What is the right and/or best way

[BGPhoto]

Yes, all that's true, but you changed your story. If I understood you correctly, you initially said that your final reading (pointed at camera) would only be higher than your key light reading if your fill was stronger than your key. But in this last post you said that if the key was one stop down, the final reading would increase (yes, .23 stops, theoretically). Metering one light one way and another light a different way makes learning anything very difficult.

In the end, I think the only way to learn this is to try. Just spend a few hours messing around.

[jcochran]

That is why I don't post much, its like that old War song. I was kinda splitting hairs, and now my hairs have been split. .23

I have played for hours with my lights in the area I use for a studio/darkroom/gargage. And it was from this experience I was talking.

So in your opinion what is the correct way to measure your different light sources? What is the benifit of how you do it compared to other ways?

[rmartinas]

I read all the comments, and have come to the following conclusions.

1. Always get it in the camera first, it saves time.

2. If the main light is not set for flat lighinging, some sort of fill will always be required, even if just a piece of foamcore, unless I'm going for that "edgy" drama thing.

3. Much like the use of a computer, photography is a personal thing. Unless you got 5 or 6 hundred American dollars to go to a weekend photo workshop, and buy someone elses opinon on the "correct" way to do it.

4. You people a great. I have found you all to be intelligent and thoughtful in your responses to the question. I love this place.

[telcoman]

First, Brian thanks for following up on my post. I didn't feel like getting in a pissing match to defend what I said. So I kind of sat back and let someone else do it. Sorry and thanks.

I think in the end we've offered the poster of the original question a couple of different ways of metering. Metering just the main may indeed be more efficient because you only take the main into account.

Metering after setting the main and fill I believe is more accurate. You don't have to add more light to increase your exposure you just have to add some light. As I've been taught this is one of the fundamental properties of light. It may not matter in some situations but what if that extra .23 stops blows a highlight when you're shooting digital. Then you're screwed. A blown highlight can't be recovered.

In the end, people have to decide for themselves what works best for them but without being armed with the information they can't make that choice.

David

[telcoman]

[ QUOTE ]
3. Much like the use of a computer, photography is a personal thing. Unless you got 5 or 6 hundred American dollars to go to a weekend photo workshop, and buy someone elses opinon on the "correct" way to do it.

[/ QUOTE ]

I've spent the $500-600 bucks to attend Rolando's workshop. The workshop was substantially less but by the time I paid airline, hotel, rental car, Model Releases, and MUA tip it comes to quite a bit more. I figure to total on SuperShoots Vegas will be in the $1500 range. The thing is that it was worth it for me and many others. The people that post on this forum and that conduct these workshops are a unique breed of photographer. They're the ones that are actually willing to share what all others consider "trade secrets". It doesn't mean I do things Rolando's way. It means I learned things from Rolando that are now in my bag of tricks. I've now got more tools to use which for me is a good thing. I'm not naturally blessed to be an artistic person. I've really got to work at it and put all the technical things together to get a good photo. Hopefully, someday it will start to become more natural and when I don't have to think about the technical the artistic will come easier but for now, I'll take all the help I can get.


[ QUOTE ]
4. You people a great. I have found you all to be intelligent and thoughtful in your responses to the question. I love this place.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is a great place. Remember though, free advice is sometimes worth every penny that you paid for it. [img]/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/grin.gif[/img] [img]/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/wink.gif[/img]

[BGPhoto]

[ QUOTE ]
I have played for hours....So in your opinion what is the correct way to measure your different light sources? What is the benefit of how you do it compared to other ways?

[/ QUOTE ]

I wrote a big long response to this last night...but it's not here now. Maybe I screwed-up and never posted it. Oh well; here's the condensed version.

===============

First, I want to be sure you understand that I'm not saying your technique is wrong. And I never meant to imply/infer/allude that you haven't practiced. I use "you" in the plural/general sense.

Almost all of my light measurements are made with an incident flash meter equipped with a white dome affixed and pointed at the lens of the camera. My method is to start with all strobes turned off, and the room light very low. I set my background light first. Then I set the hair light, leaving the background lit. Then I move to the fill, and finally to the key light. Then I go back and adjust the background light to compensate for spill from the other lights. Then I take a final reading with all the lights on.

What makes this technique superior, in my ever so humble and rather inexperienced opinion, is that it is very methodical and consistent. If you meter some lights with the meter aimed at the camera, and others with the meter aimed at the strobe...well, the numbers become meaningless in relation to each other. I've read this technique in multiple books and seen it used in Will Crocket's workshops.

But hey, this is art...so feel free to use any technique that works for you. But I believe the above is a solid foundation to build on. My brother-in-law does studio photography and doesn't even own a flash meter. He takes many more test shots than I do, but he still gets amazing results. To each his own.

Cheers.

[jcochran]

Brian,
Thanks for the reply. Most of us are here to learn, and I should have made my response clearer on the lighting issue.

I haven't read Will Crockets stuff, but find it interesting that you start with the background, and not the main.( when I get a larger space and more lights I'll have to try it out) I agree that you have to be methodical in your metering and do it the same way each time to progress your learning, and to be able to get repeatable results. Which is a key.

Again thanks for the response