Re: Meters are for suckers
- From: "Skip M" <shadowcatcher@xxxxxxx>
- Date: Sat, 29 Apr 2006 08:25:09 -0700
"dtype" <drew.streib@xxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:1146255983.087609.108890@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
(Title not quite right, but sort of...)I always use a meter as a starting point, it saves time over shooting,
I've recently begun to add strobe lighting to my photography hobby, and
wanted to know if my approach is off for studio work.
Everyone touts the merits of using a meter, and for film photography,
or photography in mixed lighting, I can see this as a definite need.
But for studio work, I just don't see the value.
Right now, I setup the shoot with an appropriate background, whether it
be still life or a model shoot, and make a wild guess on the total
amount of lighting and fire off a test shot.
A histogram later, and I know whether or not all of my data is within
the dynamic range of the camera. I get relative lighting values from
the modeling lights, and from the pic itself if I'm feeling up to
tethering my laptop to the setup.
It only takes a few test shots to ensure that my raw picture looks
good, and I haven't blown highlights or lost shadow detail. Everything
is shot in raw, so my only real concern is making sure that I have good
enough data to throw into my post-processing.
Is this a normal way to do things in the modern age of instant feedback
on photos?
-drew
checking the histo, shooting again, checking histo... Meter, shoot, check
histo, get to work...
--
Skip Middleton
http://www.shadowcatcherimagery.com
.
- References:
- Meters are for suckers
- From: dtype
- Meters are for suckers
- Prev by Date: Re: OT: Anyone know of a Free news service that supports Outlook Express
- Next by Date: Re: Printing "Slick" Brochures - Should I Use IRIS or Epson?
- Previous by thread: Re: Meters are for suckers
- Next by thread: Re: Meters are for suckers
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|