Sekonic Light Meter

[Evertking]

Hello, I'm new to the form and I come here looking for some help. I just purchased a sekonic 308 and when I take a meter reading... Say... of my son sitting sitting on the lawn in the back yard. I put the settings in my Canon 6d and then take the picture I get the blinkies saying the the highlights are blown. What am I doing wrong?

[Shadowman]

Probably nothing at all, it depends on the intensity and size of the blinkies; if it is just a few spots here and there and you do not appear to be losing any detail then don't worry about it. If the blinkies cover a large area especially the face then you could have an issue. Even with the best of camera systems you might have to use exposure compensation to get the exact look you want.

[Manfred M]

Without seeing your image, I'm just guessing here.

The Sekonic 308 is primarily a flash meter, although it can be used as an incident light meter. You don't say whether you are using flash or just ambient light, When used properly, it will give you the correct exposure for your subject, but if the background is blown out, then it has exceeded your camera's ability to record it; i.e. you have exceeded the dynamic range of your camera's sensor. This has nothing to do with the light meter, but rather your choice of a background that is too bright.

If you are shooting jpegs, it does mean that you have blown out the highlights. If you are shooting raw, there is an excellent chance that you can recover the highlights in post-processing.

Why did you buy an incident light meter when your camera already has an excellent and sophisticated built in metering system. I use an incident light meter at times, but usually only when shooting with multiple flashes.

[Evertking]

Ok, I see what your saying. I was told early on to purchase a meter and that it would save me a lot of time and trouble. I do shoot some OCF but was just out playing with my kids and took the opportunity to practice with my camera.
The meter was doing its job and giving me the correct exposure for my son and with out the use of flash to control the background I had to settle for what I got, Correct?
Thank you for your help and your portfolio is amazing!!

[Evertking]

You seem to know what your doing.
I'm very new to photography and I have included a photo from today. It's frustrating, I know and see the image that I want to make in my head but I can't get through the camera and then on print!! I'm sure you been here before. Any advice? More practice and more practice? For an example... I seen rich colors and a long sweeping tree branch framing the image. But this is what I got! Lol... I'm sure better outfit and color harmony and strobes would have helped. But it's the open sky in the background too, am I right? Any advice? I just see pictures in my head but I can't get them any further than that.
This was shot with a Canon 6d and a 135L

[Stagecoach]

Welcome to CiC.

Firstly, it's a great picture.

Secondly, are you using any software that allows you to enhance/change the image more to your liking?

Grahame

[Evertking]

Yes, this was a JPEG that I sent to my phone while I was out playing with my kids, I have the RAW file in my camera. I will play with the raw file later but I'm lost when it comes to post work. I'm ok with Lightroom but way behind on the Photoshop. I have set aside a few hours a day to learn but I'm still learning LR.
Thanks for the compliment but it's not what I was after but I can't expect that being new.

[Donald]

As Shadowman says - probably nothing at all.

The meter is giving you a reading based on the figures 0 to 255. You'd think that what was the camera is doing, but it is not. The camera is set for stupid people and the blinkies (for highlights) come in once you go beyond about about 240 (or even as low as 230 - depending on the camera).

So, you've got to learn to ignore the blinkies and trust your meter reading. It does take a while to get used to, and you want to take another shot based on the camera's reading 'just in case'. This of course assumes, that you are using the meter properly.

[DanK]

Welcome to CiC. Can you please go to settings at the top right and put in your real name and location? We use real names here, and your location may be helpful in some cases for people to tailor their responses.

My first reaction is similar to Manfred's: why use an incident meter? The reflected-light meter in your camera is very capable and offers a number of different metering options that allow the user a great deal of flexibility. Perhaps because I don't do studio work or complex multi-unit flash work, I don't even own an incident-light meter and feel no urge to get one.

