I have been considering a light meter recently, though there are two immediate problems with this: First, they are expensive, and second, there is no more room left in my bag.
I have found myself doing more and more studio portrait photography (i.e. me going to a place with 3 speed lights, some light stands and umbrellas, and some nice backdrops), and it seems like it would be pretty handy to be able to measure the incident light perfectly, and handier still to be able to measure the contribution of each strobe.
But it also seems easy enough to take test photos and dial in the lights until things look the way I want on the camera, and the histogram is nice. There seems to be many photographers who do this (including the Strobist guy, David Hobby).
And when I look up Youtube videos discussing metering, most tend to be very well made promotional videos from Sekonic, a maker of light meters, so there is no surprise that they are all about the awesome things you can do with a meter.
Any thoughts or recommendations?
I’m not a photographer. But I sometimes do lights for a friend of mine who is a photographer.
When I first started working with him, one of my jobs was to use the light meter. We’d set up the location, gear, etc…then I’m meter in front of the subject, and tell him the results.
These days, he just uses his eyes and test shots, and the histogram when necessary.
When you know the strobe’s guide number, distance determines the f-stop. If you have an f-stop you’re wanting to use, adjust the strobe’s power to get you in that ball park.
What I do after this is check the histogram AND image preview, fine tuning strobe power as needed. I can also adjust the shutter speed to allow more ambient light, a useful technique for location shoots. (Be sure to know your flash synch shutter speed, use that or anything lower)
For continuous light, reflected or incidence readings are both valuable, for different reasons.
Also, for a lot of studio shoots, I know what what my set up will require. I keep tables of subjects and equipment, varying as needed during the shoot.
In my film days, Polaroid backs were a valuable tool, allowing us to view a close representation of the end result.
I use light meters, too, even a flash meter. I sometimes even use auto settings on my DSLRs. Today’s tech is very useful.
As usual, ymmv, imho, etc…
Yeah, I think incident light meters are a blast from the past. Although they can still be useful in a studio setting, the ability to get an instant preview (or, even better - immediate download and view on a computer) makes them a bit archaic.
I used a Luna Pro F when I was serious about it, which was in the film days. I think it’s a great way to better understand your use of light, especially with multiple lights. But I never compared it to looking at a test image and never had histograms available.
Overall, if you want to get deeper into photography and understanding your use of light, I think it’s a powerful way. Just my opinion.
Not since going digital. Examining the histograms on a test shot will tell you more than a light meter can.
There are rare occasions when I’d probably use an incident meter if I had one with me. But that would be just a minor convenience.
I used a flash meter in the days of shooting film and transparencies. It was handy for getting my preferred light balance: usually, main light a stop brighter than fill. Continous light stuff was metered with the camera, sometimes with a gray card.
In the digital age the flash meter got occasional use, and then some battery corrosion made it iffy to rely on. It didn’t get replaced or seriously cleaned. Now, it’s previews and histograms. If I was arranging a painstaking set using six flashheads, I might be tempted to break out the meter, but probably wouldn’t.
I don’t shoot serious video, but a meter might come in handy if an actor had to walk through multiple areas with varied lighting.
It sounds like I might be going in the direction of saving a bunch of money and not getting one then.
My current method involves setting up key, fill, and hair lights with cheap manual strobes a stop apart, setting the camera to 1/180 (my max sync) and f/5.6 and tweaking the flash powers and positioning until things look right, occasionally lowering the shutter speed to bring in more ambient or messing with the aperture for a global change.
I’m happy with the results, but those videos make it seem like you can get everything set perfectly with proper ratios before the first shutter click. It just seems so much more precise and planned than my “fiddle with things until it looks right” technique.
Just noticed this thread today. I used to use flash meters all the time while shooting film, but since getting into digital, I can’t remember the last time I pulled it out. I swear, it’s been about ten years since I’ve used a flash meter, although I carry one with me in the bag when I’m out shooting (I do this for a living.) This is not to say they are useless or unnecessary. If you want to get precise lighting ratios, they are useful. If you don’t want to mess around with trial and error, they’re useful. I just find it easier and quicker to eyeball it, take a guess at flash power, look at the LCD and adjust as necessary. But you can be more precise using a flash meter. And it also depends on how you like to work and how you think. For reproducibility, I think a flash meter is great. If you have a favorite lighting set-up and ratios, a light meter can help ensure you are there and get consistent lighting from image to image.
I never use a light meter other than the only built into my DLSR. I do change the metering mode and exposure comp based on experience and the effect I want, but given that it’s so easy to review the exposure via the histogram and then re-shoot if necessary, a light meter just seems irrelevant. Of course, with a flash that sometimes involves a lot of trial and error, and some flat-out missed photographs, but as an amateur, I feel that’s an acceptable loss. Perhaps a pro would approach it differently.
…I’m another strobist, mainly outdoors on location with speedlights and talking lightstands. I have a couple of standard set ups and can normally dial my lights in in a couple of shots: set the ambient first, then I get my talking lightstands in position and i typically use distance as my primary lighting adjustment. I wouldn’t mind a lightmeter as when I use lots of off-camera light it would be nicer to be more precise quicker, but I make do with what I’ve got.