Sekonic Light Meter

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by zen

What an excellent thread-instructional session on reading light. This is why I continue to belong to CiC and read it daily. Thank you all for your expertise and your willingness to share it with others.

Zen:o

---

I'm looking at a laptop with a horrible screen. But I would think that if the kids are in the shadow, the kids should be in the shadow in the image too. Now they're much to light. You killed the power of the framing by trying the kids to be the main subject.

George

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rpcrowe

Most problems mentioned in postings regarding exposure problems might be solved by using AEB. Especially when shooting with Canon DSLR cameras. . .
I don't really see anything negative in using my Canon 7D2 in this way. Memory is cheap and the 7D2 has a large buffer.
I certainly don't shoot all my shots in AEB, but it is a viable technique when exposures are chancy.

---

Yep. Agree.

When travel (on holidays) I figure that I am “off duty” and I want to relax with my camera in my hand ‘always’ have my Canon DLSR set to ±⅔ Stop; in tough lighting scenarios I increase that to ±1⅓Stops.

It is not about the >90% of the shots that I nail correctly: it is all about the 3% that I would have (in my opinion) got terribly wrong, if I had not used that safety-net.

Nothing wrong with using technology and no need to look down upon those who do (I have not a good grasp of the prevalence of such, but I personally haven’t really noticed a lot of bad press about using AEB)

WW

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by xpatUSA

. . .
I think you would benefit from reading and understanding this:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exposu...xposure_values

---

Yes, I agree that a good intro for Evert(?) to the F/16 Rule and some related exposure evaluations.

Exposure Evaluations is topic destined for obscurity, sadly. (gosh I have to stop inverting my sentences to imply some added emotion).

WW

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by William W

Yes, I agree that a good intro for Evert(?) to the F/16 Rule and some related exposure evaluations.

Exposure Evaluations is topic destined for obscurity, sadly. (gosh I have to stop inverting my sentences to imply some added emotion).

WW

---

You sure do, unfortunately.....:eek: I hardly ever do it, actually....:)

^ Hilarious.

Exposure compensation is something I always do in tough lighting conditions as well.

With Nikon, when I set the camera to fast burst mode, it will take the shots (I generally shoot three), it will take the shots all in a row and then stop. This gives me a good chance of getting a good single shot image, but also offers me the option of three shots that I can easily align in Photoshop. Using layer masks and the brush tool I can "pseudo dodge and burn" using data from two or three frames. This gives me a well exposed image where the shadow detail and highlights are easy to blend together and create a better looking image than one that comes from a single exposure.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Evertking

You seem to know what your doing.
I'm very new to photography and I have included a photo from today. It's frustrating, I know and see the image that I want to make in my head but I can't get through the camera and then on print!! I'm sure you been here before. Any advice? More practice and more practice? For an example... I seen rich colors and a long sweeping tree branch framing the image. But this is what I got! Lol... I'm sure better outfit and color harmony and strobes would have helped. But it's the open sky in the background too, am I right? Any advice? I just see pictures in my head but I can't get them any further than that.
This was shot with a Canon 6d and a 135L

---

You will probably come across comments about shooting in the golden hour to avoid problems that you have with that shot. They are times of the day when lighting is more even. Overcast days can be better in this respect as well.

When you look at a scene that you are about to shoot there is a need to realise that the camera wont see what you can see. Our eyes have an enormous dynamic range and will even adjust on the fly as we look around. A more usual problem is the camera seeing shadows that you couldn't see but the same thing happens in the higher light ranges as well. The camera sees the lot in one go and can't adjust to differing brightness levels across a view. When that is a problem PP has to take care of it.

It looks to me like you metered on the children. It's pretty correct but looks very slightly under exposed to me. There could be reason why that could be worse - maybe there were clouds moving about in the sky. It probably meters for mid grey. Must admit I had my days with light meters on film and for general outdoor shooting don't rate them at all. Better exposures could be obtained by looking at the suggestions on the side of the packet the film came in. Certain makes of camera could make an even better job providing the metering was done on the correct part of the view. That might not be entirely on the main subject. In camera metering has moved on a lot since then but biasing the metering in a camera via the view can still be useful but it is an added complication. It might be useful if the camera happens to mainly concentrate on a subject.

