How truly useful are lightmeters?

[Carlos M]

I still don't see your point. One of us is misunderstanding the other. Where is the misunderstanding?

Cheers,

R.

I don't agree with you. You say zone II, I say zone 0. Tamayto, tomarto. That's your misunderstanding.

"Hardening of your categories"? :angel:




p.s. You can go ahead and have the last word now.🙄

 

[Roger Hicks]

@Carlos: I use the Auto mode, A for amateur.



The question of decision making process in photography is interesting. Lets say do you agree that the unsung heroes who created Kodachrome should be given credit in every masterpiece that was shot using Kodachrome? Do you think every Salgado book should give credit to all the people behind Tri-X in Kodak? Because it was not photographers who came with these famous films, it was some unsung quiet dudes working in complete obscurity that created those films.

Similarly the modern DSLR is an extremely complicated computer that is made to be used even by a complete computer illiterate person, but lets say if that illiterate person turns out to be a great photographer and wins an award or something, should he give credit to the engineers in the company where his camera was made? And these examples can go on ad nauseum.


The point I'm trying to make is that every decision about the technology that a photographer needs to make a photograph with is already decided by someone else. A photographer's decision is simply an act of pointing at something and clicking. even what happens in post processing is already decided by someone else.

So, the notion of decision making is very tricky, and its incredibly arrogant of a photographer to think of himself as the sole creator of a picture. And those who think using their teeth is a better method to open a knot rather than their fingers are simply fooling themselves, and taking false pride at something that is after all the result of work by engineers spending thousand of hours on research.

A photographer uses a lot of technology and the hard work of others to point at a subject and take a picture. How he uses all that technology and effort of others to make a picture is his part. Otherwise, to be a true photographer one should design and make one's own camera, post processing software, printing machine and ink.

Highlight 1: You call Godowsky and Mannes 'unsung heroes'?

Highlight 2: Nonsense. All you are talking about is composition and the decisive moment. You are completely neglecting a host of important decisions about everying else. Format? Film or digital? Soft or sharp? Film speed? Depth of field? Shutter speeds to freeze or blur movement? More or less exposure, for different moods? Developer choice? Enlarger choice (assuming you don't choose a contact print)? Paper choice? Your argument is akin to saying that everything a painter does is determined by the brushmaker and colourman.

Cheers,

R.

 

[Roger Hicks]

I don't agree with you. That's your misunderstanding.

I understand that you disagree (despite your edited afterthought). What I don't understand is why. I have given reasons for why I say what I do, and you haven't. Return to post 39 and refute the argument -- if you can. I leave it to others to decide which of us has made the better case. Or indeed, any case at all.

Cheers,

R.

 

[ebino]

Highlight 1: You call Godowsky and Mannes 'unsung heroes'?

Highlight 2: Nonsense. All you are talking about is composition and the decisive moment. You are completely neglecting a host of important decisions about everying else. Format? Film or digital? Soft or sharp? Film speed? Depth of field? Shutter speeds to freeze or blur movement? More or less exposure, for different moods? Developer choice? Enlarger choice(assuming you don't choose a contact print)? Paper choice? Your argument is akin to saying that everything a painter does is determined by the brushmaker and colourman.

Cheers,

R.

1 - how many people have heard of them?

2 - you give more credence to my arguments. Formart - who decided on the formats in photography? Sharp according to which standard or sharpening tool? Film speed, the ISO standard decided by who? Developer choice, paper choice etc... all of those were decided by someone at some point and in majority of cases by engineers.

So, thank you for given further credence to my argument.


The painter on the other hand has the option of working with all sorts of colors, but yes, if it was not for some dude inventing paper and better brushes and so on, Van Gogh would had to do with animal hide and his fingers.


I think, photographers need to sometime acknowledge their dependence on engineers and technology and should not think of themselves as Gods who create images out of the void.

 

[Thebes]

There have been a number of currently working at photographers whose work is viable on the secondary market who used no light meter at all.

A light meter provides a suggestion on how you might expose. If you truly know how to use one, and use the right one for your needs, it will help you place tones along a scale to fit the photograph you desire to make.

The matrix metering in my D90 makes these decisions for me. The spot meter in my 4x5 kit lets me make the decisions. Sometimes I want to think for myself, sometimes I want to get a useful content set without thinking about the metering.

What do you want? Get the tool you need to do it. If you don't want to be encumbered and really know your light and materials, you need no meter. The tool is only as useful as your need for it.

 

[leicashot]

In other words, fudge it, based on experience and guesswork...

Why is this better than directly measuring the shadows with a true spot meter? Which actually does guarantee adequate shadow exposure.

