do i need a light/flashmeter

[jc450d]

Can a light/flashmeter give a more accurate reading than your camera?Going to try off camera flash would it give me flash settings?Would i be better spending my money else where?

 

[AlanSmithee]

I wouldn't say they are more accurate than what your camera actually sees. They don't have a histogram to look at. A flash meter is very handy when you have more than one flash and you want to set their relative strengths for ratios or shooting film. It will also give you a camera setting but ultimately don't you shoot a test shot and fine tune the camera's settings anyway? So with only a single off-camera flash, you could use its guide number to set the camera initially and pop a few test shots if you'd rather not buck up for one.

 

[EOS_JD]

A light meter will provide a more accurate incident reading as the Camera can only use reflective readings and often gets it wrong so exposure comp is required often. A light meter will provide accurate results of the light falling on your subject every time - no need for exposure compensation.

The camera can't meter for flash (except in ETTL). If using flash (not ETTL) then a meter will provide more accurate results (the camera cannot meter for flash like this - although you can shoot and adjust.

 

[HoppyUK]

A hand meter won't give you a better exposure. They are helpful if you're setting up multiple heads manually, but you can do that without, sometimes less easily, sometimes more easily. It's just convenience, preferred way of working.

Try it without a meter. Test, chimp, adjust - that's ultimately the most accurate way. Even when you've set everything up and all nicely balanced with a meter, you should always adjust the final overall level by checking the LCD/histogram/blinkies.

 

[Garry Edwards]

Relying on chimping is a bit like driving to a destination you don't know and hoping to get there by the shortest route without having to stop and ask the way a few times - you'll get there but relying on educated guesswork and luck isn't efficient.

Using a histogram is using guesswork to drive 95% of the way and then stopping to look at a map to find the street. You'll end up in the right place but it will take longer and you won't always go by the quickest route.

Using a flash meter is a bit like using a satnav. You still need to use common sense but you'll save time and avoid mistakes.

Me? I can read maps if the satnav breaks down, but I go for the satnav, every time.

 

[The23rdman]

Gary, that's an opinion not truth. Screens on the back of cameras are so good now that chimping works well enough for all but the most anal of us. It depends if you're an artist or technician really.

 

[Garry Edwards]

Gary, that's an opinion not truth. Screens on the back of cameras are so good now that chimping works well enough for all but the most anal of us. It depends if you're an artist or technician really.

That's an interesting view, especially as the best artists are usually excellent technicians too - art and technical competence/excellence are not incompatible.

The histogram provides good data (assuming that people don't rely on it when they've set their lights to blow out a white background) but is slow compared to a meter.

Chimping doesn't provide any data at all, it just provides subjective information that different people will see in different ways, and will in any case depend on the level of ambient viewing light. The problem with the human brain is that it just works too well, interpreting things and making compensations for what the eye actually sees.

Meters don't have a brain, they just meter, and the human with a brain then uses the information to get the best results

 

[Greenninja]

I started doing studio stuff about a year ago and last month got a flashmeter (an old Minolta Flashmeter III).

Flashmeter has reduced my setup time a lot - much more than I imagined.

Although I was pretty able guestimate settings and tune them in using a bunch of test shots, using a meter makes that job a whole lot easier. I found that in addition to freeing up setup time it allows you the scope to spend more time on positioning the lights (as you know you have enough of it, you can concentrate on putting it in the right place).

I've also found it's made me more effective at balancing my lighting - I'm no longer caught out as easily with holes in fill or stray shadows - It's like my brain is able to concentrate on the creative side rather than simply worrying about exposure.

Obviously with digital you can chimp (and should chimp often) - the lightmeter just makes life easier. I have to say the £50 I spent on mine was money well spent!

 

[paul williams]

Its just a tool and tools are designed to make work easier and I wouldn't even consider not using one - IMO it is essential. Yes, I could get by without one, but why would I want to, I believe in using the right tool for the right job.

Paul

 

[The23rdman]

That's an interesting view, especially as the best artists are usually excellent technicians too - art and technical competence/excellence are not incompatible.