In any metering, the meter or your camera has to decide how much light to allow in to make SOMETHING neutral. The question is what is is going to consider. Some meters simply take all of the scene, with no weighting. Some (e.g., evaluative weighting) give different weight to different areas, depending on location in the frame, relative brightness, or whatever. Some (e.g, spot metering) take a simple reading off one small portion of the image. Learning to use these is the key to good exposure. In many situations, the evaluative metering in your camera will do just fine. In others, it won't. For example, it may be led astray by a lot of snow or bright sky. In that case, I often use spot metering--e.g., to meter off the area I want neutral, or to avoid the bright areas being blown out. A simpler option in some cases is to take a test shot and then dial in some exposure compensation before taking the ones that matter. This all takes practice, but it is a very powerful set of tools.

I disagree with one thing Donald wrote:

So, you've got to learn to ignore the blinkies and trust your meter reading.

I don't always trust the meter reading, which is only a single number. No single number is a terribly reliable indicator of the entire distribution of luminance, and in particular, it's not a terribly reliable way of estimating what is going on at the extreme ends of the distribution. Instead, I trust the histogram, which shows the entire distribution of luminance. I have the camera set to display the histograms of all three channels separately because it is possible to blow one even if the total histogram looks reasonable, but for most purposes, the simple, single histogram is sufficient. If you are getting blinkies, check the right side of the histogram. If it is hitting the right side, you are overexposing the brightest parts of the image. If you are shooting raw, you can recover the lost detail if the clipping is not too severe.

BTW, this is why I pay no attention to the many people who disdain "chimping," that is, looking at the histogram after taking a shot. I chimp a great deal. Why not look at the data and see if you need or want a change? The ability to do that on the fly is one of the beauties of digital. No need to wait until it's too late to see that you didn't get the exposure you want.

Re the photo: I think it is a nice image. However, the way it is composed, the leaves get much more weight than the children. I assume you would rather do the reverse.

[mikesan]

Looking at your photo, it's apparent that the scene has a fairly wide dynamic range. So it's no surprise that a few blinkies would appear regardless of what exposure you choose. Bottom line, the exposure on the children seems (to me) very close to "spot-on". Your use of the meter did just what is required. I think it's a fine photo. Some work in post-processing could make it even better.

[Shadowman]

Welcome to CiC. Can you please go to settings at the top right and put in your real name and location? We use real names here, and your location may be helpful in some cases for people to tailor their responses.

BTW, this is why I pay no attention to the many people who disdain "chimping," that is, looking at the histogram after taking a shot. I chimp a great deal. Why not look at the data and see if you need or want a change? The ability to do that on the fly is one of the beauties of digital. No need to wait until it's too late to see that you didn't get the exposure you want.

Re the photo: I think it is a nice image. However, the way it is composed, the leaves get much more weight than the children. I assume you would rather do the reverse.

Hi Dan,

I think the "disdain" and that is a strong way of phrasing it is reserved for the photographer who looks to the viewfinder for every single shot. It's not so much ignoring or paying too much attention as it is potentially missing an opportunistic shot, sometimes the best frozen moment comes after the last click. Also, to me chimping can be very annoying in the studio or even outside when you are working under extreme conditions, no big deal if you are working alone but if you've got a model, assistant, or even time restraints then "chimping" can be an inconvenience for some.

[pnodrog]

I suspect the blinkies were right. Because of the image size posted I am not absolutely certain but it does look like you have adjusted a "blown" sky and in doing so have made it a bit "muddy". Exposure needs to be very accurately controlled when you have such a high dynamic range. It looks well exposed for the shadow area under the tree but it has resulted in some clipping of the bright sky. In PP I think you would end up with a more pleasing result if you carefully overlaid the slightly expanded selection of sky area with a layer containing a better exposed blue sky. (selection used to form layer mask) Set blend mode to darken and then lower layer transparency until it looks as natural as possible. When dodging or reducing the exposure of a very bright sky area it will often end up muddy looking.

