Living in the past?

[Bill Pierce]

Does anyone else use a handheld exposure meter instead of relying on the meter built into their camera? When many news magazines were using color transparency film (It was quicker to edit than negative.) a great many of us used hand held incident meters because they were far less likely than the meters built into the cameras to overexpose the highlights and turn those highlights into unreclaimable cellophane. That, sadly, pretty much parallels the situation with today’s digital sensors.

Using a handheld meter isn’t the most convenient way of determining exposure, especially in situation where the light is changing rapidly, either because the source is changing or you are pointing your camera in different directions. With landscapes, still lifes and architectural you can bracket. But with people (and pets) that isn’t true.

That silly half a pingpong ball in front of the meter cell on an incident meter to a great extent mimics the human face in measuring the light falling on it. It’s a great meter for anything approaching portraiture and unlike a reflected light meter, because it is measuring the incident light, light people come out light, dark people come out dark rather than everybody coming out the same. (That’s one reason it is still popular with cinematographers shooting people oriented films.)

Even with face detection linked exposure I’ve never gotten the accuracy, consistency and tonal differentiation I get with the incident meter. Automatic TTL metering can often lead to slightly different exposures frame to frame, making a matched set of prints somewhat difficult. So, obviously anything approaching a portrait session I use a handheld incident meter.

The facts that it protects highlights, works well with people pictures and calls for a single manual exposure that produces matching frames in a series of pictures has got me using a hand held incident meter more and more. As much as it makes sense to me, I could just be living in the past.

THOUGHTS??????

 

[CharlesDAMorgan]

I use it a lot of the time (Sekonic L308s), and a friend, an Ilford Artisan partner who taught me developing and enlarging insisted on me using it to get the best possible exposure for printing. He uses one almost exclusively.

As my spot meter is so temperamental I also use the Sekonic for large format, with no obvious issues.

I'm not a fan in very poor light with very small areas of light that might lead to the incident meter underexposing the subject (worse with pushed films). There I will use a built in camera meter.

 

[presspass]

Don't use my incident meters much with digital. I rely on the highlight preference setting of the Canon DSLRs and then edit. But I use the digitals for work - features, sports, and spot news for our weekly newspaper and attached website.
But I do use a Sekonic 300 series (308?) when I'm shooting a non-metered or metered film cameras on personal projects. I know it's overkill for 400 speed black and white film - after 40+ years shooting that speed film, I can usually estimate and come within a half an f stop.
Unfortunately, that doesn't address the issue you raised. If I had time to use an incident meter for digital, I would.

 

[donkee]

I use an L308 and a Minolta IVf (I love that Minolta and have the spot attachment for it) if I can. Sometimes things just move too fast for a meter reading. I do mostly shoot film as I spend way too much time on a computer while doing my day job and once I have the darkroom setup in the new dedicated area of the house I'll find a lot of enjoyment and relaxation. GIMPing images on the PC is anything but relaxing.....

 

[Dogman]

Oh jeez, Bill. You reminded me of those horrible days when the newspaper I worked for went color and decided on color slides to make the editor's job of viewing photos easier. What a cluster! A whole staff of photographers went from Tri-X on assignments to E6 color overnight. I sometimes had to carry around a three light outfit and even on routine assignments I would look for someone to hold my second 283 slave flash and point it at the subjects back to get separation from the background. And, yes, a Minolta flashmeter was standard for assignments. And, yes, blown out highlights still crept in causing much pain and frustration.

I have nightmares of those days and I never want to relive them. Today I don't own a flash or a handheld meter and I never will. I'm confident enough in my cameras' metering and in my eye's ability to get a useable exposure.

 

[Cascadilla]

I always use Sekonic L 718 and L 518 incident flash meters in my studio since I have no desire to "chimp" my way to a proper exposure via the screen on the DSLRs that I shoot with. The L 518 is now over 30 years old and has needed to be re-zeroed a couple of times because I dropped it, but other than that has only needed the occasional AA battery. The L 718 has been even more reliable. Both of them have always been very accurate, and I agree that TTL flash metering on location with battery powered camera manufacturer's flash units has never been that wonderful for me.

 

[rlouzan]

Yes, but must take into account light transmission problems.

 

[Godfrey]

I use my handheld incident meter(s) often. They work well for many situations.

 

[Timmyjoe]

I use a handheld incident meter with my older film cameras, but not really with any digital camera. I find chimping for exposure to be faster than hand held metering.

Best,
-Tim

 

[shimokita]

Depends on the subject and results I am looking for. The Sekonic 758 gets a fair bit of use, with the IIIf it's a Gossen Luna Pro. The electronic finder cameras with compensation dial are a great help in previewing the composition.

 

[Mackinaw]

For my film photography, I use an incident meter almost exclusively. With digital, I rely on the in-camera meter.

Jim B.

 

[jsrockit]

Nope, left that behind with film many years ago. I'd rather dial in a little negative exposure comp to save my highlights on a bright day. Once I've used a camera for awhile, I know how its meter will react. Plus, on digital cameras these days, they may even have a highlight priority mode (like the Ricoh GR III).

 

[Deleted member 65559]

I don't own a camera with a built-in meter. I always have a light meter with me, & sometimes use a spot meter, sometimes an incident meter....& sometimes I (successfully) estimate exposure. I process my film & print in a darkroom. Is that living in the past? Maybe, but people still go to concert halls to hear music made by dragging horsehair across cat gut strings instead of listening to electronic music....

 

[Axel]

Don´t use any type of meter in general. If I need one in situations I´m not sure every camera I own has a meter and the metering app on my phone is a real expert.

.... As much as it makes sense to me, I could just be living in the past.

THOUGHTS??????

I don´t think than anyone who uses an incident light meter today is living in the past.
But if you are not sure have a look at the light meter apps to reduce equipment.

 

[ChipMcD]

For my film photography, I use an incident meter almost exclusively. With digital, I rely on the in-camera meter.

Jim B.

Same here. Gossen Digipro F2 now and a other Gossen and Sekonics over the years.

 

[Ko.Fe.]

Here is no situation then you can't check exposure by probe shots.
On digital. On film I don't use any exposure meter, just my brain.
It works with e6, ecn2, c41 and bw.

 

[ptpdprinter]

Not sure why using an incident meter is living in the past. It is just another way of working. Shooting a digital camera using a built in meter is no different than shooting a 1960s film camera with a built in meter.

 

[craygc]

At least an incident meter is keyed to the highlights so potentially beneficial to digital in the same way it was/is to transparencies.

 

[Chriscrawfordphoto]

I carry a Sekonic L-758DR meter and use it for every photograph. I have not used a built-in camera meter in 20 years. Especially for digital, which has so little exposure latitude compared to BW neg film, built-in meters are incapable of giving correct exposure for most subjects. Yes, you can take the camera reading and manually adjust it, but an incident meter is simply more accurate and faster than jumping through hoops like that.


Here's a tutorial I wrote explaining why an incident meter is better.

 

[willie_901]

Never.

I found using raw files and auto-bracketing aperture exposures by 1/3 stop increments based on the in-camera meter works very well.[1] I just delete the inferior exposures in post-production.

When time is of the essence I simply take advantage of my camera's psuedo-ISO invariance. I pick the required shutter time and aperture and adjust the image brightness in post-production. This works well except for when the light level at least EV(100) 5-6. In very low ambient light in-camera ISO gain helps with read noise. There are two disadvantages. In low light in-camera review is impractical and in bright light you do have watch the in-camera meter to avoid sensor overexposure.

1. I use "Multi" meter mode with X-Pro 2 and X-100T.