Light meters, can someone explain?

[AliB]

A hand meter attempts to measure the light entering the lens, which is not the same as the light recorded by the sensor.

Quoted for accuracy, you did say it was measuring the light entering the lens, it's there in big red letters! lol and it's not, so please don't tell me I can't read now! :razz:

 

[HoppyUK]

Ali I think you mis-read Hoppy. He did not suggest that an incident meter was trying to measure light entering the lens.
The implication is that an incident meter is metering light falling, well, incidentally on the meter itself. It's providing an exposure value suitable for the meters own internal calibration, but that doesn't necessarily tie into the camera's calibration.

The light falling on the camera sensor/film can be quite different, for the reasons elaborated on by Hoppy.

I think you're both on the same page, but the book is in different languages!

Hoppy: Can you suggest what I should see on my histogram if I shoot a piece of CEILAB-calibrated pure-white material with my camera's spot meter suggested exposure? The spotmeter should, as I understand it, render what it's targetted at as an "18%" luminance level. Ergo should one expect to see the white rendered in the image as "18% Grey" in such a scenario? I've been conducting some tests but am not sure I'm fully equipped to interpret the results.

I can't help with a specific answer. It depends on how your camera's meter is calibrated - that 18% vs 12% debate - and since the histogram is generated off the JPEG it is subject to the variances introduced by Picture Styles. In particular, the contrast setting compresses the scale, or expands it, and shifts the tones at either end quite a lot, by a stop or so.

But I think your understanding is sound. If you shoot to fill the frame with a plain white card, or a grey or even a black card, the meter will attempt to adjust the exposure so that the tone on the histogram appears in pretty much the same place each time, around the middle.

 

[HoppyUK]

Even if it's only a JPEG interpretation of the data and won't actually look much like the RAW file and is also subject to having the correct white balance set (something incident meters don't care about).

Yes, it's a JPEG interpretation, but is is generated off the actual Raw file. If you turn down the contrast it is pretty close to the Raw, at least in terms of exposure. It's certainly the best indicator of exposure you're going to get.

Quoted for accuracy, you did say it was measuring the light entering the lens, it's there in big red letters! lol and it's not, so please don't tell me I can't read now! :razz:

You can read Ali, but you're not understanding. The light (that will be) entering the lens is not the same as the light which exits the lens, and is further subject to the sensor's actual sensitivity as opposed to it's nominal ISO rating.

Am I writing in French or something today? :shug:

 

[AliB]

I get the principle Richard and I fully understand it but it's still not measuring the light entering the lens, not unless you plonk it in front of the lens facing the subject, THEN in will do just that

Just call me pedantic

 

[HoppyUK]

To be pedantic, that's not being pedantic. It is being deliberately obtuse purely for the sake of being antagonistic and argumentative.

If you were a woman, I'd understand. They hate being wrong and will never admit it...

PS You see, two can play that game

 

[AliB]

I know how much of a stickler you are for accuracy so just trying to be helpful my dear chap

(it's at this point most men implode! )

 

[HoppyUK]

I know how much of a stickler you are for accuracy so just trying to be helpful my dear chap

(it's at this point most men implode! )

<imploding>

 

[Richard King]

oh and I used a meter today to check the consistency of a light over a fairly wide area. It means I knew I could shoot, knowing I had a flawlessly lit background. 12 readings later... Recon that saved hours of PP

 

[AliB]

Ha ha ha!

Like that!

 

[Cocohoney]

Blimey, it's going to take me a while to read (and struggle to understand!) everyone's posts. Thank you all for answering. I have bookmarked all the links and started to read them too.
I had wondered about a light meter mostly because the bright sunshine recently has meant I have struggled to expose correctly when out and about photographing the children who are always in a hurry...I wondered if a light meter might help me with that- it seems opinion is divided! I will finish reading everyones posts and links tomorrow, I'm afraid I struggle with the jargon and the technology- I wasn't expecting so many replies. I am a beginner though, so perhaps I would find one useful.

