Technology...that's what happened...we don't have to do it that way anymore...now we have a much easier way to do it. Same thing happened to manual focus, and ISO on a roll...lol. I used to shoot those old relics...missed a lot of shots just setting up....no nice point and shoot functions like we have on today's nice SLR's. Just look at the millions and milllions of wonderful images posted all over the internet today.
These are the good old days...take advantage of your technology.
I'm all in favor of technological advances; I certainly would not be a working professional if it weren't autofocus, let alone digital itself.
However I don't think the specific skill of gauging exposure should be disqualified by "now we have a much easier way to do it..." I would ask you, what is easier than simply KNOWING the right (or near-perfect) exposure?
Sure, you have to commit a few numbers to memory, but if you ask me that is something our brains are SERIOUSLY deprived of in this digital age where EVERYTHING is remembered for us. Yeah, it's convenient to not have to remember a hundred phone numbers. But after a while it gets BAD, and our brains are actually LOSING power in some respects. But that is another discussion for another time...
So, I'll happily embrace advances in autofocus technology, flash technology, etc... But I will still pursue the art of KNOWING LIGHT. :-)
Yeah, sure. If you never incorporate light metering into your shooting habits you will never do it because it'll never be normal for you. After all your years of doing something one way, the same way as when you were starting out, it'd be tough to start digging up the foundations. Sure cameras can get it right and so can the experienced eye. Having all those new tech aids to exposure help sell cameras. It doesn't help to sell a camera if a light meter is recommended to use with it for best results. That's left unsaid, of course. But if cameras of today are that good, why are we having this discussion? If your experienced eye is so good why are you chimping and checking for blinkies every shot you take, and re shooting if you see them or some other exposure issue? And what about all those shots with blinkies? Are all of them simply replaceable with another shot until you get the right preview? Wouldn't you in the end have a set of images with pretty good exposures but few of them the shots you were after, the one-offs? Or are those oh-so-close shots doomed for long tough treatment in post? It'll show, you know! As you correctly point out, when you are shooting stuff like weddings the action doesn't wait for you, doesn't stop for you to chimp and correct, chimp and correct. This thread is demonstration in itself that there must be a better way, because in describing your workarounds to get correct exposure you are revealing the limitations of your approaches. Start with the op's original scenario - he wants to know why with today's high tech gear he is getting images with noise which he hates. The "solution" you have offered is to look for blinkies! Wow! All your years have got you so far!
So, you are shooting on the church porch when the party is leaving. You shoot and chimp, shoot and chimp. Are you pointing your camera at the bride's white dress or the groom's black suit, or both, or at your hand, or what, to get your exposure? And what have you lost while you have been lost for correct exposure? What if you are using flash as well, as the op describes? And suddenly the groom and all the guys take off their coats, you have a frame full of white reflecting flash, and some of these guys are dark skinned, but the bride and the girls all have freckles. Where are you? This is reality, is it not? The op is getting noise because his images are underexposed. Blinkies are not going to help there, they are the problem, because in getting rid of the blinkies in the preview the image has been underexposed.
The *responsible* wedding photographer - and Matt you have so often stressed that a wedding photographer must be *responsible* - meters every scene where photographs are going to be taken beforehand using the 2nd shooter, bystanders etc as targets. The settings for correct exposure in every location are stored in the meter, and a note is made of flash settings for correct compensation and ratio. The main and the 2nd have these. That's it, the job's done. For every location the correct numbers are entered in before any action begins. There is no chimping. Whether the subjects take off their coats or leave them on, whether they are black and shiny skinned or anemic and dull, no matter how the flash catches the white satin or the black serge, the exposures will always be correct. Now the experienced, as well as the responsible, photographer, will quickly be able to make adjustments for a passing cloud, though even that is not critical since his presets will be so spot on that small variations will not push exposure into danger. Look at my shot above, look at the dynamic range, all perfectly exposed! In one shot, instantaneous, no chimping, no adjustments, using the light meter and flash settings I made beforehand.
As I said, if you never update to best practice efficient and scientific high tech shooting habits you will never have this totally different experience, you will always be wrestling with your gear using your workarounds, chimping, blinkies, and a prayer! And lots of post!