The histogram provides good data (assuming that people don't rely on it when they've set their lights to blow out a white background) but is slow compared to a meter.

Chimping doesn't provide any data at all, it just provides subjective information that different people will see in different ways, and will in any case depend on the level of ambient viewing light. The problem with the human brain is that it just works too well, interpreting things and making compensations for what the eye actually sees.

Meters don't have a brain, they just meter, and the human with a brain then uses the information to get the best results

In the studio a lightmeter has merit, but on location the eye and chimping is good enough. You soon learn to get a feel for the light required. Relying on a light meter on location just hampers your progress. All IMO of course.

 

[gman]

I always use a light meter as you can take readings for each specific light source at any specific point on or around the subject. Isn't the histogram a bit too general as in it only shows the exposure of the whole shot and not any specific areas.

What if you were using a black background and wanted to reduce the light on one specific side of a person to almost complete darkness but not quite 100% dark. You could do this with a light meter very quickly but could you use a histogram to do this as there'd be so many readings coming from the dark background already?

 

[The23rdman]

I always use a light meter as you can take readings for each specific light source at any specific point on or around the subject. Isn't the histogram a bit too general as in it only shows the exposure of the whole shot and not any specific areas.

What if you were using a black background and wanted to reduce the light on one specific side of a person to almost complete darkness but not quite 100% dark. You could do this with a light meter very quickly but could you use a histogram to do this as there'd be so many readings coming from the dark background already?

Graham, I've already said in a studio environment a LM has merit. It has merit in the field too, but the OP asked if he'd be better spending his money elsewhere and I believe he would. He'll get much more out of buying some more modifiers than a light meter.

 

[The23rdman]

Maybe I'll buy one and see how much difference it makes.

 

[paul williams]

Maybe I'll buy one and see how much difference it makes.

Perhaps the division of opinion is as simple as that - the ones with light meters say they are beneficial and those that don't have them say you don't need them

Anyone got a Flash-meter but never uses it on the grounds they think it is better not too?

Paul

 

[The23rdman]

I've used one in the studio and found it very useful. Nobody is denying they are useful, but plenty people get by without one.

 

[gman]

Graham, I've already said in a studio environment a LM has merit. It has merit in the field too, but the OP asked if he'd be better spending his money elsewhere and I believe he would. He'll get much more out of buying some more modifiers than a light meter.

Sorry, I didn't pick up on that and was only focusing on the OP's question. I have to agree, I've never used a light meter outside but then I don't use any lights outside lol

 

[HoppyUK]

I'll probably upset a few people by saying that a flash meter is old school When we all used film and it had to be right first time, we needed every tool we could possibly get our hands on and a meter was absolutely central to that - incident readings, multiple spot readings, 20 mins with a pencil and paper etc - and a stack of Polaroids if possible.

But to a newcomer who has never used film, what is the relevance to them when you say that the fill light should be a stop down on the key light, or the background two stops down and the hair light one stop up? What does that actually mean, and why should they care when they can see the result for themselves on the LCD?

You have to learn to read the LCD, and it's two partners - the histogram and blinkies (highlight over exposure warning). The three in partnership. It's not difficult at all, I would say easier and more intuitive than learning to use a meter. The result is more accurate than a meter, because it is an actual exposure, not just a guess which is all a meter can ever be, based on a set of assumptions that do not always apply or might not even be accurate.

If you just set everything up with with an incident meter, you should get a very usable exposure - no doubt about that unless something is wrong. But it will not be optimum with digital. If I do that, I am almost always under exposed. I'll push the exposure another stop at least, usually between one and two stops, and with a very benign subject (read pretty dull ) maybe as much as three stops above the meter. The histogram and blinkies tells me I'm still safe, but I will have loaded the sensor with the maximum amount of data it can handle and as a result I have much more shadow detail and far less noise.

That is Expose To The Right technique, which you cannot do with a meter (as it is subject dependent, and the meter doesn't know anything about that) but you don't have to use the LCD/histogram/blinies in that way. You can play safe, which is what an incident meter reading does, and just go for a big lump in the middle. What the difference? :shrug:

I have a meter and usually use it for setting up in the studio - because I'm pretty old school and have a good idea of what I want as a starting point. It's easier. Then I chimp to fine tune the finished result. Best of both worlds I'd say.