[Manfred M]

Hi Dan,

I think the "disdain" and that is a strong way of phrasing it is reserved for the photographer who looks to the viewfinder for every single shot. It's not so much ignoring or paying too much attention as it is potentially missing an opportunistic shot, sometimes the best frozen moment comes after the last click. Also, to me chimping can be very annoying in the studio or even outside when you are working under extreme conditions, no big deal if you are working alone but if you've got a model, assistant, or even time restraints then "chimping" can be an inconvenience for some.

Carefully said, I take great care when setting up my first shot in a series to make sure that my settings are right. This is more than just checking the exposure, but also all of the other settings I am using. This is not chimping, but rather good photographic practice. No one wants to end up with 10 or 15 blown shots in a row because the setup was wrong.

Chimping is looking at virtually each individual shot you have taken, and here the arguments made against the practice are legitimate. Again, even here, this is not necessarily a bad practice. When I do tethered shooting in a studio setting in product photography, I will make minor adjustments between shots, so I will examine each shot in detail and tweak my setup. I'm not going to lose any shots here and if I don't make any adjustments, every shot will look identical (I do this type of work using a tripod). When doing a model shoot, I am in charge. Not the model, or the assistant or the makeup artist are in charge here; the photographer is and whatever helps him or her pull off a great shot is important. When working with an experienced model, I find that he or she will help me get into a rhythm and I will give the model some more control. With an inexperienced model, there is less flow and a lot more direction from the photographer. The assistant or makeup artist will sometimes see a problem and they can play a role in interrupting the flow and fixing the issue. I'd rather have that happen than to have to fix a hair, makeup or minor lighting issue in post.

[Evertking]

Thank you all for your help. This is clearly a wonderful and helpful community, I feel lucky and grateful to have found it and have the chance to learn for everyone here.
I'm not a master photographer, hell.. I'm not even a amateur photographer. However, I have a desire to learn.

[Manfred M]

Thank you all for your help. This is clearly a wonderful and helpful community, I feel lucky and grateful to have found it and have the chance to learn for everyone here.
I'm not a master photographer, hell.. I'm not even a amateur photographer. However, I have a desire to learn.

We all started learning somewhere. Every tool you use; in photography and elsewhere, has its limitations.

This is especially true for the camera's built in reflective light meter. The camera manufacturer has set it up to work with scenes where the lighting is close to "average". Take a shot of an airplane or bird in the sky, and your image will be much too dark. Take a night shot and your image will likely be far too light. The lighting in both these scenarios is too far from average for your light meter to give you a correct reading. This is why camera manufacturers have included an exposure compensation setting to let you override what your light meter is suggesting.

One thing the is useful to know and understand are the histogram displays that your camera produces (both luminance and colour channels). I use these to determine how good my exposure is. Unfortunately, with most cameras, this is an after the fact piece of information as it is based on the shot you have taken.

[William W]

Three other (additional and expanded) points:

The EOS CANON DSLR “Blinkies” (and the Histogram; the Review Image and the LCD JPEG Image) are all driven by the In-Camera JPEG processor. This processor is governed by the settings in “PICTURE STYLE”.

This important to know because if you take notice of the Blinkies and the Histogram, then you need to set a base line “PICTURE STYLE” so that, in any and every case, when you refer to the Blinkies or the Histogram, you maintain consistency.

Additionally (as Donald mentioned) there is a difference between camera models as to where the “Blinkies” become visible/active.

Additionally there is a difference between cameras as to how much HEADROOM there is; that is to say how far you can really push ETTR (Expose To The Right).

This is not an insurmountable issue. In fact I find it easy to deal with: I select ONE Picture Style (see footnote*1) and stick with it, then I go out and make some test shots capturing raw + JPEG (L), on a sunny day with the sun behind me, using EVALUATIVE METERING and make an exposure bracket in one third stops until the last shot is well over exposed maybe three stops overexposed and the Blinkies have gone absolutely crackers.

Then I get the raw files and find the one that is at the limit of “recoverable” in Post Production.

