Sekonic Light Meter

[pnodrog]

I took the reading in the middle where my kids were sitting, in the shade" and with the bright background. I should have picked a better spot or get my light out. I'm not to the point where I can fiddle with images in Photoshop yet.

Neither an incident light reading in the open or one in the shade was going to give you the best exposure for a subject in the shade while also successfully capturing the overall scene. A reading taken in the open would have probably given you the best overall reading but the children would have needed brightening up considerably. If you had used the reading taken in the open and then given it about an extra two stops of exposure you may have retained some detail in the sky while not needing to brighten "dodge" the area in the shade as much.

The other option you could try in a similar situation is to take a reading in the open, another in the shade and set the exposure roughly in the middle. You would still need to adjust the brightness curves (or shadow highlight control) or dodge to get a suitable outcome. We cannot give you an absolute answer as it will depend on the dynamic range of the scene, the dynamic range of your camera at the ISO being used, the software available, your skill level and your preferred outcome or compromise.

P.S. Do you have any editing software available? The shadow highlight adjustments available in a number of editors is the simplest way to achieve a limited but often acceptable correction to the problem you had provided the exposure is reasonable.

[Evertking]

Thanks. And yes, I have LR and will try that on the raw file and just play around with it and see what works.

[Manfred M]

When doing an incident metering you measure the light source. If you where in the shadow you didn't measure the light source. There're some theories how to hold the meter: direct to the source, to the camera or half way. I don't know. I think that depends also on the light meter and it's drone. Read the manual for that.

George

There are a lot of thoughts on this one George, and in my experience the people making these global statements on where to position an incident light meter aren't thinking all that clearly or more likely do not understand what the objectives of using the meter are. The instructions (or lack of them) from the meter manufacturer suggesting that the meter be aimed at the camera works well when one is using a single light source (flash or ambient light) that is falling on the subject.

I pretty well only use my incident meter to set up multiple studio lights. When doing so, the dome is fully extended and gets a reading on light hitting a hemisphere that is essentially in front of the camera. If I am setting up a key (main light) and fill light that come in from in front of the camera, this can work, so long as the photographer is not blocking one of the light sources (which is often impossible to do). If one is using accent lights, like a hair light or rim light or a background light, these will be behind the subject and pointing the meter at the camera will not give an accurate reading. I always point my meter at the individual lights (I sometimes use up to 5 studio lights), during the setup. I will tend to work backwards and set up the accent lights, the fill light and finally the key light. I will take a final reading with all the lights and will usually point it at the key light or the camera, as the readings should be just about identical.


You are correct about the importance of where the light reading is taken when the subject is partially shaded. Here one will get a different reading if for instance, the reading is taken where the subject is in shadow or the subject is in direct light. It would make sense to take a reading in both areas to understand what the light is doing. If the difference between the readings is too large (say more than 1 or 2 stops), it might make sense to move the subject to ensure that the light is better for the final image.

[mikesan]

The element of doubt appears, in spite of all our best efforts.

So little . . . in spite of all our well-meaning and knowledgeable help!

Good job that someone has showed up to save the thread from all it's "wandering around", eh?

I have little doubt that most of the responses were well-meaning and knowledgeable. I should go further and acknowledge that most (not all) the information was worthy of consideration when trying to solve exposure problems similar to those posed by the image in question. The purpose of my post was not to denigrate the wealth of information in the thread, but rather to concentrate on a simple and direct answer to the OP's question: "what am I doing wrong?" I thought it important to assure Evertking that, while there existed a multitude of alternative solutions to the problem, his instinctive solution was legitimate and, in no way, wrong.