digital camera as exposure meter

viewerofrecphoto wrote:
Thank you all for the interesting discussion!

For my landscape work, I'm going to spend the time to learn how to use
my spotmeter, in addition to metering from a gray card, because I
definitely blew some highlights on my latest bright sunlight shots.

For my portrait work, I'll continue to use my flash meter.

For the group, I'm amazed at the number of posts this generated.
Thanks especially to those who kept the discussion polite ;-)

You're very welcome. And using your flash meter is indeed the best way
to set studio lights, especially where getting specific ratios of light
is desired (or required).

OTOH, as I also said, using a digital camera is also a great way to
verify your lighting and look for unwanted shadows, glare, flare,
reflections, etc., before committing to film. It effectively replaces
Polaroid tests and is less costly and time consuming (as you don't have
to wait for the Polaroid) and is overall less damaging to the environment.

As to avoiding blown out highlights, a spot meter is more effective than
a grey card and the readings can also be used to help select ND grads
for the landscape shot.

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.

Alan Browne wrote:
Floyd L. Davidson wrote:
Alan Browne wrote:
Floyd L. Davidson wrote:

Since you've trimmed it all away, in hopes that it will
go away, lets look once again at just *exactly* what you
did say:

Alan Browne wrote:
Floyd L. Davidson wrote:
Alan Browne wrote:
Can I hook my strobes to it for metering purposes?
Why not?
'cause you won't be able to measure the ratio of fill to key.
That is the point of discussion. "You won't be able
to".

So..., Alan Browne says you "won't be able to measure".
And then repeats his statement later with "You won't be
able to."

The facts are that you can do that measurement with a
DSLR. That is no longer open to debate, it is a *fact*.

And arguing about whether the camera manual describes
it, whether it is harder than using an external flash
meter, or whether vice grips can drive nails is just
*irrational* *blather* designed to obscure just how
wrong Alan Browne's statement was to begin with.

Please show me a camera manual that
describes using the camera to measure and set studio
lights.
If Alan Browne can't read it in the camera manual, then
it can't be done???

Twisting the facts again Floyd does not make you right

You brought up the manual! I am not the one twisting
facts there sonny, *you* *are*. The facts are that what
is or is not in the camera manual is irrelevant to this
discussion *other* than being an indication, as I pointed
out above, that you are claiming that what you can't read
how to do in the camera manual can't be done. Which is
nonsense!

anymore than a successfully driven nail was "right" for
being driven by vice grips.

And there you go again. That's just irrational Alan.
No matter how many times you make up these silly
arguments, it remains the same: You *can* use a DSLR to
set fill light ratios.

The facts:

The facts are that you *are* able to measure the fill
light to key light ratios using the facilities of a
decent DSLR.

Or at least other people can. Maybe you could get some
help from one of the neighbor kids...

-cameras are for: taking photos
-light meters are for: measuring lights

That is no more rational than your statement about what
is or is not in the manual. Cameras have had built in
light meters for decades now Alan. You might even own
one that does, though I suppose a true Luddite wouldn't
want to admit to it, eh?

Talk about not being able to handle the truth. Point is
a lot of studio photographers use cameras (Polaroid in
the past; digital now) to verify lighting for shaddows,
glare, etc., after the lights are set. But they don't
use them to set the lighting ratio at all any more than
a carpenter uses vice grips to drive nails no matter how
'feasible' it is.

You probably do drive nails with vise grips... no
wonder you can't figure out how to use more complex
tools. Bet you've never considered one of those new
fangled nail guns either... too fancy and too much
technology?

--
Floyd L. Davidson http://www.apaflo.com/floyd_davidson
Ukpeagvik (Barrow, Alaska)

Floyd L. Davidson wrote:
Alan Browne wrote:
Floyd L. Davidson wrote:
Alan Browne wrote:
Floyd L. Davidson wrote:

Since you've trimmed it all away, in hopes that it will
go away, lets look once again at just *exactly* what you
did say:

Alan Browne wrote:
Floyd L. Davidson wrote:
Alan Browne wrote:
Can I hook my strobes to it for metering purposes?
Why not?
'cause you won't be able to measure the ratio of fill to key.
That is the point of discussion. "You won't be able
to".

So..., Alan Browne says you "won't be able to measure".
And then repeats his statement later with "You won't be
able to."

The facts are that you can do that measurement with a
DSLR. That is no longer open to debate, it is a *fact*.

