Landscape photography. Light meter advice.

NeilA1975

NeilA1975

Suspended / Banned
Messages
5,026
Name
Neil
Edit My Images
No
Having read up quite a bit over the past week or so on light meter usage in landscape photography, opinions seem to be split between their usefulness in the field especially considering modern day camera tech.
I'm certainly interested in purchasing one with spot, reflective and incident capabilities which appear to be the landscape 'requirements', especially if it helps assisting nailing the correct exposure which sometimes I struggle with and often resort to bracketing as insurance policy.
I'd really appreciate some feedback on this subject and wonder how many of you actually use one in the field.

Cheers
Neil
 
I'd use one more often if my camera didn't have an exposure histogram display feature plus a display of how the taken image will look with the current exposure settings, which changes as I turn the wheels to change the settings. Now I mostly use it for setting up accessory lighting, and if all my camera gear is still bagged, deciding which lens I should use and whether I should unpack the tripod.
 
Incident reading is all I ever use a meter for, others can be obtained from the camera

Usual instruction is take the reading from the subject by aiming the meter back at the camera, also ok if taken from anywhere that is lit the same which is often the case.

Generally a good way to obtain an accurate exposure, I prefer it to the evaluative reflected reading that the camera produces.
 
To be honest with the modern exposure systems and algerisms used a hand held meter is largely redundant nowadays. You can check your exposures on the fly using you cameras screen and histogram. Plus with memory cards being so cheap these days it's easy to set your camera to auto braket every shot so you know everything will be ok.

In the days of film you had to be sure you got it right on the day as it could be weeks before you got your results back and that was too late to find out your exposures where out.

Unless you are using a camera without a meter or you are using an old film camera with just Center weighted metering that a hand held meter that does both reflected and insident readings would be a good option. As long as you knew enough to know when the cameras meter will get it wrong, but then again if you did know you will also know when to adjust the reading, thus making the need for the seperate meter redundant. Catch 22 or what. ;)

Paul
 
tijuana taxi said:
Incident reading is all I ever use a meter for, others can be obtained from the camera

Usual instruction is take the reading from the subject by aiming the meter back at the camera, also ok if taken from anywhere that is lit the same which is often the case.

Generally a good way to obtain an accurate exposure, I prefer it to the evaluative reflected reading that the camera produces.
Click to expand...

Thanks all.

Paul, how would I go about using a meter in incident mode for landscape shots? I know you say aim it back at the camera, but how would that work? Would I not aim it at the scene I'm attempting to capture?
 
No, you are taking the reading of how the subject is actually lit so my instruction is correct
If you aim at the subject from the camera you are taking a reading from that point which may not be the same
 
Last edited:
You use incident mode to get a light reading of the light that's hitting the subject, so mostly that is putting it in a similar lighting condition to whatever far away object you are photographing

The spot meter function is very similar to a modern cameras abilities, and I think the main use is for the zone system, which would still work on digital.

Also gives you separate metering which maybe handy if your on a tripod and locked down, but want to check various exposure readings
 
Thanks all.

Appreciate the time you've taken to respond.
Well I took the plunge and picked up a sekonic l-358 in mint condition fairly cheaply, so will have a play with it this coming weekend, weather permitting!
Have a good week,

Regards
Neil
 
I have a light meter that I don't use. They were absolutely invaluable when I used film because exposure mistakes cost money. If lighting or subject conditions are difficult then taking multiple bracketed exposures costs nothing. Perhaps folk who do studio work (I don't do that) where the light can be constant find independent metering useful. I don't suppose they would want to rattle off loads of bracketed exposures in such an environment.
 
A hand meter is no guarantee of good exposure. The best meter is in the camera, it can do everything a hand meter can (including incident readings) and a lot more besides. Gifts from the Gods of Digital are the LCD image, the histogram and especially blinkies (highlight over-exposure warning). These also take into account variables that happen after the light enters the lens, that a hand meter can know nothing about (eg f/stop vs T/stop, mechanical aperture errors, ISO variables). The key to good exposure is an understanding of basic principles and how these measurement tools work.

A common problem with landscapes is not so much an exposure setting problem but dynamic range, ie blown skies. Careful exposure setting can minimise dynamic range problems, but you may still need to use grad filters or HDR technique.
 
