Re: Meters are for suckers
- From: Alan Browne <alan.browne@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Sun, 30 Apr 2006 13:28:50 -0400
dtype wrote:
(Title not quite right, but sort of...)
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.
You're missing the real point of metering studio lights which is not overall exposure, but control of ratios to achieve specific lighting effects. Be these dramatic 8:1 lighting ratios, 4:1 portraits, blown out or subdued backgrounds or other, the use of a meter is the proper tool for advanced lighting.
In effect you are metering. You're just using the camera as a meter (of sorts).
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?
Studio shooters have long used Polaroid test shots to evaluate the overall effect of the lighting, to look for unintended hot spots, flare or shaddows; etc. The Polaroid has simply been replaced by the digital camera ... including for film shooting in the studio.
But to say "Meters are for suckers" is to say that you know how to get a dynamic range approriate exposure, but you know little about lighting.
The light appeal of a photo does not come from getting the exposure "right" but from getting the lighting right. These are two very different things.
http://www.pbase.com/shootin/image/57538102 required metering the VU lights as well as three strobes with two different colors.
http://www.pbase.com/shootin/image/54268496 backlight to foreground metering.
http://www.pbase.com/shootin/image/53173364 background to subject metering.
http://www.pbase.com/shootin/image/48370148 three lights, different colors
http://www.pbase.com/shootin/image/44374694 backligting to highlight lighting. (this is a screwed up shot).
http://www.pbase.com/shootin/image/36669126 incident lighting (subject) to backlighting (reflection).
Cheers,
Alan
--
-- r.p.e.35mm user resource: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm
-- r.p.d.slr-systems: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpdslrsysur.htm
-- [SI] gallery & rulz: http://www.pbase.com/shootin
-- e-meil: Remove FreeLunch.
.
- References:
- Meters are for suckers
- From: dtype
- Meters are for suckers
- Prev by Date: Re: Quick release
- Next by Date: Hey what's up with the photos?
- Previous by thread: Re: Meters are for suckers
- Next by thread: OT: Anyone know of a Free news service that supports Outlook Express
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