 

[EOS_JD]

I'm not going to go through this point by point. You are not understanding what I've said, and are dismissing other factors because they don't apply to your (very narrow) area of working, ie weddings, or to the equipment you use.

You already have an ExpoDisc - check it out. It converts your camera into an incident meter, if that's what you want. On their website it says "The ExpoDisc's 18% light transmission allows the ExpoDisc to be used as an incident ambient exposure tool (as you would with an 18% gray card), as well as for white balance." You can buy the same thing on ebay for a fiver.

Now you can throw away your hand meter and do a custom white balance at the same time! http://www.expoimaging.com/product-detail.php?cat_id=1&product_id=2&keywords=ExpoDisc_Neutral

All the expodisc does is provide a reference point and you still need to add or subtract exposure to get the correct meter readng. the expodisc does work in a similar way but it doesn't "convert" your cameras meter and is another item that would just slow down the workflow.

Also regards the histogram I don't see how it is possible to wholly and accurately read a histogram. Sure you can as you mentioned expose to the right and adjust until the white point is just short of blinking but how does that make the exposure correct? Lets say there are no white tones in your image - exposing to the right generally over exposes the image or you need to have a guess at the right exposure. I can see why you want that as the RAW image holds more info but that doesn't make the exposure correct either. All about how and what yuo are shooting.

Sure the histogram is a great guide to stop over/under exposure but every scene is different therefore every histogram for those scenes will be different. i do see what you are saying though - but I feel that you too are dismissing what is a very simple process to reach an accurate result.

Experience helps too and knowing your gear as you suggested that in some cases a particular lens may act differently to another.

I think it was mentioned above that both trains of thought are probably correct - I do see what you mean - I'm wondering if you see what I mean?

Cheers
Jim

PS it's not just about weddings

 

[Lensflare]

Weddings?
Do you mean that ancient ritual where the Bride and Groom exchange rings in front of a gathered crowd? Where the Groom puts a ring on the 3rd finger of the left hand..................................................


































...................................and the Bride puts one through the nose of the Groom.

 

[EOS_JD]

Weddings?
Do you mean that ancient ritual where the Bride and Groom exchange rings in front of a gathered crowd? Where the Groom puts a ring on the 3rd finger of the left hand..................................................


































...................................and the Bride puts one through the nose of the Groom.

Wouldn't know - Never done it myself - (although she's hinted a few times) Still got that nose ring though!

 

[HoppyUK]

All the expodisc does is provide a reference point and you still need to add or subtract exposure to get the correct meter readng. the expodisc does work in a similar way but it doesn't "convert" your cameras meter and is another item that would just slow down the workflow.

Also regards the histogram I don't see how it is possible to wholly and accurately read a histogram. Sure you can as you mentioned expose to the right and adjust until the white point is just short of blinking but how does that make the exposure correct? Lets say there are no white tones in your image - exposing to the right generally over exposes the image or you need to have a guess at the right exposure. I can see why you want that as the RAW image holds more info but that doesn't make the exposure correct either. All about how and what yuo are shooting.

Sure the histogram is a great guide to stop over/under exposure but every scene is different therefore every histogram for those scenes will be different. i do see what you are saying though - but I feel that you too are dismissing what is a very simple process to reach an accurate result.

Experience helps too and knowing your gear as you suggested that in some cases a particular lens may act differently to another.

I think it was mentioned above that both trains of thought are probably correct - I do see what you mean - I'm wondering if you see what I mean?

Cheers
Jim

PS it's not just about weddings

Hi Jim! Everyone else can switch off now

I'm not sure how I can explain things any better, but I will say that I am not 'dismissing' incident metering. I even said I would recommend it for weddings, mainly on account of 'that dress' and the need to play safe.

But incident is far from perfect - that is one of the points I'm trying to make. If you shoot Raw then it will rarely give you settings that optimise the sensor's potential. Reading the histogram with the aid of blinkies will get you optimum exposure, easily, because it works off actual data. No meter can ever do that, because all meters are guessing at what the best exposure might be, and the inherant assumptions of an incident reading mean that it cannot produce an absolutely optimum result. A good reading sure, a consistent one, certainly. But not optimum.