HoppyUK said:
A common problem with landscapes is not so much an exposure setting problem but dynamic range, ie blown skies. Careful exposure setting can minimise dynamic range problems, but you may still need to use grad filters or HDR technique.
Click to expand...

Please, there is no need to lead people towards wasting time with HDR. It is awful and we all know that.

Re meter - well and truly it is a useless piece of kit for landscape photography with dSLR. The camera meter and your brain should do a very good job nailing the exposure the very first time. If not, the histogram will tell you exactly how much under or over it was. Simple. Lightmeters are now only any use with flash setups.
 
Ettr for landscapes anyway! Light meter pointless! Only useful in studio with lighting ....... Dslr's have great light meters built in


Sent from my iPhone using Talk Photography Forums

Nikon d7100 and loads of the wife knows not what it all cost!
 
daugirdas said:
Please, there is no need to lead people towards wasting time with HDR. It is awful and we all know that.

<snip>
Click to expand...

You use graduated filters to compress and manage dynamic range, which is a crude, obvious and generally unsatisfactory method, especially when the horizon is not conveniently flat and has trees, buildings and hills breaking above it, ie mostly. Others prefer a more sophisticated approach for better results; HDR can be as subtle and good, or as gaudy and awful, as you want to make it :)
 
HDR is awfull! Never seen a good image


Sent from my iPhone using Talk Photography Forums

Nikon d7100 and loads of the wife knows not what it all cost!
 
Mark twiglet said:
HDR is awfull! Never seen a good image


Sent from my iPhone using Talk Photography Forums

Nikon d7100 and loads of the wife knows not what it all cost!
Click to expand...

If you mean the kind of result that Photomatix spits out when you load up half a dozen bracketed exposures and press the button, I'd agree. At the other extreme though, the moment you touch the highlight or shadows sliders in Lightroom - as you recommend in another thread ;) - then that's HDR technique too.

"HDR is awfull! Never seen a good image" You probably have, a lot - just didn't realise that HDR technique had been applied :)
 
Last edited:
HoppyUK said:
You use graduated filters to compress and manage dynamic range, which is a crude, obvious and generally unsatisfactory method, especially when the horizon is not conveniently flat and has trees, buildings and hills breaking above it, ie mostly. Others prefer a more sophisticated approach for better results; HDR can be as subtle and good, or as gaudy and awful, as you want to make it :)
Click to expand...

Photoshop allows many great ways of combining several images (i.e. different exposures). HDR is the dirtiest, quickest and the most disgusting form of image degradation. HDR also presumes that nothing moved which is almost never the case. It is dreadful and on that note it is time to bed for some HDR nightmares :)
 
HoppyUK said:
A hand meter is no guarantee of good exposure. The best meter is in the camera, it can do everything a hand meter can (including incident readings) and a lot more besides. Gifts from the Gods of Digital are the LCD image, the histogram and especially blinkies (highlight over-exposure warning). These also take into account variables that happen after the light enters the lens, that a hand meter can know nothing about (eg f/stop vs T/stop, mechanical aperture errors, ISO variables). The key to good exposure is an understanding of basic principles and how these measurement tools work.

A common problem with landscapes is not so much an exposure setting problem but dynamic range, ie blown skies. Careful exposure setting can minimise dynamic range problems, but you may still need to use grad filters or HDR technique.
Click to expand...

How are you doing incident with the camera? Grey card?
 
pingu666 said:
How are you doing incident with the camera? Grey card?
Click to expand...

With one of those diffuser attachments over the lens, or a grey card. Or a coffee filter or piece of white paper works pretty well with an appropriate compensation factor applied, ditto the back of your hand.

At the heart of it, all an incident reading does is reference a constant tone of known value.
 
So my ettr technique is concidered HDR ? I'm hurt!


Sent from my iPhone using Talk Photography Forums

Nikon d7100 and loads of the wife knows not what it all cost!
 
Lol :-)


Sent from my iPhone using Talk Photography Forums

Nikon d7100 and loads of the wife knows not what it all cost!
 
Mark twiglet said:
So my ettr technique is concidered HDR ? I'm hurt!