Yeah, sure. If you never incorporate light metering into your shooting habits you will never do it because it'll never be normal for you. After all your years of doing something one way, the same way as when you were starting out, it'd be tough to start digging up the foundations. Sure cameras can get it right and so can the experienced eye. Having all those new tech aids to exposure help sell cameras. It doesn't help to sell a camera if a light meter is recommended to use with it for best results. That's left unsaid, of course. But if cameras of today are that good, why are we having this discussion? If your experienced eye is so good why are you chimping and checking for blinkies every shot you take, and re shooting if you see them or some other exposure issue? And what about all those shots with blinkies? Are all of them simply replaceable with another shot until you get the right preview? Wouldn't you in the end have a set of images with pretty good exposures but few of them the shots you were after, the one-offs? Or are those oh-so-close shots doomed for long tough treatment in post? It'll show, you know! As you correctly point out, when you are shooting stuff like weddings the action doesn't wait for you, doesn't stop for you to chimp and correct, chimp and correct. This thread is demonstration in itself that there must be a better way, because in describing your workarounds to get correct exposure you are revealing the limitations of your approaches. Start with the op's original scenario - he wants to know why with today's high tech gear he is getting images with noise which he hates. The "solution" you have offered is to look for blinkies! Wow! All your years have got you so far!
So, you are shooting on the church porch when the party is leaving. You shoot and chimp, shoot and chimp. Are you pointing your camera at the bride's white dress or the groom's black suit, or both, or at your hand, or what, to get your exposure? And what have you lost while you have been lost for correct exposure? What if you are using flash as well, as the op describes? And suddenly the groom and all the guys take off their coats, you have a frame full of white reflecting flash, and some of these guys are dark skinned, but the bride and the girls all have freckles. Where are you? This is reality, is it not? The op is getting noise because his images are underexposed. Blinkies are not going to help there, they are the problem, because in getting rid of the blinkies in the preview the image has been underexposed.
The *responsible* wedding photographer - and Matt you have so often stressed that a wedding photographer must be *responsible* - meters every scene where photographs are going to be taken beforehand using the 2nd shooter, bystanders etc as targets. The settings for correct exposure in every location are stored in the meter, and a note is made of flash settings for correct compensation and ratio. The main and the 2nd have these. That's it, the job's done. For every location the correct numbers are entered in before any action begins. There is no chimping. Whether the subjects take off their coats or leave them on, whether they are black and shiny skinned or anemic and dull, no matter how the flash catches the white satin or the black serge, the exposures will always be correct. Now the experienced, as well as the responsible, photographer, will quickly be able to make adjustments for a passing cloud, though even that is not critical since his presets will be so spot on that small variations will not push exposure into danger. Look at my shot above, look at the dynamic range, all perfectly exposed! In one shot, instantaneous, no chimping, no adjustments, using the light meter and flash settings I made beforehand.
As I said, if you never update to best practice efficient and scientific high tech shooting habits you will never have this totally different experience, you will always be wrestling with your gear using your workarounds, chimping, blinkies, and a prayer! And lots of post!
Neil
1.) We're having this discussion because someone ELSE asked the question, lol. I'm the guy who shoots 99% ambient!
2.) Don't get me wrong, I'm a huge strobist geek who loves to use flash, but I usually shoot photojournalism without flash. It's not like I've never shot with a light meter before, I almost take offense at the part about "after years of doing something the same way, the same as when you were starting out"... That is simply NOT the case. I was formally trained in studio lighting, using incident light meters and film. I've used both incident and reflective (spot) meters in the field. I simply found that it was more time consuming to deal with multiple devices and to try and gauge flash exposure without any visual reference.
3.) When I do use flash in photojournalistic situations, I do all the things you described. For important moments, from the toast to the grand exit, I gauge my flash power before things happen. Trust me, I'm not just randomly firing offand then dialing frantically. I consider the flash distance and my ISO / Aperture, then I set my flash power, (And the Nikon flashes have a built-in distance scale if I enter my ISO and aperture!) ...then I shoot, check, and fine-tune. It takes just a few seconds, and I don't have to leave my camera position.