You comment about "let's say there are no white tones" suggests you are not fully understanding what the histogram is showing. The business of optimum exposure is to match the dynamic range and important tones of the scene, with the dynamic range of the sensor. The histogram and blinkies will tell you when a tone is blown, which may or may not be white. The whole principle of Expose To The Right technique is to shift tones away from their nominal value in order to maximise the recording potential of the sensor, and you then pull them back into line in post.

Please try this. I did it myself this afternoon, just to try and put a figure on it. It only takes a couple of minutes. Back garden - shrubs, flowers, grass and leaves etc. No sky in the image. Cloudy. Incident reading from my Sekonic meter said 1/125sec at f/14. Histogram showed a lump in the middle, pretty much what you'd expect, but acres of space to the right.

I turned down the contrast on Picture Styles to min, and started reducing the f/number until the blinkies started flashing. By the time I got to 1/125sec at f/5, I was getting blinkies just visible as tiny specs off shiny leaves, but they were specular reflections and I was quite happy to let blow. Knocking back the exposure one stop held those reflections, had I wanted them.

So, by ignoring the incident meter reading and following the histogram, I was able to add two stops of exposure in absolute safety, and if I didn't mind the brightest highlights blowing to white (which I didn't, because they're supposed to be white anyway) I was able to add three stops more exposure.

That is a massive amount more and, amongst other benefits, it puts hugely more detail and tone separation in the darker areas, with much less noise. I don't think that anyone who cares about getting the most from their camera can afford to ignore that kind of advantage. You need to see it for yourself, and know it's there to be exploited if you want.

BTW have you actually tried incident readings with the ExpoDisc, and compared them to a hand meter? It should work without any calibration.

 

[Richard King]

I think everyone should shoot only film for a week or even a month. Histograms and chimping are taken out of the equation

--

As elluded above, there are several reasons why measuring properly is advantageous

1. The dynamic range of most scenes is higher than most films/sensors - Sunny day, bride and groom being prime example. Once this is figured out, you realise everything is a compromise, and what you are doing is deciding the best way to deal with the compromise. Your camera has pre-built in compromises, and the settings you choose alter which compromise you are choosing. You can run with these, or measure up and decide yourself
2. Your eyes compensate everything in real time, which is sometimes why you need to trust the numbers

 

[EOS_JD]

Hi Jim! Everyone else can switch off now

I'm not sure how I can explain things any better, but I will say that I am not 'dismissing' incident metering. I even said I would recommend it for weddings, mainly on account of 'that dress' and the need to play safe.

But incident is far from perfect - that is one of the points I'm trying to make. If you shoot Raw then it will rarely give you settings that optimise the sensor's potential. Reading the histogram with the aid of blinkies will get you optimum exposure, easily, because it works off actual data. No meter can ever do that, because all meters are guessing at what the best exposure might be, and the inherant assumptions of an incident reading mean that it cannot produce an absolutely optimum result. A good reading sure, a consistent one, certainly. But not optimum.

You comment about "let's say there are no white tones" suggests you are not fully understanding what the histogram is showing. The business of optimum exposure is to match the dynamic range and important tones of the scene, with the dynamic range of the sensor. The histogram and blinkies will tell you when a tone is blown, which may or may not be white. The whole principle of Expose To The Right technique is to shift tones away from their nominal value in order to maximise the recording potential of the sensor, and you then pull them back into line in post.

Please try this. I did it myself this afternoon, just to try and put a figure on it. It only takes a couple of minutes. Back garden - shrubs, flowers, grass and leaves etc. No sky in the image. Cloudy. Incident reading from my Sekonic meter said 1/125sec at f/14. Histogram showed a lump in the middle, pretty much what you'd expect, but acres of space to the right.

I turned down the contrast on Picture Styles to min, and started reducing the f/number until the blinkies started flashing. By the time I got to 1/125sec at f/5, I was getting blinkies just visible as tiny specs off shiny leaves, but they were specular reflections and I was quite happy to let blow. Knocking back the exposure one stop held those reflections, had I wanted them.