Sent from my iPhone using Talk Photography Forums

Nikon d7100 and loads of the wife knows not what it all cost!
Click to expand...

I would imagine your ETTR technique isn't that relevant on the D7100, especially for landscape. Modern sensors have clean enough shadows that I prefer to expose properly and have more latitude in the highlights.

ETTR was great with older sensors that got very dirty in the shadows when pushed but that is much less of an issue nowadays.
 
I expose to the right to bring detail into shadowed or darkened areas without blowing the whites! Then balance it all in Lightroom!


Sent from my iPhone using Talk Photography Forums

Nikon d7100 and loads of the wife knows not what it all cost!
 
View attachment 29974is this HDR?


Sent from my iPhone using Talk Photography Forums

Nikon d7100 and loads of the wife knows not what it all cost!
 
Mark twiglet said:
I expose to the right to bring detail into shadowed or darkened areas without blowing the whites! Then balance it all in Lightroom!


Sent from my iPhone using Talk Photography Forums

Nikon d7100 and loads of the wife knows not what it all cost!
Click to expand...

That sounds like normal exposure, not ETTR... :thinking:
 
The end result doesn't look HDR'd


Sent from my iPhone using Talk Photography Forums

Nikon d7100 and loads of the wife knows not what it all cost!
 
I never said it would :)

However, by processing it you are effecting the dynamic range (pulling back highlights, pushing shadows a little), I guess Richards point was that people can get sanctimonious about using HDR without really realising that they are doing the same thing just at a lesser scale and through a different method. End results can be the same though...
 
Nawty said:
That sounds like normal exposure, not ETTR... :thinking:
Click to expand...

No, it's ETTR.

A "normal" exposure would surely be cursor smack in the middle.

Good simple and easy to understand write up stating the advantages here...

http://www.luminous-landscape.com/tutorials/expose-right.shtml

And on topic... I've never felt the need for a light meter. Anyone needing one is doing something way beyond anything I've ever done. The in camera meter and histogram are fine for me.
 
Nawty said:
I never said it would :)

However, by processing it you are effecting the dynamic range (pulling back highlights, pushing shadows a little), I guess Richards point was that people can get sanctimonious about using HDR without really realising that they are doing the same thing just at a lesser scale and through a different method. End results can be the same though...
Click to expand...

Look up HDR definition. Do you call your smoothies or juice bio-matter aqueous suspension? No? Well this is no different here.

Normal image processing doesn't affect RAW file, and doesn't go beyond the scope of original data; the continuity of tones are also normally preserved. Image adjustments are very different to combining pixels from several files and then doing witchcraft called tonemapping.
 
daugirdas said:
Please, there is no need to lead people towards wasting time with HDR. It is awful and we all know that.

Re meter - well and truly it is a useless piece of kit for landscape photography with dSLR. The camera meter and your brain should do a very good job nailing the exposure the very first time. If not, the histogram will tell you exactly how much under or over it was. Simple. Lightmeters are now only any use with flash setups.
Click to expand...

Bit of a mighty statement there! As I've said I've read dozens of articles re light meters, although opinion is split in respect of their usefulness.
As for the histogram, doesn't that reflect the jpeg? An indication for RAW no doubt, but not accurate nevertheless.
FWIW the L358 turned up today, gave it go inside and out, after a few attempts it nailed correct exposure first time! Regardless of opinion, I feel that for now its been a good purchase.
 
Hi Neil, I have used a Sekonic L358 for the past ten plus years, I know I am going to get flamed for this but I don't care.
People who say to use the cameras histogram because it's better / easier than using a light meter don't have a light meter; have never used one; don't understand - know how to use one.
So by looking at the histogram & you see the highlights are blown or well underexposed, question, by how much or what to alter the cameras settings too? And how many times to alter them until you have what you want?
I have watched journalists checking their histograms & then faff about changing settings only to find the subject gone! Had they grown up with a light meter they would've learnt along the way more about light.
I have used a light meter from the very first time I had a film slr & because of this can pretty much look at a scene in or outside & know what setting I need with the available light for the outcome I want to achieve.
How many times have I read or heard that dslr's photos cost nothing to take, hmm, maybe but what about the time to go over all the extra photos taken bracketing in LR or PS to see if you have a keeper?
That's not photography that's just pressing a button & hoping that when they get home they have something usable!
And if you go by the highlight exposure warning in a camera you'll end up with every photo underexposed as almost any bit of white area, especially sky, will show up as overexposed.
So what do you do adjust accordingly? As mentioned you'd have pretty much every photo underexposed if you had zero highlights flashing away with the exposure warning turned on, for that reason mine is turned off.