I then look at the Blinkies and maybe the RH end of the Histogram for that shot and I note the camera’s EXPOSURE RECOMMENDATION, i.e. what the TTL Meter told me to use for the shot and compare exposure that to what I actually did use for that shot which is at the limit of “recoverable” in Post Production.

I also look at how aggressive the Blinkies are on the “recoverable” shot and also at what shot the Blinkies first began Blinking at me.

That exercise provides to me a good feel for the Camera’s Headroom; when the Blinkies are going to begin screaming at me and how much I can push the exposure and ignore the Blinkies: for that particular Digital EOS camera.

BUT I must keep my Picture Style the same all the time, lest I change the algorithm that makes the Blinkies blink. Simple!

And I never use “Auto Picture Style”, if I want to use the Blinkies (and the Histogram)as useful data to execute my Exposure.

If I want to (and I do) I can also look at a different typical lighting scenario: “backlit” and do the same procedure using CWA Metering. This is addressing a deeper understanding and usage of the different Metering Modes, which is a different topic of discussion, but one I am passionate about, because whilst, (nowadays), there seems a great emphasis on discussion and learning about the different Camera Modes (Especially Aperture Priority Mode, Shutter Priority Mode and Manual Mode), there is very little import placed upon a good understanding of the functionality of the different Metering Modes modern cameras offer, which to me is silly, because 99.99% of Photographers use the TTL meter in their camera.

***

Regarding the image of the two little girls.

Nice concept.

You write:

” I seen rich colors and a long sweeping tree branch framing the image. But this is what I got! Lol... I'm sure better outfit and color harmony and strobes would have helped.’

It is not completely clear to me that this is the image to which you refer in the Opening Post – but in any case it does appear that there are portions which are blown out. Noted that it is a JPEG and it appears also that some post processing has been applied. It will be interesting to see if the raw file is recoverable.

Anyway the point of my comments is not about those matters, but rather the point that unless the Post Production has been severely in error, then it appears to me that you have an issue with VEILING FLARE, (and possibly the Post Production has exacerbated that issue) and I do think that Veiling Flare is the main, or at least the initial reason why you didn’t get the ‘rich colors’ that you mention.

Firstly if you have a FILTER on your 135/2 Lens then, remember to take it off for those shots when you are shooting into the light.

Secondly ALWAYS have the Lens hood on (and on the correct way around) even if shooting inside or at night.

VEILING FLARE is when light bounces around inside the lens and at the worst creates a translucent milky smear and at the least reduces “POP” and Mid Tone Contrast.

VEILING FLARE is less common problem with telephoto lenses and can be usually avoided by moving the camera position slightly to change the angle of the rays of the offending light source.
Stopping down assists also.

The offending Light Source was probably the mass of white cloud/sunlight in the background – typically, with a 135mm lens on a 6D, changing the angle of the camera viewpoint a few degrees, horizontally would have fixed it – but more problematic if you had a Filter on the lens.

***

The exposure for the shot and the hand light meter:

The other consideration is the Subjects were BACKLIT: and it is a difficult, though not impossible proposition, to get Backlit Subjects to “pop” without the use of Flash as Fill – or – a reflected Sunlight Fill, from for example, a big bounce board – so, I agree, “strobes would have helped” but using Flash as Fill for that particular shot would have been reasonably difficult. Mainly because it is a WIDE shot made with a TELEPHOTO lens – hence your SUBJECT DISTANCE (distance from Camera to Subject) was quite a big distance and that would necessitate getting the Flash(es) Off Camera, so it(they) would be close enough to the Subjects to have some affect as adequate FILL.

An alternative is to shoot in Available Light; choose the lowest possible ISO whilst allowing a safe shutter speed to arrest Subject Motion; expose for the background – using ALL the headroom the camera has; and then use Post Production to bring up the underexposed Subjects.

***

The nuts and bolts of your shot as a working example:

EXIF reveals that the shot was pulled at: F/5 @ 1/250s @ ISO200.