These days cameras meter in a number of places in a view and do their best to get what it detects into a jpg straight out of the camera. They may even detect a subject and pay most attention to that. Personally for general outdoor use in mixed conditions I would suggest you stick with the camera metering and forget that it can probably use spot or centre weighted average. It's likely to do a much better job than a separate meter can. Then you need to know your camera and get a feel for what lighting conditions are likely to do and maybe use exposure compensation if you feel it's needed. Taking the shot of the children for instance the camera metering it's very probably going to produce an image where the area under the tree is much darker than the eye view. At iso 200 bring that up in PP probably wont be a problem but without using the camera it's hard to be sure or what it would make of the rest of the scene. I'd guess that with most cameras it would produce something that could be pp'd to a reasonable level.

If your using the original 6D and not the MKII there are a couple of things that you could do to help make the preview more useful. There is an HTP setting that extends the jpg highlight end by 1 stop but bear in mind this may leave no extra at all in raw or very little of it. There is also a setting to auto brighten darker areas in jpg's - auto lighting optimiser. It activates on back lit subjects if the camera thinks that is needed. To be meaningful these should be applied to the preview and the blinkies. There is also a setting that extends the dark end a touch. Maybe a 1/3 of a stop. The settings that extend are the camera curves Bill referred to. It's also worth noting that it looks like this camera uses fake iso's below 200. Dpreview's review of the camera gives plenty of detail on this area but probably doesn't suggest how they could be used by raw shooters. Sadly they don't do that style of review any more maybe due to complaints from the manufacturers.

John
-

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ajohnw

. . . If your using the original 6D . . . [etc. to the end of para.]

---

That's high quality detailed data apropos the functionality of the 6D: I've filed that.
I haven't used a 6D and my comments were mainly generic, across the EOS DSLR System.
Thanks for all that added detail re the 6D, specifically. (noted already some of those functions appear in various other models too).
Thanks again.

WW

Evert might find this thread of interest:

Incident Light Meter - where to point it?

I posted it shortly after buying an old Sekonic L-398.

For shooting kids outside in his yard, Evert might consider placing the lightmeter at a kids cheek but facing the source of the light (a no-no in some people's books).

In so doing, the dome passes more light to the lightmeter's sensor which would dutifully recommend less exposure - which could well work for that particular scene but not necessarily for all scenes. Norwood would turn in his grave . . .

http://camera-wiki.org/wiki/Norwood_Director

In the case of the kids under the tree, one could have just as well have laid the lightmeter on the nearby grass and that would have made George happy, I reckon . . ;)

In this age of point-and-shoot expectations especially from high-end DSLRs, the art of assessing a scene (before pushing the button) in order to determine what compensation is required for any meter's recommendation is beginning to fade in popularity, methinks.

Apropros of the above rant, Ollinger says:

"All light meters do the same thing: they measure the amount of light that falls on the photocell. It's up to the photographer to interpret it into something meaningful." (my emph.)

http://www.jollinger.com/photo/meter...-article1.html

Enjoy the links.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by xpatUSA

. . . In this age of point-and-shoot expectations especially from high-end DSLRs, the art of assessing a scene (before pushing the button) in order to determine what compensation is required for any meter's recommendation is beginning to fade in popularity . . .

---

ergo, the popularity of:

"just fix it in post"

WW

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by xpatUSA

Evert might find this thread of interest:

Incident Light Meter - where to point it?

I posted it shortly after buying an old Sekonic L-398.

For shooting kids outside in his yard, Evert might consider placing the lightmeter at a kids cheek but facing the source of the light (a no-no in some people's books).

In so doing, the dome passes more light to the lightmeter's sensor which would dutifully recommend less exposure - which could well work for that particular scene but not necessarily for all scenes. Norwood would turn in his grave . . .

http://camera-wiki.org/wiki/Norwood_Director

In the case of the kids under the tree, one could have just as well have laid the lightmeter on the nearby grass and that would have made George happy, I reckon . . ;)

In this age of point-and-shoot expectations especially from high-end DSLRs, the art of assessing a scene (before pushing the button) in order to determine what compensation is required for any meter's recommendation is beginning to fade in popularity, methinks.

Apropros of the above rant, Ollinger says:

"All light meters do the same thing: they measure the amount of light that falls on the photocell. It's up to the photographer to interpret it into something meaningful." (my emph.)

http://www.jollinger.com/photo/meter...-article1.html

Enjoy the links.

---

And the light meter can archive only ONE value that will be used to calculate the camera settings in such a way that that value will be placed somewhere in the middle of the histogram, depending on how the light meter is callibrated.