4.) So when I talk about blinkies and chimping, it's not like every tenth photo I take is totally un-usable. I probably miss / ruin photos just as frequently as someone using any other method. Unless the methods is so flawless that they have NEVER ruined an exposure since the day they perfected the technique? The scenarios described here sound just as tricky, and likely to be missed / ruined, for ANY flash metering method. Dramatic change in light, or reflectivity? You better be able to take your external meter reading just by reaching out your hand, because by the time you walk over to the subject, click a reading and then walk back, I've probably also chimped and dialed my exposure or flash a few clicks.
5.) My whole point in advising the OP to "look for the blinkies" was simply to explain that an exposure "as close as possible to over-exposed, but not quite" ...is the best way to reduce noise. It was NOT to insist that one metering technique is superior to another, aside from the fact that I believe simplicity of method is important on a wedding day... The OP is welcome to use whatever flash metering technique they so choose; either way the result will still be the same- a brightly exposed image that still retains detail in the highlights.
....All I can conclude is, my method has worked for me for years and if I felt like I were missing moments due to speed, "fiddling" or "work-arounds", ...I certainly would have changed my methods by now in order to increase my keeper rate. I'm not saying that I NEVER miss a shot, but I doubt anyone else can claim they NEVER do, either.
Just like how I trust my ability to roughly gauge distance and flash power in my head and then fine tune it within a few seconds, Neil puts trust in an external meter and I would bet still runs a slight risk of missing the mark of perfect exposure, especially when trying to get a "bright" exposure right up there at the threshold of detail loss in order to minimize noise.
So, short of having an actual race to see who is faster and more acurate, I'd say that we've presented our methods well enough by now. ;-)
The *responsible* wedding photographer - and Matt you have so often stressed that a wedding photographer must be *responsible* - meters every scene where photographs are going to be taken beforehand using the 2nd shooter, bystanders etc as targets. The settings for correct exposure in every location are stored in the meter, and a note is made of flash settings for correct compensation and ratio. The main and the 2nd have these. That's it, the job's done. For every location the correct numbers are entered in before any action begins. There is no chimping. Whether the subjects take off their coats or leave them on, whether they are black and shiny skinned or anemic and dull, no matter how the flash catches the white satin or the black serge, the exposures will always be correct. Now the experienced, as well as the responsible, photographer, will quickly be able to make adjustments for a passing cloud, though even that is not critical since his presets will be so spot on that small variations will not push exposure into danger. Look at my shot above, look at the dynamic range, all perfectly exposed! In one shot, instantaneous, no chimping, no adjustments, using the light meter and flash settings I made beforehand.
As I said, if you never update to best practice efficient and scientific high tech shooting habits you will never have this totally different experience, you will always be wrestling with your gear using your workarounds, chimping, blinkies, and a prayer! And lots of post!
Neil
Neil,
It's obvious you have never shot wedding. You want someone to use a light meter to check every possible place a photo may occur and record those values and then incorporate them real time as the event takes place..right? It's just not practical. By the time your assistant goes around to the dozens of locations with different light conditions things may already have changed. Just 30 min later the light could be different, somone turns on/off a light, the sun sets, clouds roll in or out, etc. Using your camera light meteter and chimping might take 1 or 2 shots to get the what you want..maybe 10 sec. That's about the same time your assistant might need to open up his notebook and give you you the data. *shrug*
However I don't think the specific skill of gauging exposure should be disqualified by "now we have a much easier way to do it..." I would ask you, what is easier than simply KNOWING the right (or near-perfect) exposure? So, I'll happily embrace advances in auto-focus technology, flash technology, etc... But I will still pursue the art of KNOWING LIGHT. :-)=Matt=
Matt,
I'm not disqualifying anything...I'm leaving it behind. What's easier than memorizing charts...putting the camera up to your eye and letting it do the work for you...and adjusting as required...all without having to take your eye out of the view finder. Then, checking the histogram to see if you are getting what you want.
Remember, no one may want you to take pictures, but they all want to see them. Educate yourself like you'll live forever and live like you'll die tomorrow.