Cheers,

R.

What if the person is wearing dark clothes or light clothes? This WILL effect the exposure of the scene. Shadow information again is only one element of a scene too. Taking a reading from this segment doesn't mean that 'that' particular reading is the best for the image. A spot meter is just like any in-camera meter, readin from reflected light not ambient light, and like I said above, is easily tricked by colors or clothing and sometimes skin.

Look, at the end of the day, either method works, but an ambient reading is always more accurate in the hands of an experienced photographer. Also, it's the BEST possible way to learn. While a spot meter can work, you need to know how it works as well as it's limitations in order to compensate.

 

[gns]

I wonder how many of the great pictures from the 150+ years of the medium's history were made with no light meter at all.

Cheers,
Gary

 

[Pickett Wilson]

ebino, I think you are being deliberately obtuse. I've been doing this photography thing for 50 years, shoot everything from 4x5 to the latest top of the line DSLR's. And no matter what camera I point at things, they come out looking like I shot them. Not like Roger shot them, not like Ansel shot them, not like Frank shot them, not like Winogrand shot them. Like I shot them.

 

[ebino]

ebino, I think you are being deliberately obtuse. I've been doing this photography thing for 50 years, shoot everything from 4x5 to the latest top of the line DSLR's. And no matter what camera I point at things, they come out looking like I shot them. Not like Roger shot them, not like Ansel shot them, not like Frank shot them, not like Winogrand shot them. Like I shot them.

Well, you're using all that technology and effort to give expression to your vision or whatever you call it in the form of photographs, and that makes those photos your photos... But you're doing it under the framework, aesthetic parameters and standards set by others namely engineers working in photography business.

 

[JayGannon]

1 - how many people have heard of them?

2 - you give more credence to my arguments. Formart - who decided on the formats in photography? Sharp according to which standard or sharpening tool? Film speed, the ISO standard decided by who? Developer choice, paper choice etc... all of those were decided by someone at some point and in majority of cases by engineers.

So, thank you for given further credence to my argument.


The painter on the other hand has the option of working with all sorts of colors, but yes, if it was not for some dude inventing paper and better brushes and so on, Van Gogh would had to do with animal hide and his fingers.


I think, photographers need to sometime acknowledge their dependence on engineers and technology and should not think of themselves as Gods who create images out of the void.

Erm no engineers designed it and photographers chose it. I can make a developer tomorow that will give everyone lovely pink negatives but it wont be used because it has no merit.

To claim that choice of exposure is banal is an ignorant statement.

 

[Roger Hicks]

1 - how many people have heard of them?

2 - you give more credence to my arguments. Formart - who decided on the formats in photography? Sharp according to which standard or sharpening tool? Film speed, the ISO standard decided by who? Developer choice, paper choice etc... all of those were decided by someone at some point and in majority of cases by engineers.

So, thank you for given further credence to my argument.


The painter on the other hand has the option of working with all sorts of colors, but yes, if it was not for some dude inventing paper and better brushes and so on, Van Gogh would had to do with animal hide and his fingers.


I think, photographers need to sometime acknowledge their dependence on engineers and technology and should not think of themselves as Gods who create images out of the void.

1 Anyone who knows anything about the history of photography. Rather as anyone who knows any history will know something about the history of paper, papyrus, vellum and canvas.

2 No, the CHOICE wasn't decided. The range of what is available relies (to some extent) to others, but CHOOSING in that range is another matter (and of course you can make your own materials -- I have). And, of course, I can print any size I like.

Your comments about sharpness suggest that you do not understand anything at all beyond software. Some lenses are sharper than others (there are even purpose-made soft-focus lenses); some processes are sharper than others (yes, photography existed for quite a long time before digital); there is no 'standard' for sharpness, and indeed, it's a meaningless concept.

Likewise, you appear not to understand ISO speeds. These are a means of comparing relative speeds, and a starting point for photographers to choose what speed suits them best. The same film might be used at EI by one photographer at EI 250 and another at EI 650. To say that a meter determines choice is on a par with saying that a grocer's scale determines what weight of apples I buy.

No-one in their rght mind denies the great debt we all owe to countless researchers for 1000 years or more (go back to the camera obscura). But nor can I see how anyone in their right mind can dismiss the role of choice in any artistic endeavour, be it photography or painting or anything else. Or were the words you wrote determined by the keyboard you used?

Cheers,

R.

 

[Pickett Wilson]

I guess I don't understand your point, ebino. We all have the same technology available. I have spent a fortune over the years trying to buy talent to play guitar. I have the exact same Strat setup Eric Clapton plays, in fact. But I'm still a crap guitar player. And sound nothing like Clapton. Just don't get what you are trying to say.