It's not clear what the subject of the picture is. Is it the kids or is it the composition? When it's the composition the kids are overexposed. They sit in the shadow and should stay there. When the subject is the kids he would always get blinkies with this shot. There is now way to correct that with one shot and no pp.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by george013

And the light meter can archive only ONE value that will be used to calculate the camera settings in such a way that that value will be placed somewhere in the middle of the histogram, depending on how the light meter is callibrated.

---

I don't like that as a rule.

And I certainly would not recommend it in any way whatsoever.

WW

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by William W

I don't like that as a rule.

And I certainly would not recommend it in any way whatsoever.

WW

---

It seem to be more of a reference to reflective metering (as found in-camera) than it is to incident light-metering.

What's missing, as I implied earlier, is the application of human intelligence to any scene, metered by whatever means.

Adams proposed his Zone system to address such thinking - but it's just too technical for today's run-of-the-mill photographers. Nevertheless, scene lighting values remain, due to pure physics and that can not be ignored.

All of the above from one who has yet to produce a stunning image of any kind . . :(

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by William W

I don't like that as a rule.

And I certainly would not recommend it in any way whatsoever.

WW

---

I believe it's how it works.That value the light meter is using can be taken from just one measurement or the result of more measurements like a matrix metering. But what comes out is just one value that's used to calculate the camera settings so the amount of light is corrected for the sensors/film sensitivity. And that will be placed somewhere in the middle of the diagram. The trick with the black, gray and white cat.

Ted has responded too and he mentions the difference between ambient and reflective light. Even when metering ambient light the light meter is calculating it back to reflective light assuming an average reflection if 18% when it's callibrated for that value. Or it doesn't calculate it back, there is a filter before the sensor.

George

The intrinsic issue I have with your suggestion is placing the Light Meter's reading somewhere in the middle of the Histogram . . .

For example

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by george013

. . . what comes out is just one value that's used to calculate the camera settings so the amount of light is corrected for the sensors/film sensitivity. And that will be placed somewhere in the middle of the diagram [histogram?].

---

And what happens if I am using the Light Meter to measure the HIGHLIGHT of a scene?

And I place that Light meter's reading in the middle of the histogram.

WW

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by george013

I believe it's how it works.That value the light meter is using can be taken from just one measurement or the result of more measurements like a matrix metering. But what comes out is just one value that's used to calculate the camera settings so the amount of light is corrected for the sensors/film sensitivity. And that will be placed somewhere in the middle of the diagram. The trick with the black, gray and white cat.

Ted has responded too and he mentions the difference between ambient and reflective light. Even when metering ambient light the light meter is calculating it back to reflective light assuming an average reflection if 18% when it's callibrated for that value. Or it doesn't calculate it back, there is a filter before the sensor.

George

---

For those that may be confused by George's response, this is well worth reading:

http://dougkerr.net/Pumpkin/articles...e_Metering.pdf
.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by William W

And what happens if I am using the Light Meter to measure the HIGHLIGHT of a scene?

And I place that Light meter's reading in the middle of the histogram.

WW

---

Good question - ask one of your students...:) .......bad case of ETTL

Here is a brief explanation of the zone system.

For anyone who can't follow the basic concepts in it I suggest that an exposure meter is going to be more decorative than useful. If you do understand it, also understand the metering options and histogram on your camera you will probably decide that for most photography an auxiliary exposure meter will just needlessly slow you down.


P.S. I am excluding flash meters and specialised studio work etc from the above comment.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by pnodrog

. . . For anyone who can't follow the basic concepts in it [The Zone System] I suggest that an exposure meter is going to be more decorative than useful. If you do understand it, also understand the metering options and histogram on your camera you will probably decide that for most photography an auxiliary exposure meter will just needlessly slow you down. . .I am excluding flash meters and specialised studio work etc from the above comment.

---

Concur.

I would add that an understanding and the skills for the practical application of the "F/16 Rule" and its extrapolations for the various daytime scenarios, would fall into much the same category.

WW

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by William W

The intrinsic issue I have with your suggestion is placing the Light Meter's reading somewhere in the middle of the Histogram . . .

For example



And what happens if I am using the Light Meter to measure the HIGHLIGHT of a scene?

And I place that Light meter's reading in the middle of the histogram.

WW

---

What you measure comes in the middle of the histogram. Like the white cat.
I don't know how you will place the ligbt meters reading in the middld of the histogram.
Unless you mean somethi g as EC.
George