So, by ignoring the incident meter reading and following the histogram, I was able to add two stops of exposure in absolute safety, and if I didn't mind the brightest highlights blowing to white (which I didn't, because they're supposed to be white anyway) I was able to add three stops more exposure.

That is a massive amount more and, amongst other benefits, it puts hugely more detail and tone separation in the darker areas, with much less noise. I don't think that anyone who cares about getting the most from their camera can afford to ignore that kind of advantage. You need to see it for yourself, and know it's there to be exploited if you want.

BTW have you actually tried incident readings with the ExpoDisc, and compared them to a hand meter? It should work without any calibration.

Richard

I'm eating a little humble pie here! I didn't realise how the camera could possibly be an ambient light meter with the expodisc but now I tried it I see what it's doing and it does indeed work surprisingly well!

Depends on the lens how accurate though. With the 100 f2.8, grey spike is bang in the centre and pretty much marries up with the sekonic meter (within 1/3rd of a stop). With other lenses like the 24-105 it maxes out just shy of the centre (down to the vignetting which is clear to see) so 1/3rd stop EC required to sort that!

Thanks for being so understanding with this hoppy.... I might use it more often now!! I do understand more of what you mean now too. was wrongly thinking of blinkes being white. With the expodisc, +2 EC gives a white just shy of the right edge. But putting into manual allowed another stop (before the blinkies appeared) which kind of ties up with your 3 stops theory.

Interestingly when I brought it back in post I got a slight colour shift - not huge though.

More investigation required but I'm seeing what you say

Cheers
Jim

 

[HoppyUK]

Richard

I'm eating a little humble pie here! I didn't realise how the camera could possibly be an ambient light meter with the expodisc but now I tried it I see what it's doing and it does indeed work surprisingly well!

Depends on the lens how accurate though. With the 100 f2.8, grey spike is bang in the centre and pretty much marries up with the sekonic meter (within 1/3rd of a stop). With other lenses like the 24-105 it maxes out just shy of the centre (down to the vignetting which is clear to see) so 1/3rd stop EC required to sort that!

Thanks for being so understanding with this hoppy.... I might use it more often now!! I do understand more of what you mean now too. was wrongly thinking of blinkes being white. With the expodisc, +2 EC gives a white just shy of the right edge. But putting into manual allowed another stop (before the blinkies appeared) which kind of ties up with your 3 stops theory.

Interestingly when I brought it back in post I got a slight colour shift - not huge though.

More investigation required but I'm seeing what you say

Cheers
Jim

Thanks for your post Jim. Glad you found it works

Just to reiterate, with ETTR every situation is different so be careful how far you push it. You won't get three stops with everything. Try it with contrast on max and min and see how the histogram expands and contracts.

PS You're still confusing incident and ambient terms

 

[EOS_JD]

Where am I doing that?

 

[HoppyUK]

Where am I doing that?

Here:

<snip>

...I didn't realise how the camera could possibly be an ambient light meter with the expodisc ...

<snip>

Ambient light (can be daylight or artifical) is the available continuous light, as opposed to flash. You can take an incident or reflected reading in any ambient light.

You can do the same with flash also - although we usually associate flash with incident readings, the in-camera auto-TTL measures reflected flash light.

 

[MiniMonty]

Light meter = "I'm kind of serious about taking pictures".
No light meter = "I'm in love with my camera and trust it to do everything for me in any situation".

Best wishes
Monty

 

[EOS_JD]

Here:



Ambient light (can be daylight or artifical) is the available continuous light, as opposed to flash. You can take an incident or reflected reading in any ambient light.

You can do the same with flash also - although we usually associate flash with incident readings, the in-camera auto-TTL measures reflected flash light.