Anyhoo you now have a light meter & I am very sure you will find, as seems you have already that first time photos will be yours more often, less time editing out the bracketed shots even if they are free!
 
Hi Simon.
And I think that's the point and certainly seems to be the consensus from the pro usage damp. It's a more accurate tool that assists you in nailing your exposure first time. No guessing, no minute adjustments, less bracketing, less time editing, etc.
Time will tell for me but generally speaking if this assists me then it cannot be a bad thing.
 
retrosi said:
Hi Neil, I have used a Sekonic L358 for the past ten plus years, I know I am going to get flamed for this but I don't care.
People who say to use the cameras histogram because it's better / easier than using a light meter don't have a light meter; have never used one; don't understand - know how to use one.

<snip>
Click to expand...

Or possibly not ;)
 
Lol Hoppy UK ! I've never owned one...... But have used one but in a studio.... Never on a beach in Dorset ! Experiance of reading a histogram gives you the information that you need! I always ettr to get the info I need then process in Lightroom to finish the image
 
Mark twiglet said:
Lol Hoppy UK ! I've never owned one...... But have used one but in a studio.... Never on a beach in Dorset ! Experiance of reading a histogram gives you the information that you need! I always ettr to get the info I need then process in Lightroom to finish the image
Click to expand...

:)

TBH it's blinkies that are my guiding light :D with ETTR technique rather than the histogram, which is more interesting than terribly useful a lot of time. The key with blinkies is knowing exactly when they start to flash - simply shoot a Raw test pic with blinkies showing over a good area, then push the exposure up in Lightroom until they're covering the same areas. There will be at least a stop of difference, possibly more. Bear in mind that picture styles affect blinkies, especially the contrast setting, as they're generated off the in-camera JPEG.

Armed with this information, if you compare an incident hand-meter reading with an ETTR optimised exposure, there will typically be between one and two stops more in the ETTR image before anything important actually blows for real. It depends on the nature of the subject which is why you can't just over-expose by a set amount each time, but every last drop of light that you can put into the shadows greatly enhances detail and reduces noise :thumbs:
 
Holy ancient thread revival, Batman!

I've recently been working on profiling my D800 with my Sekonic 758 light meter. Having recently returned to the dark side after shooting large format since 2009, I'm used to working in particular ways and for me that's using a lightmeter. Obviously with large format cameras it's the only way. And I don't see any good reason to not continue working with those same methods - it worked well then and will work well now, and more so when my camera profiles are stored in my light meter. I'll know exactly whether a scene falls within the dynamic range of my camera and can adjust to that. While the in built metering in a camera are incredibly clever and pretty accurate, there's plenty of scenes that they simply won't and can't know how best to handle. If I manually expose with my lightmeter, I know exactly what I want and can control that.

Now it's not necessarily practical to use my lightmeter on every occasion, if I'm just out for a walk taking the odd snap. It probably wouldn't make sense and would only serve to annoy my girlfriend/mates who I'm out walking with! If I'm on a planned and specific photography shoot - I'm mostly interested in landscape photography - then absolutely I'll be using it every time. I'll come home with fewer photographs, more correctly exposed photographs and less throw aways.
 
HoppyUK said:
rather than the histogram, which is more interesting than terribly useful a lot of time.
Click to expand...


That's interesting.....I hardly ever use the histogram either. Blinkies all the way for me, and bracket if necessary. That's a hangover from my film days but it's often useful to have dupes.
 
As @HoppyUK always says and always says better than me, all you need is...

1 - an understanding of what you're doing & trying to achieve both in shooting & PP

2 - a camera with an internal meter and highlight warning display, and

3 - b****r all else

Of all the times (few that they are) that an external lightmeter may prove useful, a wide landscape on a partially cloudy day is not one of them

Dave
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top