Is my light meter relevant?

[tripbeetle]

I am reading the excellent Understanding Exposure by Bryan Peterson. Peterson's basic standard advice is to set your preferred aperture or shutter speed (and your preferred ISO, of course) until the in-camera light meter shows a correct exposure.

My last two cameras haven't had viewfinders - only screens, and I rely completely on the screen preview to judge whether my exposure is correct or not - which I find a lot easier than trying to see the tiny light meter at the bottom of the screen that my aging eyes find more and more difficult to properly make out.

Yet, I'm really wanting to improve my photography, and am wondering if there really is any advantage to checking out the light meter readings as opposed to going by just how light or dark the picture on my screen looks. I have been doing it this way for so long now, that I can pretty much judge just from the screen preview how under-, over-, or "just right" exposed the finished photo will look when I open it in Lightroom.

Any advice or comments from more experienced photographers would be much appreciated.

[NorthernFocus]

Light meters have their limitations which must be understood to be used effectively in various situations. IMO if what you're doing works for you I'd stick with it.

[shreds]

It all depends on how much you judge 'just right' to be.

You also need to understand the difference between reflective and incident light

http://www.sekonic.com/l-478/incident-vs-reflected.html

https://www.cambridgeincolour.com/tu...a-metering.htm

so it depends on where the reading is taken from. Photography is all about light and a fundamental understanding is essential to improve your technique.

Not sure that at this stage, buying a light meter will assist in that?

[pnodrog]

How it looks on the screen will depend on the lighting conditions you are viewing it under. The best tools you have is either the marching ants indicating areas that maybe over exposed or the histogram display.

[Black Pearl]

I believe David is referring to the light meter in his camera not a handheld device...

[george013]

I've no idea how those lcd-screens work. I understand that in your situation the lcd-screen shows the image with the used settings. You correct the exposure based on that screen but before taking the picture. Looks like me taking a picture, inspect the histogram, adjust the setting and if needed shooting again. I can't rely on mine back-screen or lve-view. To much influenzed by the light conditions I'm in.

Whether the liight meter is relevant or not, the camera is using one.

George

[dje]

David it would help if you indicated what sort of camera you are using and what shooting mode you use (eg full manual, aperture priority shutter priority, auto ISO etc).

Without seeing your results, we don't know if improvement is needed and perhaps you won't know either unless you delve into this exposure business a bit further!

The idea of using the appearance of the rear screen to judge exposure is a bit "iiffy" - it must be difficult in bright light to start with but also different cameras do different things with their displays. eg some cameras automatically adjust the "brightness" of the screen so that it can be viewed easily but this could mean that the exposure is actually well out. On the other hand, some cameras have what's called Exposure Simulation on their live view mode and this can be quite a good indication of exposure. Personally, if I'm shooting manually, I like to use the camera exposure meter's indication plus the over-exposure indications mentioned by Paul above.

Dave

[chauncey]

If you are fortunate enough to have a histogram available showing on you LCD they are unnecessary.

[tripbeetle]

David it would help if you indicated what sort of camera you are using and what shooting mode you use (eg full manual, aperture priority shutter priority, auto ISO etc).
Dave

Thanks for the responses everyone.

Dave Ellis, I'm using a Fujifilm X-70. Sure, in very bright sunshine it can be difficult to see what's showing on the screen, but usually that's not a problem. The screen gives a reasonable approximation in terms of lightness/darkness of what the unprocessed image will look like. The light meter reading at the bottom of my screen is really small and difficult to see, however, I do have a histogram option - as Paul and George mention - which is probably worth looking into.

I always shoot in RAW, and rely on Lightroom to fix any exposure mistakes I've made. I actually tend to purposely underexpose, because it's much safer than accidentally overexposing and losing detail. However, I'd rather be a "pro" who can take great pix right from the start without having to torture them beyond what is reasonable in Lightroom, especially since I aim for a natural, unprocessed look in my shots.

Ian - thanks for those links. The one on the Sekonic page was especially helpful. A hand-held light meter could be a good investment, but they are expensive, and for the here-one-moment-gone-the-next kind of shots I take, might not get as much use as their expense warrants.

I shoot manually, mainly because I'm trying to learn what works and what doesn't instead of rely on the camera to do it, but might consider relying more on aperture/shutter priority.

[Donald]

I actually tend to purposely underexpose, because it's much safer than accidentally overexposing and losing detail. However, I'd rather be a "pro" who can take great pix right from the start without having to torture them beyond what is reasonable in Lightroom, especially since I aim for a natural, unprocessed look in my shots.