The only thing I care about with exposure is to not blow out the dress and not be severely underexposed, I estimate about 5% of my attention is going into whether or not my exposure is correct during the day. It only needs to be in the "close enough" window. There is no wrestling...just a small turn of the shutter speed or exposure compensation dial from time to time.
I wouldn't even call it chimping, probably takes about 1 second to check the blinkies and adjust exposure if necessary, on the fly.
There are much more important things to consider at all times during the day of a wedding photographer, than making your exposures perfect at the time of capture.
I spend my time interacting with the clients, planning ahead, making sure I am in the right place at the right time with the right equipment and with composition and making sure the light is how I want it.
Getting exposure right is so easy using my method...as I said maybe 5% of my thought process is spent on it....if that.
The histogram only gives you - very important - information about the digital data on your card. Blinkies only tell you that some digital data values on your card are at 255/255/255. Neither of these tell you if the freckled bride in her shiny white satin dress and her dark skinned groom in the black suit are all well exposed. I think there is some misunderstanding in some places here about using these to get correct exposure. Correct exposure does not only mean what is going off the ends of the histogram or about the distribution of tones, it is mainly about the correct balance of exposure on your subjects. You cannot get that without workarounds if you use only your camera's meter. You will get that exactly with a light meter.
As I said, whether a light meter is a trouble to you or not depends on the sophistication of your technique. If you have developed techniques to include a light meter it will not be a trouble to you.
I'm not disqualifying anything...I'm leaving it behind. What's easier than memorizing charts...putting the camera up to your eye and letting it do the work for you...and adjusting as required...all without having to take your eye out of the view finder. Then, checking the histogram to see if you are getting what you want.
I'm totally on board with this. All I'm saying is, BEFORE my camera comes to my eye, experience and memory help out a little bit. I'm sure you'd agree, that having zero reference point in your mind is just not a good idea. If it's pitch black and you're at ISO 3200 and f/1.4, you're not going to start off at 1/1 flash power.
I dont' memorize charts or anything, I just KNOW that I'm gonna be at roughly 1/8 power when the light is getting dim and I'm at ISO 1600 / f/2.8 and bouncing off a moderately close ceiling. Or, I KNOW that TTL will work for me in situation X, but not in situation Y or Z...
I was just encouraging people to work on gaining experience and committing things to memory, as opposed to believing that there is some magic technique out there that will instantly make them a master without any effort.
I dont' memorize charts or anything, I just KNOW that I'm gonna be at roughly 1/8 power when the light is getting dim and I'm at ISO 1600 / f/2.8 and bouncing off a moderately close ceiling. Or, I KNOW that TTL will work for me in situation X, but not in situation Y or Z...=Matt=
Okay...now that you have explained your simplified version of knowing the light...I agree.
Remember, no one may want you to take pictures, but they all want to see them. Educate yourself like you'll live forever and live like you'll die tomorrow.
Comments
I'm all in favor of technological advances; I certainly would not be a working professional if it weren't autofocus, let alone digital itself.
However I don't think the specific skill of gauging exposure should be disqualified by "now we have a much easier way to do it..." I would ask you, what is easier than simply KNOWING the right (or near-perfect) exposure?
Sure, you have to commit a few numbers to memory, but if you ask me that is something our brains are SERIOUSLY deprived of in this digital age where EVERYTHING is remembered for us. Yeah, it's convenient to not have to remember a hundred phone numbers. But after a while it gets BAD, and our brains are actually LOSING power in some respects. But that is another discussion for another time...