After whatever Post Production was made on that image, there appears lush green grass and the appearance of medium-hard shadows and reasonably bright sunlight on parts of the Subjects’ skin: so at a guess it was a sunny day and maybe there was light cloud cover – neither Summer nor Winter, but Spring or Autumn so the sun was certainly not at it strongest.

So let’s make a good educated guess that the correct exposure for the BACKGROUND would be about: F/11~F/13 @ 1/200 @ ISO200 (using the ‘F/16 Rule’: 1~ ⅔ open from F/16)

Now let’s also assume that you have tested you EOS 6D and you reckon that you have about 1 stop headroom in it – in which case you could open up another stop; which is what you want to do because you really want as much exposure as possible on the subjects if you know that you can recover the background in Post Production – so now we have: F/8~F/9 @ 1/200s @ ISO200.

But we want to drop the ISO if we can; and we can so we now have: F/8~F/9 @ 1/100s @ ISO100.

But that Shutter Speed is way too slow for young children sitting and playing – your original 1/250s was a good choice, but I’d like 1/400s to be really safe, so we have: F/4~F/4.5 @ 1/400s @ ISO100.

IF the sunlight was actually as I described then that is the exposure at which I would have pulled that shot using an EOS 6D and an EF 135 F/2L.

IF the sunlight was as I described, then I calculate that your shot is about 1½ Stops overexposed, and beyond the ‘recoverable’ limit for an EOS 6D - so I think that is the non-correctable part of the problem, (provided that I described the lighting scenario accurately).

Which then leads me to this question –

IF your Sekonic Hand Held Light Meter gave you: F/5 @ 1/250s @ ISO200,

> how did you use the meter? what I mean is:
> to what function was the meter set?
> exactly where did you hold it?
> exactly where did you point it?

***

The image – what you might have wanted -

I am not sure what you wanted as the final image and this is certainly NOT a correction of it nor is it an interpretation for your final image: but it is an example of how the image might appear if it did NOT have the suspicion of Veiling Flare, in it.

The original is on the top:



WW

Footnote *1
I don’t actually only use ONE PictureStyle, I have up to three for each Canon DSLR, but that’s for a different purpose and I only use the other two when I want to use the JPEG Straight Out Of Camera).

[DanK]

Chimping is looking at virtually each individual shot you have taken, and here the arguments made against the practice are legitimate. Again, even here, this is not necessarily a bad practice

Keep in mind where this thread started: the OP is clearly only beginning to learn to control exposure. In that case, I think the best advice is: get more information when you may need it. And the best information is the histogram.

The example you give is one in which you are in control of lighting, etc. That is a case where continuing to look at the histogram is superfluous and a waste of time. I don't disagree, but that isn't relevant to the point I was making. The point I was trying to make is simply that the best information one can get at the moment of capture is the histogram, and when in doubt, the sensible thing is to take it.

Paul's case is one where one his shooting rapidly, and stopping to look at the histogram might cause one to miss a shot. Certainly. That's a situation where one might want to forgo the data provided by the histogram.

Both of these can be summed up, however, by this: looking at the histogram is informative about exposure--more informative than anything else one can do at the time of capture--but there are many circumstances in which it is either unnecessary or may impede your work. In those cases, of course, it's not worth chimping. What one often sees on the web, however, isn't this: it's disdain, as if there is something wrong with looking at the histogram. I think that's bad advice to give folks.

I find I want the histogram often. I may have doubts about the effects of the metering approach I have chosen. Or I may change composition in a way that substantially changes the mix of tonalities. Or the sun comes out. Or whatever. If I have reason to be uncertain, and if there is no particular reason not to take a moment to look at the histogram, I look at the histogram.

One of my cameras as an EVF. In most respects, I prefer the optical viewfinders in my other cameras. However, one of the nice things about the EVF is that when I am uncertain about metering--for any of the reasons above, or for any other--I can set it to show all of the histograms in the viewfinder with the preview of the capture. I don't have to take the camera away from my eye, and tapping the shutter makes it all vanish anyway.