Just a slip I know the difference! :bonk: Should have read incident

 

[MiniMonty]

Then you're not paying enough attention Ali And putting your own (wrong) interpretation on what I'm saying. You're seem to be obsessed with how with an incident reading you point the meter at the camera from the subject (or the light source - opinions vary) as if this makes some kind of fundamental difference. It's just a different way of doing the same thing as a reflected reading off a grey card. And that may not be optimum either

But that's not the point I was making there. The point is, a hand meter measures the light - by whatever means - that will enter the lens. It does not, and cannot, take into account the unknown variables that happen after it enters the lens. Whereas the on-boad system can, and does. And they exposure settings you get are often different.

Why don't you guys try some of the things I've suggested instead of arguing the toss? I've spent half my life doing it as a magazine technical editor. I'm not making this stuff up, or making academic points for the sake of it.

I nearly wrote an essay in response.
(but I boiled it down).

A camera can measure from where it is.
(and only from where it is).
A meter can measure anything from anywhere.

No professional photographer would EVER trust the meter in a camera.
(because it's just a gimmick and a toy).

If you want results you'll get a meter and learn how to use it.

How would you measure the DMax behind you (or even at your feet) with a camera ?
How would you measure a genuine average with a camera that can't see most of what you can see ?
How would you construct a full (or even a half cocked) zone systemn with the built in meter in a camera ?
How can you take a 40% shade reading with a camera ?
How can you compare and measure the subtle difference twix eyes and hair contrast with a camera ?

Of course none of these things can be done.

I'm afraid I'm old skool and I have to tell you that there is no camera on the market that can match or marry any half decent meter.

So get a meter and learn how it's really done.
(there are no short cuts).

Best wishes
Monty

 

[HoppyUK]

Just a slip I know the difference! :bonk: Should have read incident

I thought as much. Just for the benefit of others.

And clearly, there are still some others on here that should no better...

 

[dubcat]

So after reading most of this thread, it seems if I have ambitions to take studio style portraits in my home with a backdrop and multiple off camera strobes I should have a light meter? Is this still the case if I am controlling flashes with ettl2? I have an st-e2 transmitter you see..

I thought I needed one to get a white background that is only 1 stop overexposed as I read that blowing it out at thermonuclear levels is not a good thing (although I don't really understand why).

 

[HoppyUK]

I nearly wrote an essay in response.
(but I boiled it down).

Are you serious with this post? Assuming you are.

A camera can measure from where it is.
(and only from where it is).
A meter can measure anything from anywhere.

Then move the camera.

No professional photographer would EVER trust the meter in a camera.
(because it's just a gimmick and a toy).

Of course they would. And do. Absolutely not a gimmick, or a toy, and can do far more than you can ever do with a hand meter. When used in conjunction with the histogram, it is also more accurate.

If you want results you'll get a meter and learn how to use it.

Quite. There's an extremely good one built in to the camera.

How would you measure the DMax behind you (or even at your feet) with a camera ?

By pointing the camera at the appropriate tone.

How would you measure a genuine average with a camera that can't see most of what you can see ?

The camera sees whatever you point it at, and will give you an average reading if that's what you want.

How would you construct a full (or even a half cocked) zone systemn with the built in meter in a camera ?

The built-in spot facility is perfect for measuring Zone System values. Not that the ZS has any place in digital photography - it is a technique for exposing negative film only.

How can you take a 40% shade reading with a camera ?

Take a spot reading. If you really want to know that

How can you compare and measure the subtle difference twix eyes and hair contrast with a camera ?

Take a spot reading. If you really want to know that

Of course none of these things can be done.

Of course they can be done. Why you should want to know all this stuff when it's all laid out for you on the histogram, in great detail and with absolute accuracy, is more of a mystery.

I'm afraid I'm old skool and I have to tell you that there is no camera on the market that can match or marry any half decent meter.

The meter in the camera is better and more versatile than any hand meter. Plus you have a histogram (of the actual exposure, no metering guesswork involved) and blinkies to tell you exactly which areas are blown.

So get a meter and learn how it's really done.
(there are no short cuts).