So, I'll happily embrace advances in autofocus technology, flash technology, etc... But I will still pursue the art of KNOWING LIGHT. :-)
=Matt=
My SmugMug Portfolio • My Astro-Landscape Photo Blog • Dgrin Weddings Forum
Yeah, sure. If you never incorporate light metering into your shooting habits you will never do it because it'll never be normal for you. After all your years of doing something one way, the same way as when you were starting out, it'd be tough to start digging up the foundations. Sure cameras can get it right and so can the experienced eye. Having all those new tech aids to exposure help sell cameras. It doesn't help to sell a camera if a light meter is recommended to use with it for best results. That's left unsaid, of course. But if cameras of today are that good, why are we having this discussion? If your experienced eye is so good why are you chimping and checking for blinkies every shot you take, and re shooting if you see them or some other exposure issue? And what about all those shots with blinkies? Are all of them simply replaceable with another shot until you get the right preview? Wouldn't you in the end have a set of images with pretty good exposures but few of them the shots you were after, the one-offs? Or are those oh-so-close shots doomed for long tough treatment in post? It'll show, you know! As you correctly point out, when you are shooting stuff like weddings the action doesn't wait for you, doesn't stop for you to chimp and correct, chimp and correct. This thread is demonstration in itself that there must be a better way, because in describing your workarounds to get correct exposure you are revealing the limitations of your approaches. Start with the op's original scenario - he wants to know why with today's high tech gear he is getting images with noise which he hates. The "solution" you have offered is to look for blinkies! Wow! All your years have got you so far!
So, you are shooting on the church porch when the party is leaving. You shoot and chimp, shoot and chimp. Are you pointing your camera at the bride's white dress or the groom's black suit, or both, or at your hand, or what, to get your exposure? And what have you lost while you have been lost for correct exposure? What if you are using flash as well, as the op describes? And suddenly the groom and all the guys take off their coats, you have a frame full of white reflecting flash, and some of these guys are dark skinned, but the bride and the girls all have freckles. Where are you? This is reality, is it not? The op is getting noise because his images are underexposed. Blinkies are not going to help there, they are the problem, because in getting rid of the blinkies in the preview the image has been underexposed.
The *responsible* wedding photographer - and Matt you have so often stressed that a wedding photographer must be *responsible* - meters every scene where photographs are going to be taken beforehand using the 2nd shooter, bystanders etc as targets. The settings for correct exposure in every location are stored in the meter, and a note is made of flash settings for correct compensation and ratio. The main and the 2nd have these. That's it, the job's done. For every location the correct numbers are entered in before any action begins. There is no chimping. Whether the subjects take off their coats or leave them on, whether they are black and shiny skinned or anemic and dull, no matter how the flash catches the white satin or the black serge, the exposures will always be correct. Now the experienced, as well as the responsible, photographer, will quickly be able to make adjustments for a passing cloud, though even that is not critical since his presets will be so spot on that small variations will not push exposure into danger. Look at my shot above, look at the dynamic range, all perfectly exposed! In one shot, instantaneous, no chimping, no adjustments, using the light meter and flash settings I made beforehand.
As I said, if you never update to best practice efficient and scientific high tech shooting habits you will never have this totally different experience, you will always be wrestling with your gear using your workarounds, chimping, blinkies, and a prayer! And lots of post!
Neil
http://www.behance.net/brosepix
1.) We're having this discussion because someone ELSE asked the question, lol. I'm the guy who shoots 99% ambient!
2.) Don't get me wrong, I'm a huge strobist geek who loves to use flash, but I usually shoot photojournalism without flash. It's not like I've never shot with a light meter before, I almost take offense at the part about "after years of doing something the same way, the same as when you were starting out"... That is simply NOT the case. I was formally trained in studio lighting, using incident light meters and film. I've used both incident and reflective (spot) meters in the field. I simply found that it was more time consuming to deal with multiple devices and to try and gauge flash exposure without any visual reference.
3.) When I do use flash in photojournalistic situations, I do all the things you described. For important moments, from the toast to the grand exit, I gauge my flash power before things happen. Trust me, I'm not just randomly firing offand then dialing frantically. I consider the flash distance and my ISO / Aperture, then I set my flash power, (And the Nikon flashes have a built-in distance scale if I enter my ISO and aperture!) ...then I shoot, check, and fine-tune. It takes just a few seconds, and I don't have to leave my camera position.
4.) So when I talk about blinkies and chimping, it's not like every tenth photo I take is totally un-usable. I probably miss / ruin photos just as frequently as someone using any other method. Unless the methods is so flawless that they have NEVER ruined an exposure since the day they perfected the technique? The scenarios described here sound just as tricky, and likely to be missed / ruined, for ANY flash metering method. Dramatic change in light, or reflectivity? You better be able to take your external meter reading just by reaching out your hand, because by the time you walk over to the subject, click a reading and then walk back, I've probably also chimped and dialed my exposure or flash a few clicks.