 

[ebino]

Roger Hicks, you could nitpick, use ad hominems, straw-man and every other logical fallacy in your book, but what I said is very simple.


A photographer is forever bond by the aesthetic parameters, technological standards and design decisions decided upon by engineers. he has to work within all these predetermined factors to bring about what he wants others to see in the form of pictures. How successful he is is decided by the audience.

 

[ebino]

I guess I don't understand your point, ebino. We all have the same technology available. I have spent a fortune over the years trying to buy talent to play guitar. I have the exact same Strat setup Eric Clapton plays, in fact. But I'm still a crap guitar player. And sound nothing like Clapton. Just don't get what you are trying to say.

Its quite simple, you could not use all that technology invested in guitars as Clapton did... And nothing to feel bad about because Clapton is one of a kind sort of people.

 

[Richard G]

Depending on you camera, another advantage of hand held is the ability to take a covert reading, set the controls on your camera and take a picture without raising the camera to your eye. If you have a great automatic camera with an on board meter do you really need to understand metering? Yes. And it is just those more demanding metering situations, a child's first concert for instance, where you don't want to have her face a white blur, that the use of an incident meter ahead of the concert, or a very detailed knowledge of the field of your in-camera meter and bracketing or closing one stop and experience of this and remembering it from one year to the next are going to give you the confidence that you've got the shot.

 

[JayGannon]

Its quite simple, you could not use all that technology invested in guitars as Clapton did... And nothing to feel bad about because Clapton is one of a kind sort of people.

Hehe you have no idea what photography is about do you? I find your attitude genuinely insulting.

 

[Roger Hicks]

What if the person is wearing dark clothes or light clothes? This WILL effect the exposure of the scene. Shadow information again is only one element of a scene too. Taking a reading from this segment doesn't mean that 'that' particular reading is the best for the image. A spot meter is just like any in-camera meter, readin from reflected light not ambient light, and like I said above, is easily tricked by colors or clothing and sometimes skin.

Look, at the end of the day, either method works, but an ambient reading is always more accurate in the hands of an experienced photographer. Also, it's the BEST possible way to learn. While a spot meter can work, you need to know how it works as well as it's limitations in order to compensate.

No. In the hands of someone who understands what they are doing, and how to use a spot meter, a spot meter is invariably more accurate. An incident light reading is quicker and easier, but it cannot be as accurate in every possible circumstance.

First of all, let's clarify something. I trust you realize that I am talking about true (1 degree or 1/2 degree) spot meters, not the so-called 'spot meters' in cameras which are indeed subject to the limitations you describe.

A spot meter reading, for negative exposure, is taken from the darkest area in which the photographer wants shadow and detail. It is therefore unaffected by (for example) skin, unless the darkest area in which you want texure and detail. The same goes for light or dark clothes (again, it's unlikely that the darkest area in which you want shadow and detail would be taken from light clothes). With very pure colours you may have to make colour corrections (which are detailed in, for example, the instruction books for Pentax spot meters) but with degraded colours these corrections are seldom necessary.

You keep using capitals ('BEST') and phrases like 'trust me', but this doesn't actually advance your argument. Answer the following simple question: how can an incident light reading ever give you an accurate shadow reading? Then reflect upon the fact that ISO film speeds for negatives are based on shadow density, and tell me how you are going to give exactly the exposure you would like without reading the shadows.

For digital or slides, yes, incident is every bit as good as a spot highlight reading, and vastly easier, but it's still no better.

Cheers,

R.

 

[Richard G]

Also, incident and reflective both relate to shooting in ambient light. The ambient light is the alternative to flash, not quite a synonym for incident in this context of photography.

 

[Roger Hicks]

Roger Hicks, you could nitpick, use ad hominems, straw-man and every other logical fallacy in your book, but what I said is very simple.


A photographer is forever bond by the aesthetic parameters, technological standards and design decisions decided upon by engineers. he has to work within all these predetermined factors to bring about what he wants others to see in the form of pictures. How successful he is is decided by the audience.

Where are the examples of nitpicking, ad hominem arguments and straw men?

The mere fact you use the term 'aesthetic parameters . . . set by engineers' puts something of a dent in your arguments. HOW does an engineer set 'aesthetic parameters'? For tha matter, how does ANYONE set 'aesthetic parameters'?

Cheers,

R.

 

[Roger Hicks]

Also, incident and reflective both relate to shooting in ambient light. The ambient light is the alternative to flash, not quite a synonym for incident in this context of photography.

Well, quite. A failure make this distinction does not argue well for clarity of thought on the subject.

Cheers,

R.