[xpatUSA]

I'm very new to photography and I have included a photo from today. It's frustrating, I know and see the image that I want to make in my head but I can't get through the camera and then on print!! Any advice?

For an example... I seen rich colors and a long sweeping tree branch framing the image. But this is what I got! Lol... I'm sure better outfit and color harmony and strobes would have helped. But it's the open sky in the background too, am I right? Any advice? I just see pictures in my head but I can't get them any further than that.

This was shot with a Canon 6d and a 135L

Evert(?),

Bill (WW) covered the technicalities of your shot of the kids very well and I concur with what he wrote.

I think you would benefit from reading and understanding this:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exposu...xposure_values

From that Section and from looking at your image, I'll guess that you metered the kids in accordance with Sekonic's instructions and I'll guess further that no sunlight was falling on the meter's dome. So the meter recommended f/5 at 1/250 sec which, at your selected ISO of 200, means that the incident light where you measured it was 11.6EV. (by EV, I mean lighting value a.k.a. LV, not exposure compensation).

Next, I'll guess that the light incident on the grass was more like 13-14EV - so the background to the kids was some two EV brighter than them. A difficult shot indeed - needing a bit of thought before pushing the button. The Canon having a far superior dynamic range than my miserable Sigmas, I agree with all those who said less exposure would have helped. True, the kids would have been somewhat darker but in your editor (assuming it has tone curves or fill light) you could brighten them up without blowing the background.

Based on the foregoing, Bill's F/4~F/4.5 @ 1/400s @ ISO100 (12-13 EV) seems about right to me.

[rpcrowe]

Most problems mentioned in postings regarding exposure problems might be solved by using AEB. Especially when shooting with Canon DSLR cameras.

Many photographers tend to look down their noses at Auto Exposure Bracketing (AEB) but, this is not only a technique for ensuring that you get one image with the correct exposure, it is a IMO a good way to learn how to interpret the exposure which your camera meter is indicating. With AEB, you will get three exposures: one at the meter reading, one above the meter reading and one below the meter reading. I have my 7D Canon camera set up (making use of one of the user selected modes) so the the shot below the meter reading is first, the shot at the meter reading is second and the shot above the meter reading is third. When the camera is set up like this, it is easy to see how (or if) the metered exposures should have been modified.

You can also combine the AEB with exposure compensation. A combination with a minus 1 stop compensation will give you three bracketed shots: one at 2-stops under the meter reading, one at 1-stop under the meter reading and one at the meter reading. I often use this in shooting night shots of cityscapes because the bane of that type of shot is overexposure of the city lights. I will often use a plus 1-stop exposure compensation and AEB when shooting in the snow, giving me: one shot at plus two stops, one shot at plus one stop and one shot at the meter reading because the camera will often underexpose snow scenes.

The Canon DSLR cameras (all of them as far as I know) will, when AEB is selected, give you three bracketed shots every time the shutter button is pressed and then stop shooting until the shutter is pressed again to give you three more bracketed exposures.

I don't really see anything negative in using my Canon 7D2 in this way. Memory is cheap and the 7D2 has a large buffer. Using a fast UDMA capable CF card will allow bracketed shooting with little if any slow down.

I certainly don't shoot all my shots in AEB, but it is a viable technique when exposures are chancy. Such as shooting my Goldendoodle when she is backlit. And, as I mentioned, it could also be a good tool for learning about your camera's exposure selection and when to override that selection. It is certainly a lot better to have a selection of exposures from which to choose, than to have needed an image with less or more exposure and not to have that image to select!

NOTE: The default in Canon AEB setup is to have the AEB cancelled whenever the camera is turned off. I prefer to the cancel the AEB when I want to cancel it and have set my cameras up in that way.

[zen]

What an excellent thread-instructional session on reading light. This is why I continue to belong to CiC and read it daily. Thank you all for your expertise and your willingness to share it with others.

Zen