5.) My whole point in advising the OP to "look for the blinkies" was simply to explain that an exposure "as close as possible to over-exposed, but not quite" ...is the best way to reduce noise. It was NOT to insist that one metering technique is superior to another, aside from the fact that I believe simplicity of method is important on a wedding day... The OP is welcome to use whatever flash metering technique they so choose; either way the result will still be the same- a brightly exposed image that still retains detail in the highlights.
....All I can conclude is, my method has worked for me for years and if I felt like I were missing moments due to speed, "fiddling" or "work-arounds", ...I certainly would have changed my methods by now in order to increase my keeper rate. I'm not saying that I NEVER miss a shot, but I doubt anyone else can claim they NEVER do, either.
Just like how I trust my ability to roughly gauge distance and flash power in my head and then fine tune it within a few seconds, Neil puts trust in an external meter and I would bet still runs a slight risk of missing the mark of perfect exposure, especially when trying to get a "bright" exposure right up there at the threshold of detail loss in order to minimize noise.
So, short of having an actual race to see who is faster and more acurate, I'd say that we've presented our methods well enough by now. ;-)
=Matt=
My SmugMug Portfolio • My Astro-Landscape Photo Blog • Dgrin Weddings Forum
Neil,
It's obvious you have never shot wedding. You want someone to use a light meter to check every possible place a photo may occur and record those values and then incorporate them real time as the event takes place..right? It's just not practical. By the time your assistant goes around to the dozens of locations with different light conditions things may already have changed. Just 30 min later the light could be different, somone turns on/off a light, the sun sets, clouds roll in or out, etc. Using your camera light meteter and chimping might take 1 or 2 shots to get the what you want..maybe 10 sec. That's about the same time your assistant might need to open up his notebook and give you you the data. *shrug*
14-24 24-70 70-200mm (vr2)
85 and 50 1.4
45 PC and sb910 x2
http://www.danielkimphotography.com
Matt,
I'm not disqualifying anything...I'm leaving it behind. What's easier than memorizing charts...putting the camera up to your eye and letting it do the work for you...and adjusting as required...all without having to take your eye out of the view finder. Then, checking the histogram to see if you are getting what you want.
Educate yourself like you'll live forever and live like you'll die tomorrow.
Ed
I wouldn't even call it chimping, probably takes about 1 second to check the blinkies and adjust exposure if necessary, on the fly.
There are much more important things to consider at all times during the day of a wedding photographer, than making your exposures perfect at the time of capture.
I spend my time interacting with the clients, planning ahead, making sure I am in the right place at the right time with the right equipment and with composition and making sure the light is how I want it.
Getting exposure right is so easy using my method...as I said maybe 5% of my thought process is spent on it....if that.
http://www.flickr.com/photos/21695902@N06/
http://500px.com/Shockey
alloutdoor.smugmug.com
http://aoboudoirboise.smugmug.com/
As I said, whether a light meter is a trouble to you or not depends on the sophistication of your technique. If you have developed techniques to include a light meter it will not be a trouble to you.
Neil
http://www.behance.net/brosepix
I'm totally on board with this. All I'm saying is, BEFORE my camera comes to my eye, experience and memory help out a little bit. I'm sure you'd agree, that having zero reference point in your mind is just not a good idea. If it's pitch black and you're at ISO 3200 and f/1.4, you're not going to start off at 1/1 flash power.
I dont' memorize charts or anything, I just KNOW that I'm gonna be at roughly 1/8 power when the light is getting dim and I'm at ISO 1600 / f/2.8 and bouncing off a moderately close ceiling. Or, I KNOW that TTL will work for me in situation X, but not in situation Y or Z...
I was just encouraging people to work on gaining experience and committing things to memory, as opposed to believing that there is some magic technique out there that will instantly make them a master without any effort.
=Matt=
My SmugMug Portfolio • My Astro-Landscape Photo Blog • Dgrin Weddings Forum
Okay...now that you have explained your simplified version of knowing the light...I agree.
Educate yourself like you'll live forever and live like you'll die tomorrow.
Ed