David - Have you heard of the notion of 'shooting to the right', or 'expose to the right'?

The one thing you don't want to be doing is underexposing. You're potentially throwing away a lot of information from your file if you do that. The very high majority of data in your file is at the right hand end of the histogram. So, you want to be pushing the highlights to the very edge of your camera's clipping point (the point at which the blinkies - if you have it set for that- come on). In fact, the camera settings will be very conservative and the clipping points are usually set well below the point at which your highlights will be blown out. For example, we know that pure white is at 255. Cameras will usually have their clipping point set at around about 235.

What I'm talking about here will not be making a lot of sense unless you are using the histogram. I see you writing above that you maybe need to get into using it. I'd say that is not an option. You HAVE to get into using it. You'll never take good readings unless you do. And read (on here and elsewhere) about exposing to the right.

[xpatUSA]

I am reading the excellent Understanding Exposure by Bryan Peterson. Peterson's basic standard advice is to set your preferred aperture or shutter speed (and your preferred ISO, of course) until the in-camera light meter shows a correct exposure.

My last two cameras haven't had viewfinders - only screens, and I rely completely on the screen preview to judge whether my exposure is correct or not - which I find a lot easier than trying to see the tiny light meter at the bottom of the screen that my aging eyes find more and more difficult to properly make out.

If had only two options of either following Peterson's "basic standard advice" or your screen preview method, I'd choose yours because Peterson's basic advice as quoted above is useless for normal photography. Sounds harsh but there are a kajillion scenes out there for which that advice simply does not work.

Yet, I'm really wanting to improve my photography, and am wondering if there really is any advantage to checking out the light meter readings as opposed to going by just how light or dark the picture on my screen looks. I have been doing it this way for so long now, that I can pretty much judge just from the screen preview how under-, over-, or "just right" exposed the finished photo will look when I open it in Lightroom.

Any advice or comments from more experienced photographers would be much appreciated.

Conventional photographers may disagree with your current method but, in many ways, it does shortcut around the learning curve for how best to meter a scene, how to assess a scene's need for over- or under-exposure (exposure correction), how to choose the correct metering mode for a given scene (e.g. average or center-weighted or spot) - and more.

[comment about histograms deleted so as to keep it simple]

[ETTR advice deleted in order to avoid confusion]

By all means start learning about metering and about histogram interpretation - it's always beneficial to know more about the craft but, to me, your method seems sound enough for your purposes.

[Manfred M]

David - if you can nail your exposure just by looking at the display on the back of your camera, your visual system (and your camera's display) is far better than mine. In certain shooting conditions I can eyeball the correct exposure, but I wouldn't trust what my screen shows me, simply because the light output from a display is variable and the adaptive nature of the human visual system means what we see is not necessarily what we need to see to correctly judge our exposures..

I do trust using the histogram from the shot to give me guidance as to how good the exposure is, but I don't think that is what you are doing. Even there, I understand that limitations based on how the histogram values are calculated,

That being said, I generally do not shoot in manual mode (which seems to be what Peterson suggesting if you have correctly outlined his workflow). I use one of the automation modes (aperture priority or shutter priority) in most of my work. The only times I resort to manual exposure is when I shoot panoramas or when I shoot flash. I definitely do know how to shoot on manual; it's a skill I learned as a film shooter decades ago, when the cameras did not have the level of automation found in current cameras.

That does not mean I don't watch what my camera meter is suggesting, as I will use exposure compensation (EC) to override the meter suggested settings when circumstances dictate I need to (snow scapes, back lit scenes, low light photography). I could just as easily use manual exposure here, but I find EC easier to use. In portraiture and product photography work, I will use a hand-held incident light meter and this lets me nail my shots (these will be done in manual exposure mode).

[Donald]

As regards advice to "expose to the right" (ETTR), a histogram is needed and there's more to it than just moving "the highlights" to the right-hand end of the histogram. A good example would be shooting a motorcycle in daylight with all that shiny chrome-plating - using ETTR would get you a badly under-exposed shot, whereas with your method you already know that all those bright spots will blow in the final output and you would adjust exposure according to your taste.

I think the point I was making, Ted, is that if you're at the point on the learning curve where David currently seems to be, the nuances of a motorcycle with all that shiny chrome-plating, can wait until later. The important thing is for David to grab the concept at this stage of his learning and, in particular, to understand that exposing to the right is a basic tool of digital photography that will help retain a lot more information in the data file produced when the photo is captured.

