Slowing Down

[shreds]

After many many years I finally caved in and bought a quality light meter.

In this day and age, surely unnecessary unless you are working in a studio with an art director who is continually using one as a creative crutch.

When I was very young I disappointedly ran off a whole film....yes 24 exposures.... That came back underexposed from the lab because of the tree cover in the location.

Years ago we just used to take a guess dependent on whether it was sunny or cloudy. Then when I used to go with a group of friends one guy would bark out to the group "f8 at 1/125th"

I later had a camera with a magical needle to read the exposure and became pretty good at compensating for other conditions.

Fast forward to the digital era whereby many photographers dismiss the need for a light meter as they can " take another shot" ..... True but you end up spray gunning everything.

So having decided it was no longer a luxury I invested and the surprising side effect is that apart from getting very accurate readings in all manner of situations, I have found that it has slowed me down and given more clarity to the whole process. I have gone back to the time where I do genuinely stop and take longer to get the shot but I find I am therefore getting more keepers and a certain satisfaction in that composition.

I suppose it is a two way street and either approach works.

I was with a couple of pro photographers the other day who took the opposite view, but then again one of them insisted that P mode was right too. (He is a great photographer and for his work and way of working he was not necessarily wrong), but I did all of the same shots in M mode and we both achieved much the same results.

But I am certainly a convert to light meters for some situations, if for nothing else than slowing down and returning to a more enjoyable way of taking a picture, than just "grabs" to post on Facebook within seconds of taking it.

Am I wrong or just craving a nostalgia for an age that has gone?

[IzzieK]

No...you are not wrong. You want to achieve the best, then slow down...it is similar to life -- without stopping to smell the flowers you end up all tense and thinking erratically at times, forgetting something, being angry and all that crap hitting at you are thicker than usual. Exercising the mind is important but do it slowly, one inch at a time, one small step at a time, etc. I am glad you went back to your experiences and compare the results from what you have now achieved with your photography than what you used to do before. In most of my shots, when I have to do a lot of editing, the realization comes back to me about how I could have shot the image better with less editing -- the answer : slow down. Tripod: check. ISO: check. Shutter Speed: check. Aperture: check...composition....

[Shadowman]

You won't get agreement on everything you do, best to try what works for you and measure the outcome based on your criteria.

[mknittle]

The benefit from slowing down is definitely seeing more. I think we all could use some of that.

[DanK]

two different questions: slowing down, and an incident light meter.

Re slowing down: it's all a matter of personal taste and style, but I completely agree with you. Digital makes it all to easy (read, all too cheap) to shoot first and think later.

Re an incident light meter: if it works for you, great. I don't personally find that I need one. I have been using in-camera reflective metering since I bought a Canon FTb in 1971 or so, and I am very comfortable with it. It has different properties, and you have to use it somewhat differently, but it works for me. My view is that the key is careful metering before shooting, and one should do that with whatever tool one finds most helpful.

[rpcrowe]

Ian wrote, "I was with a couple of pro photographers the other day who took the opposite view, but then again one of them insisted that P mode was right too. (He is a great photographer and for his work and way of working he was not necessarily wrong), but I did all of the same shots in M mode and we both achieved much the same results."

Here's my take on the situation:

IMO, the mark of a good/great photographer is the quality of the images produced - not how that photographer produces the image or what equipment is being used.

I remember quite a few years ago, there was a display of photographs from combat operations in Iraq (I think) that were really excellent. The photographer used an Olympus 5050Z point and shoot and shot in Programmed mode. Many "experts" would look down their noses at his equipment and technique - but, he was a very good photojournalist: as evidenced by the quality of imagery he produced...

[Manfred M]

It really depends on the shooting situation;slowing down for action shots is probably not a good plan.

I do own a hand-held lightmeter (Sekonic L-358; technically a flash meter) and I do use it almost exclusively for studio work. I have an reflective metering attachment and as well as a 1° spot meter attachment (also reflective light). I can't imagine doing a multi-light studio light setup any other way. The main reason for the 1° spot meter attachment is to see how much light I get off the background in my flash work.

As a pure reflective meter, it is far less useful and far less accurate than the camera's built in metering system. If I use the standard reflective light metering head, it gives me a single 54° measurement; as compared to my camera's 91,000 pixels that matches the focal length I am shooting, plus of course multiple meter modes. I can't think of a single case as to why I would use my handheld light meter in standard reflective mode over the camera's for normal reflective metering.

I could (but haven't) used the incident light meter or the 1° spot meter attachment for existing light shooting.

I find shooting with a tripod is my preferred method of "slowing down" when I shoot.

[William W]

I have two Gossen Lunasix meters which I keep for nostalgic reasons.

We all work differently, that's always fascinated me.

I have a Sekonic, but different to Manfred, I probably use my Sekonic more for Spot Meter Readings than as a Flash Meter or an Incident Meter. I haven't found a Camera's TTL Meter that comes anywhere near close to the accuracy of an hand held "Spot Meter" and for quite a bit of the stuff I do, I like working that way: and if it is static or controlled work, taking spot meter readings and then computing the exposure really does make one "stop and take longer to get the shot". And I like working that way that because I am, a lot of the time, a JPEG SOOC fan.

*

I am confused about the meaning of the anecdote of your friend using P Mode and you using M Mode.

Because, whether he used "P" and you used "M": for an exposure outcome that is mostly irrelevant - IF you were both using the Camera's TTL Meter.

The functionality between "P" and "M" is different, but in most (all?) modern DSLR's, both Camera Modes "P" and "M" allow exactly the same amount of and type of exposure control.

However, your meaning might have been that you were using M Mode with your Hand Held Light Meter and your friend was using the camera's TTL Meter, and it was an incidental fact that he likes to use P Mode?

WW

[William W]

I find shooting with a tripod is my preferred method of "slowing down" when I shoot.

!

[Manfred M]

I haven't found a Camera's TTL Meter that comes anywhere near close to the accuracy of an hand held "Spot Meter".

+1 Bill. The 1° spot meter attachment on my Sekonic gives me a far tighter view than the spot meter on my camera (which according to the manual is 4% of the total viewfinder area). I just haven't found that I use it that often, other than when setting up studio flash and I'm looking for the light intensity and distribution on my background.