I would also say, as I have done often enough, that the easiest way of getting a pure white background right is to set it off the LCD/blinkies. It's the best way of getting it even, and it's the most reliable way of ensuring it is only just clipping, and no more

At the end of the day, it's whatever works for you. But if I had to choose between have the LCD/histogram/blinkies, and taping over the LCD completely and using a meter.. well, no contest is it. Ultimately I don't care what the meter says, only what the image looks like.

 

[The23rdman]

I knew you'd come along and back me up, Richard.

 

[paul williams]

Yes, definitely old school here, just like when I work on my car - I still use the correct size spanners, but who needs a set of spanners when one mole-wrench will do

LCD/histogram/blinkies/chimping it all sounds just so juvenile

Its all about whatever works best for you and that's all that matters.

Paul

 

[HoppyUK]

I knew you'd come along and back me up, Richard.

Not that I'm sure you needed it. Don't let the dinosaurs sit on you. They can be very heavy

Yes, definitely old school here, just like when I work on my car - I still use the correct size spanners, but who needs a set of spanners when one mole-wrench will do

LCD/histogram/blinkies/chimping it all sounds just so juvenile

Its all about whatever works best for you and that's all that matters.

Paul

Light meter = crude monkey wrench; road map that gets you somewhere near.

LCD/histogram/blinkies = full set of custom tools; sat nav that takes you to the door.

 

[The23rdman]

Gary will be along in a minute to argue the toss.

 

[Richard King]

Can a light/flashmeter give a more accurate reading than your camera?Going to try off camera flash would it give me flash settings?Would i be better spending my money else where?

3 schools of thought on this

1. chimp, look at the lcd, look at the histograpm, bodge the settings untill it looks right

2. measure, record, make a note of the settings, adjust out and not again

3. combo of 1 & 2

If you do measure and record (in a notebook) then next time, you can re-preduce what you did. You also will be very intouch with the numbers. that means long term you will make less errors. Eventually you will walk out and go. F8, half power, and know it will be 99% right. You will spot that you left it on 800 ISO, because the numbers will feel wrong

Approach one really only works if you dont care about being uniform and learning what is really happening

I like to know if I meter the natural light, that my flash can add in 1 or 2 stops etc.. to know that, I need to be able to meter the natural light, and look at the numbers (you can use a camera to do this). Regularly using a flash/light meter lets you take creative decisions, knowing (instead of hoping) that XYZ will happen. What I found is that for some shots, a flash/ light meter is invaluable. Especially with OCF and especially if I am in a rush. I can take the Flash meter reading, and dial out or in the ambient from there

 

[Garry Edwards]

Gary will be along in a minute to argue the toss.

No I won't, I've already expressed my views, people can either accept them or reject them.

All that I know is that I need a flash meter, for the type of lighting that I do.

 

[Canon Bob]

......[snip]....You have to learn to read the LCD, and it's two partners - the histogram and blinkies (highlight over exposure warning). The three in partnership. It's not difficult at all, I would say easier and more intuitive than learning to use a meter. The result is more accurate than a meter, because it is an actual exposure, not just a guess which is all a meter can ever be, based on a set of assumptions that do not always apply or might not even be accurate.

Whilst I don't dispute what you're saying Richard, I do think it needs qualifying a little.

The displayed histogram and "blinkies" are representative of the embedded JPG and not the RAW file. If the customisation is set such that a picture style is selected or the contrast/brightness sliders have been adjusted then the histogram is false. Only using "Faithfull" with neutral sliders will get you a histogram that is close to the RAW file. Bump up the contrast slider and you'll see "blinkies" that are not clipped in RAW.

Bob

 

[paul williams]

Not that I'm sure you needed it. Don't let the dinosaurs sit on you. They can be very heavy



Light meter = crude monkey wrench; road map that gets you somewhere near.

LCD/histogram/blinkies = full set of custom tools; sat nav that takes you to the door.