[xpatUSA]

I think the point I was making, Ted, is that if you're at the point on the learning curve where David currently seems to be, the nuances of a motorcycle with all that shiny chrome-plating, can wait until later. The important thing is for David to grab the concept at this stage of his learning and, in particular, to understand that exposing to the right is a basic tool of digital photography that will help retain a lot more information in the data file produced when the photo is captured.

Thanks, Donald. Point taken and post edited.

[rpcrowe]

Although "Understanding Exposure" by Bryan Peterson, is quite a good book, it still has some errors. One error evident in my copy is Peterson's referring to a totally overexposed image as "high key". "High Key" is not an overexposed image. It is a well exposed image of a scene with bright values...

[IzzieK]

I have the same book, David...but I never really got to finish it. 'Fact my bookmark is still on page 26 despite my many years of owning this book. I learned more by experimenting and knowing my camera well, push a button and configuring the menu, what they do. Learn about the exposure triangle then the histogram. Now I am in the process of taking short courses.

[dje]

Thanks for the responses everyone.

Dave Ellis, I'm using a Fujifilm X-70. Sure, in very bright sunshine it can be difficult to see what's showing on the screen, but usually that's not a problem. The screen gives a reasonable approximation in terms of lightness/darkness of what the unprocessed image will look like. The light meter reading at the bottom of my screen is really small and difficult to see, however, I do have a histogram option - as Paul and George mention - which is probably worth looking into.

Hi David

I had a quick look at the details of the X-70 and it seems that it has a function called "Preview Exposure in Manual Mode". I don't know whether you are using this or not (it may be set by default) but at least with this function you should get a reasonable indication of what the captured exposure will look like (as long as you can see it properly in the prevailing light conditions).

I have used this approach with a Canon I used to own but only in very limited circumstances - tripod mounted sunrise shots - and even then I still used the exposure meter reading and the histogram and blinkies as a guide as well.

For general shooting where you need to capture the moment, I would recommend you try Aperture Priority. You don't have to worry about seeing the exposure meter indication then.

Dave

[tripbeetle]

I had a quick look at the details of the X-70 and it seems that it has a function called "Preview Exposure in Manual Mode". I don't know whether you are using this or not (it may be set by default) but at least with this function you should get a reasonable indication of what the captured exposure will look like (as long as you can see it properly in the prevailing light conditions).
I have used this approach with a Canon I used to own but only in very limited circumstances - tripod mounted sunrise shots - and even then I still used the exposure meter reading and the histogram and blinkies as a guide as well.

For general shooting where you need to capture the moment, I would recommend you try Aperture Priority. You don't have to worry about seeing the exposure meter indication then.
Dave

Yes, I have Preview Exposure in Manual Mode set to ON, which is probably why I have found the screen a fairly reliable guide. I rarely need to change the exposure by more than 1.0 in Lightroom. However, in a priority mode the screen no longer serves as a guide, so that's where I'd need to use the histogram etc.

The reason I asked my original question is that, comfortable as I am with the screen as a guide, ideally I want to be able to just know what settings are right for what light, to be able to take even JPEGs that work. To that end, I'm thinking of buying a handheld light meter and just hanging out with it, even between taking photos, and getting a feel for the right settings for different light situations that way. My brain is profoundly unmathematical, so calculating things in my head is not going to work - I have to make it instinctive.

Richard and Izzie, thanks for your feedback on Understanding Exposure. I find it good as a walk through someone else's expert photographic style, and I'm plodding on because I paid good money for it; but, yes, it can get a bit tedious at times - like watching an hours-long, avuncular YouTube vid. Also, I do the occasional double-take such as when the honest-to-a-fault author who started by religiously extolling the benefits of all-manual casually lets slip later on that this photo or that was taken in a priority mode!

[Polar01]

Oh David "to be able to just know what settings are right for what light", is easy. It's called practice and once you think you have practiced enough do it again, and again, and again. Keep doing it until the time comes when you discover that after all that practice it comes to you, I really need to get out to practice more.

Cheers: Allan

[Mike Buckley]

David,

If you do a lot of outdoor shooting, consider becoming very familiar with the "Sunny 16 Rule" and its related variants. Considering how your current method seems to be such a good fit, using that rule might work just as well for you.

I once knew a man who never owned a camera with a built-in light meter and never used a handheld light meter. Instead, he used the "Sunny 16 Rule." I probably saw over the years about 2000 color film slides of his, which unlike print film can't be altered during processing. I distinctly remember seeing just one slide that was improperly exposed. That's because I mentioned to him at the time that it was finally good to know that he was fallible. I asked him early on how often he bracketed his exposures. His answer: never.