If you really want to know what's happening to the tones in an image, you need to get up to speed with digital, and learn how it's really done. It's different to any type of film and you need different techniques. But there are quite a few shortcuts if you know what you're doing

 

[Richard King]

So after reading most of this thread, it seems if I have ambitions to take studio style portraits in my home with a backdrop and multiple off camera strobes I should have a light meter? Is this still the case if I am controlling flashes with ettl2? I have an st-e2 transmitter you see..

I thought I needed one to get a white background that is only 1 stop overexposed as I read that blowing it out at thermonuclear levels is not a good thing (although I don't really understand why).

Its up to you, and your setup. If you are shooting onto a dingy screen on the back of a camera, your opinion wil be totally different than when you shoot tethered and direct onto a profiled screen

You can set it up by eye, chimping your screen / histogram, or you can use a light meter

I would say though, that if you use a light meter, your results wil be more reproducible, and you will know why they are

The moment you throw several lighting sources in the mix you will find that with a light meter you cn measure the contribution for each light accuratally

If you are the sort of photographer to keep a little black book of setitngs and diagrams, thn a light meter will be your best friend

Personally - I do a mix of all methods. I use the light meter for the basic set up, I shoot where i can tethered onto a screen, and then tweak out the lights accordingly. Afterwards, I draw a diagram, and measure each lights contribution with a light meter. This means if I need to reproduce the shoot, I can, and if I did something crap, I can go back, look at the numbers and attempt to figure it out

---

The argument in the above posts in the main revolved arround measuring ambient or direct light, which you can do using your camera if you want to and know how to. However, your camera can't measure the light ariving from your studio strobes

As eluuded to in a post of mine further up, you can also use a light meter to measure the evenness of lighting (flash or not) over a wide area. And that on its own is very useful

 

[HoppyUK]

So after reading most of this thread, it seems if I have ambitions to take studio style portraits in my home with a backdrop and multiple off camera strobes I should have a light meter? Is this still the case if I am controlling flashes with ettl2? I have an st-e2 transmitter you see..

I thought I needed one to get a white background that is only 1 stop overexposed as I read that blowing it out at thermonuclear levels is not a good thing (although I don't really understand why).

Edit: crossed post with RK, but I think we're saying much the same thing

You should read all of this thread, and quite a few in the Lighting section too. There are lots about white studio backgrounds.

You don't actually need a meter for studio flash, because as always the histogram/blinkies will tell you what's going on. That's okay with one or two flash heads, but with three it is really much easier with a flash meter.

E-TTL is great for a lot of situations, particularly when you need to get a good exposure first time, but for studio work having everything fixed and locked in manual is better. You know where you are, and it can't change.

Use the meter to get the lighting ratios right. For the white look, you need two lights on the background to get it balanced perfectly evenly, and about half to one stop brighter than the main foreground light. Any more than this and it will bleach away the subject outline/hair and cause flare and ruin contrast.

Get the balance and ratios right with the meter, but then adjust the final exposure on the LCD/histogram/blinkies as while the ratios might be right, the overall exposure level probably won't be quite optimum. So leave the lights as they are and tweak the final exposure level on the camera with either ISO or f/number.

 

[dubcat]

Ok cool thanks. Now I need to suss out which one to get.

 

[HoppyUK]

Ok cool thanks. Now I need to suss out which one to get.

Sekonic L-308S, £120-ish. What everybody uses I think. It's about as cheap as they come and it does everything very nicely.

You can spend a lot more, but all you get is a lot of fancy convenience features. They don't actually do anything more.

 

[dubcat]

Ok thanks. I'll plan on getting one after I've read McNallys book.

 

[EOS_JD]

Sekonic L-308S, £120-ish. What everybody uses I think. It's about as cheap as they come and it does everything very nicely.

You can spend a lot more, but all you get is a lot of fancy convenience features. They don't actually do anything more.

I bought a 308s and lost it (at a clients home I think)! Was great and small enough to fit in the pocket. I bought a new one - the L-358. Has a few extra featurues but does basically the same thing. Look on ebay for second hand deals - I paid £100 for the L-358!