Nope - you got those the wrong way round, but if that keeps it in your comfort zone it's OK. Me I've stated I'm in the other camp so AFAIK nothing more to discuss.

Paul

 

[HoppyUK]

Whilst I don't dispute what you're saying Richard, I do think it needs qualifying a little.

The displayed histogram and "blinkies" are representative of the embedded JPG and not the RAW file. If the customisation is set such that a picture style is selected or the contrast/brightness sliders have been adjusted then the histogram is false. Only using "Faithfull" with neutral sliders will get you a histogram that is close to the RAW file. Bump up the contrast slider and you'll see "blinkies" that are not clipped in RAW.

Bob

 

[EOS_JD]

In the studio I recon EVERY professional will use a light meter. Out on location perhaps not so important if not using flash but for me it's quicer than taking test shots and chimping.

I like to use a meter for flash and location work.

Gets you a great exposure in very quick time.

I appreciate Hoppy likes the ETTR method but for most shots it's unlikely that is actually required. We just need a correct exposure - LM gives that. ETTR ois not likely to be a correct exposure and will need work to correct - Yes you may get slightly more detail in the shadows but that is unlikely to be an issue for most shots.

THe fact is the LM gives a better result than the camera can on its own without photographer intervention.

You will also likely learn more about light by reading and setting the camera more too.

 

[The23rdman]

How does a LM teach you more about light? You become just as intuitive by chimping. Rarely do I have to make more than one adjustment on location. I am, however, prepared to put this to the test by buying a meter to test out.

 

[wooster]

This is a real opion divider. I'm pretty clear on where I stand although I know many don't agree. This is my tuppence worth anyway

LMs aren't essential but IMHO they make life an awful lot easier if you're using studio lighting. They allow for you to be consistent in your results and if you note what the exposure settings are for each element in the shot ( background, key, fill, hair etc ) they will allow you to reproduce that exact effect time after time. There is no other way of being able to do this.

Even if you note down strobe settings meticulously each time, the actual results will vary according to the distance from strobe to subject, background and colour of background etc.

Added to that, they are a lot quicker to set up your shot and more accurate. I don't want to spend my time faffing and guessing when I have a much better alternative readily available

I don't find chimping on a tiny LCD reliable or awfully accurate. Histograms are based not on the actual RAW information but on the camera's interpretation of that similar to a jpeg and no more useful.

Anyway as I say, my tuppence worth

 

[jockwav]

Now who is going to lend me a light meter to decide if i want one.:shrug:

 

[EOS_JD]

How does a LM teach you more about light? You become just as intuitive by chimping. Rarely do I have to make more than one adjustment on location. I am, however, prepared to put this to the test by buying a meter to test out.

By seeing where you are shooting you are given the exposure value and you get used to light levels. Using the camera in semi Auto you don't really need to worry about the numbers and by chimping you do one step more than is needed.

Set the exposure done rather than guess an exposure and check it test and check again and maybe again......

I appreciate that with experience chimping may become less but a LM does the job full stop. That's why alsmost every recognised pro uses one.

Even Zack Arias (who works a lot without one) will use one when he needs accurate exposure readings.

 

[EOS_JD]

This is a real opion divider. I'm pretty clear on where I stand although I know many don't agree. This is my tuppence worth anyway

LMs aren't essential but IMHO they make life an awful lot easier if you're using studio lighting. They allow for you to be consistent in your results and if you note what the exposure settings are for each element in the shot ( background, key, fill, hair etc ) they will allow you to reproduce that exact effect time after time. There is no other way of being able to do this.

Even if you note down strobe settings meticulously each time, the actual results will vary according to the distance from strobe to subject, background and colour of background etc.

Added to that, they are a lot quicker to set up your shot and more accurate. I don't want to spend my time faffing and guessing when I have a much better alternative readily available

I don't find chimping on a tiny LCD reliable or awfully accurate. Histograms are based not on the actual RAW information but on the camera's interpretation of that similar to a jpeg and no more useful.

Anyway as I say, my tuppence worth

I'd add a few pounds to the tuppence!

