nope."

[Paul T]

Hence the earlier comment about tri-colour histograms. They let you get it right.

BTW Thanks for being ON topic!

Hi Kym

Thanks for the thanks.

My understanding with the Histogram, whether it is displaying the colour channels or the luminance channel, is that it is always displays the settings set for JPEGs. This in turn means that if the histogram colour channels are used and the expousre is bought as close to the right of the histogram without touching the right hand edge the exposure may be out by 1/2 to 1 stop depending upon the scene. Try it; shoot one image as per the histogram then another (same scene) as I describe below and see if you have more info to play with in the RAW converter. Pay particular attention to the red channel as it is the one which typically over exposes first.

When I am shooting I always shoot in RAW and if I am using my histogram I will allow the histogram ( I use the colour channel view) to just nudge over the right hand edge about 1/2 to 1 stop. (Just enough to get the blinkies going.) I watch the red channel like a hawk as explained above. So if the red channel is starting the 'blinkies" I will not add exposure.

When I then import into the RAW converter I have heaps of info to make sure my shadows aren't full of noise.


Cheers

[ricktas]

A poster in this thread also commented about always using a light meter and taking 5-6 readings before taking a shot. Now I have been a landscaper for years, and not once have I ever encountered a DSLR user, using a light meter. Makes me wonder where all the photographers are that the poster has encountered? Using film is completely different, especially medium or large format, and I always use my light meter. But I have also used the meter inside my DSLR to get a reading to set my medium format camera by, and it has been accurate.

[RaoulIsidro]

But I have also used the meter inside my DSLR to get a reading to set my medium format camera by, and it has been accurate.

I have done that too, on my F2AS (no cell, so no meter). It has a 50mm f1.4 AIS lens.
Whatever the reading on my 5D with a 50mm f1.4 USM gave, I applied to the F2 and it had good exposures on the Velvia! So in effect, my 5D was my "meter" for my F2...

[Xenedis]

A poster in this thread also commented about always using a light meter and taking 5-6 readings before taking a shot. Now I have been a landscaper for years, and not once have I ever encountered a DSLR user, using a light meter. Makes me wonder where all the photographers are that the poster has encountered?

No idea, but I predominantly shoot seascapes (mostly on a weekly basis), and when I've seen other photographers around, I've never seen anyone with a dedicated light meter.

But I have also used the meter inside my DSLR to get a reading to set my medium format camera by, and it has been accurate.

Like yourself, I use my DSLR's light meter, and to be honest, I've never felt it wasn't capable of the job. My results don't suggest to me that metering of light is a problem.

[Xenedis]

Firstly have you sold any images to any gallery anywhere?

That's completely irrelevant to the issue of metering light and exposing correctly.

I was talking about the time it takes to read the histogram and then make the changes to shutter speed and aperture. A light reading would be one quicker, and 2 better.

I would argue that the amount of time you spend stuffing around taking multiple readings from a light meter would be longer in duration than the extra second or two it would take, in the event that the first camera meter's reading was inherently wrong, to adjust the exposure value.

As for wasting my money on school and trainers, at least I know what I'm doing and when push comes to shove, I know who will get hired, a hobby photgrapher or someone who has the training, the images and knows how to use a light meter.

You do think rather highly of yourself, don't you?

You appear to be trying to suggest that a problem exists when it really doesn't.

The simple fact is that the light meters in DSLRs are quite accurate, and that the lack of a dedicated light meter doesn't put you on the road straight to the hell of incorrectly exposed images.

There are plenty of people successfully photographing 'scapes without dedicated light meters.

Feel free to use your dedicated light meter all you like, but be advised that the method of metering light that works for you is not The Authoritative Method That We All Most Obey.

Furthermore, do not suggest either indirectly or directly that anyone who doesn't use a dedicated light meter has got it all wrong and is an idiot. It's not the slightest bit convincing to those who know what they are doing.

For the record, I wouldn't hire you. Not because of the expert knowledge you're happy to profess you have, but because of the appallingly bad attitude you have displayed in this thread.

Happy shooting!

PS: To address your comment about attacking other people's photographic work, in my experience, the people on AP don't engage in that sort of thing; but when someone storms into a thread acting high and mighty, it is not unreasonable to expect that others will look at that person's work to see if he walks the walk as well as talking the talk.

[arthurking83]

for the sake of some other members that may or may not remember, but a few months back we had a member affectionately referred to as Fried Chicken, who felt the need to masquerade as a professional photographer with references from the top end of town such as the CEO of Rio Tinto, amongst others.
Just a little research revealed this member to be a 14yo living in one of Melbourne's most affluent suburbs!
Poor little rich kid with too much time on his hands.

My references to the ex member Dowden were to prove his point that his images are the result of only using a light meter and zero post processing(as he claimed)... which upon inspection of his gallery seemed to be at odds with those claims!

his personal attacks to both another member(and I thought it was going to be me! ), and subsequently Rick in his final correspondence, vindicates Ricks decision to ban him(actually agreed upon by mods)
AP is now better off without his bloated claims, of unproven worth.

We can only hope that another Fried Chicken doesn't happen to stumble upon AP too quickly now, and that some semblance of peace is maintained ... well at least until the outbreak of WW4!

and Xenedis!... his attitude in this thread is quite mild to lame, compared to the PM's to Rick and the other member!
I suspect that the anonymity of the internet is a major factor in his ability to find such strength in his own convictions!
I'd be interested in his attitude in real life tho