In studio I think it's a must to measure the lights individually and as above it'#s quick and provides consistency when shooting an event - although I may try my expodisc and camera meter next week....

 

[HoppyUK]

I bought a 308s and lost it (at a clients home I think)! Was great and small enough to fit in the pocket. I bought a new one - the L-358. Has a few extra featurues but does basically the same thing. Look on ebay for second hand deals - I paid £100 for the L-358!

In studio I think it's a must to measure the lights individually and as above it'#s quick and provides consistency when shooting an event - although I may try my expodisc and camera meter next week....

Not with flash

 

[EOS_JD]

Not with flash

Haha No :_

I'm out on a location shoot with a teenager and her 4 pals!! (Mum holding reflector/OCF).

Meter will be used to get flash exposure if required. I'll try a mix of meter/epodisc to see what works better without flash - The meter still seems easier in my head but I'll look for the accuracy as I guess the expodisk will take into account for the light coming through the lens as you mentioned.

Cheers
Jim

 

[HoppyUK]

Haha No :_

I'm out on a location shoot with a teenager and her 4 pals!! (Mum holding reflector/OCF).

Meter will be used to get flash exposure if required. I'll try a mix of meter/epodisc to see what works better without flash - The meter still seems easier in my head but I'll look for the accuracy as I guess the expodisk will take into account for the light coming through the lens as you mentioned.

Cheers
Jim

That sounds like a situation for E-TTL flash. If the subject/s are static then manual flash is okay, but if there's any movement involved you'll be forever checking and resetting. E-TTL is brilliant for looking after that.

 

[fallen_mathi]

That sounds like a situation for E-TTL flash. If the subject/s are static then manual flash is okay, but if there's any movement involved you'll be forever checking and resetting. E-TTL is brilliant for looking after that.

E-ttl flash would be best, but setting up 2 ettl flashes, is much more expensive than 2 cheaper flashes, and a reasonable light metre... its not quite as conviniant, but works well...

 

[EOS_JD]

That sounds like a situation for E-TTL flash. If the subject/s are static then manual flash is okay, but if there's any movement involved you'll be forever checking and resetting. E-TTL is brilliant for looking after that.

Yes that's a fair shout. To get consistency though if I'm shooting 5 different people all wearing something slightly different - and in the same location, I have found in the past that ETTL flash output varies slightly from shot to shot - so I thought flash in manual would be a quick check and go. Again consistency in my goal.

But I do see that ETTL may be better - will see what happens on the day

 

[HoppyUK]

Yes that's a fair shout. To get consistency though if I'm shooting 5 different people all wearing something slightly different - and in the same location, I have found in the past that ETTL flash output varies slightly from shot to shot - so I thought flash in manual would be a quick check and go. Again consistency in my goal.

But I do see that ETTL may be better - will see what happens on the day

Yes, E-TTL is subject to the variables of all reflected light reading meters. But the point I make is that flash is very sensitive to distance, extremely sensitive when you're close and just a foot either way can throw things out dramatically. By far more than you're likely to get through a change of clothes I would have thought.

It's an interesting test though. Be keen to learn how you get on.

At the end of the day, it's what works for you and tweaking things to get that last drop of dynamic range is worth nothing if by faffing about you miss the shot

 

[EOS_JD]

Yes, E-TTL is subject to the variables of all reflected light reading meters. But the point I make is that flash is very sensitive to distance, extremely sensitive when you're close and just a foot either way can throw things out dramatically. By far more than you're likely to get through a change of clothes I would have thought.

It's an interesting test though. Be keen to learn how you get on.

At the end of the day, it's what works for you and tweaking things to get that last drop of dynamic range is worth nothing if by faffing about you miss the shot

I'll probably get there and not get the chance to try too much I've a couple of hours in the park then in the studio (my living room)! I'll post some if it turns out ok.

Cheers
Jim

 

[nikonuser]

Interesting info. many thanks for the original post

 

[Cocohoney]

Thanks for the replies everyone, I'm afraid I'm out of my depth totally with most of the things you ae talking about I think I have more learning to do before I can make an informed decision.