 

[Richard King]

How does a LM teach you more about light? You become just as intuitive by chimping. Rarely do I have to make more than one adjustment on location. I am, however, prepared to put this to the test by buying a meter to test out.

When you chimp, you are only looking at the histogram/numbers

When you use a light meter, you are given numerical data that you input in the camera. When you do this, you become in touch with the numbers. When you chimp, you generally forget you were on F8 1/60th and just wang it up a stop

Different situations call for different approaches

Example: lets pretend you want to "expose the background 2 stops higher than the subject". With all the will in the world, you are not going to achieve this by chimping, neither are you going to notice light wrapping around the subject

 

[The23rdman]

Okay, so I can see the merit in the studio, but in the field I never ever care about whether the background is exactly 2 stops over. I work entirely by feel.

 

[EOS_JD]

Okay, so I can see the merit in the studio, but in the field I never ever care about whether the background is exactly 2 stops over. I work entirely by feel.

I suppose it's down to what you shoot.

 

[HoppyUK]

When you chimp, you are only looking at the histogram/numbers

When you use a light meter, you are given numerical data that you input in the camera. When you do this, you become in touch with the numbers. When you chimp, you generally forget you were on F8 1/60th and just wang it up a stop

Different situations call for different approaches

Example: lets pretend you want to "expose the background 2 stops higher than the subject". With all the will in the world, you are not going to achieve this by chimping, neither are you going to notice light wrapping around the subject

If you ever wanted to do that, and I can't immediately think of why you would, you can do it without a light meter. Not so easily I admit, but it can be done.

If you shoot an 18% grey card, that will give you a spike on the histogram as an absolute reference and you can work from there. Or any other tone if needs be.

The point is, you don't need a meter. They make life easier, that's a fact, and you can argue the learning aspect of it. Equally, you can argue the learning of LCD/histogram/blinkies too, and that is of more use in every situation and not just the studio.

Further, there are undoubedly things that you can't do so well with a meter, and Exposing To The Right is a very important apsect of that if you want to get the best quality out of digital.

 

[EOS_JD]

The question was

Can a light/flashmeter give a more accurate reading than your camera

The answer is yes - most of the time.

Do you "need" a light meter - probably not but then you have to do more flaffing around. Yes an 18% grey card will do the same job as a light meter if shot atthe subject location.

ETTR is arguably better - Certainly you get less noise in the shadows but toi be honest I cannot think of any time I've shot an image where that would really make a difference. I've printed plenty of big images and it's never been an issue.

Pixel peeping doesn't really translate that well Richard. I do appreciate what you say though and agree to a point that ETTR can produce a better file but I'm just not sure you need to do that to get perfectly acceptable results - even at higher ISOs. But that is not the question being asked.

JD

 

[HoppyUK]

ETTR isn't about pixel peeping, if that's what you're saying.

The major benefit is increased shadow tone separation, less noise and more richness at the darker end - which you can spot a mile off. When you have got minimal light in the shadows, and plenty of noise, if you can put an extra two stops in there that's four times more image data, and that shows.

There are theoretical benefits further up the scale, but you've usually got so much light in there anyway, it's not easy to see. And of course, if you over-egg it, you'll blow important highlights Not a technique for the faint hearted (or those armed only with a meter)

 

[Hodders]

I use both a light meter and chimping depending on what I am trying to do.

If I want to set up three lights with a known ratio in order to reproduce a known setup I will use a lightmeter as it is just not possible using any other technique.

If I want to blow the background or check how even the lighting is in my hilite I will chimp it and use the blinkies.

If I want to ETTR then I can use either technique. With a lightmeter if I want to ETTR by one stop I can just lie to the meter about the ISO. With the camera you just open up the aperture a tad.

But in front of a client it is about speed and professionalism. They do not want me to take 5 shots to home in on the correct result. I want to be able to move a light/put on a different modifier and just meter the result - for this a lightmeter is perfect.

But as others have said it is up to the individual what they use. My advice is to learn to use all the tools and then pick the right one for the right reasons.

 

[The23rdman]

I an convinced enough to get one to try properly simply to save some time.