The fact is that a DSLR is not a light meter. You can use it as such in
a contrived and tedious manner, but that does not make it the right tool
for the job. I also stated very clearly that such functionality _could_
be added as a properly designed function. No DLSR has that kind of
_direct_ functionality today. None.

Unless it's done in a contrived, tedious manner as you suggested (but
have not tested or proven to work well).

And arguing about whether the camera manual describes
it, whether it is harder than using an external flash
meter, or whether vice grips can drive nails is just
*irrational* *blather* designed to obscure just how
wrong Alan Browne's statement was to begin with.

No it was a simple example to illustrate why professionals use the
proper tool for the job.

Please show me a camera manual that
describes using the camera to measure and set studio
lights.
If Alan Browne can't read it in the camera manual, then
it can't be done???
Twisting the facts again Floyd does not make you right

You brought up the manual! I am not the one twisting
facts there sonny, *you* *are*. The facts are that what
is or is not in the camera manual is irrelevant to this
discussion *other* than being an indication, as I pointed
out above, that you are claiming that what you can't read
how to do in the camera manual can't be done. Which is
nonsense!

No DSLR manual that I have seen describes using a DSLR as a studio light
ratio meter. None.

anymore than a successfully driven nail was "right" for
being driven by vice grips.

And there you go again. That's just irrational Alan.
No matter how many times you make up these silly
arguments, it remains the same: You *can* use a DSLR to
set fill light ratios.

I didn't say you could not. I said that, unlike a light meter, there is
no specific function in a DSLR for setting lights. You, on the other
hand described a tedious (and untested) method to do it.

And you can use vice grips to drive nails if you like, but I won't.

What I said: "'cause you won't be able to measure the ratio of fill to
key. This could be implemented in a camera, but is not to date."

eg: the _function_ to do so is not there. Yes, you could use something
like your tedious, unproven and untested method and get there. Much as
a carpenter _could_ use vice grips to drive nails.

I will use a light meter to measure lights. You can contort yourself as
required.

The facts:

The facts are that you *are* able to measure the fill
light to key light ratios using the facilities of a
decent DSLR.

There are no "facilities" to directly meter studio lights with a DSLR.
There may be tedious workarounds as you described, but then there are
tedious ways to drive nails, like vice grips.

Or at least other people can. Maybe you could get some
help from one of the neighbor kids...


-cameras are for: taking photos
-light meters are for: measuring lights

That is no more rational than your statement about what
is or is not in the manual. Cameras have had built in
light meters for decades now Alan. You might even own
one that does, though I suppose a true Luddite wouldn't
want to admit to it, eh?

The light meter in a camera is a "reflective" light meter for measuring
what bounces off of a surface. From there, if you know a little about
that surface you can accurately set exposure.

That meter cannot be used directly to set strobe lights. And to use it
indirectly as you suggest is tedious (not to mention unproven).

Talk about not being able to handle the truth. Point is
a lot of studio photographers use cameras (Polaroid in
the past; digital now) to verify lighting for shaddows,
glare, etc., after the lights are set. But they don't
use them to set the lighting ratio at all any more than
a carpenter uses vice grips to drive nails no matter how
'feasible' it is.

You probably do drive nails with vise grips... no

There you go suggesting something that is not the truth about someone
again. Typical for you.

wonder you can't figure out how to use more complex
tools. Bet you've never considered one of those new
fangled nail guns either... too fancy and too much
technology?

I've used a nail gun for one project as appropriate. Did not impress me
other than time and arm muscles saved. Your suggested metering
"technique" is not only not appropriate, but is very time wasting and
tedious.

Anyway, you're now in my killfile, so whatever reply you make will be to
whoever reads your blather. A very small, dwindling group.

*PLONK*

Alan Browne wrote:
Floyd L. Davidson wrote:
Alan Browne wrote:
Floyd L. Davidson wrote:
Alan Browne wrote:
Floyd L. Davidson wrote:
Since you've trimmed it all away, in hopes that it will
go away, lets look once again at just *exactly* what you
did say:
Alan Browne
wrote:
Floyd L. Davidson wrote:
Alan Browne wrote:
Can I hook my strobes to it for metering purposes?
Why not?
'cause you won't be able to measure the ratio of fill to key.
That is the point of discussion. "You won't be able
to".
So..., Alan Browne says you "won't be able to measure".
And then repeats his statement later with "You won't be
able to."
The facts are that you can do that measurement with a
DSLR. That is no longer open to debate, it is a *fact*.

The fact is that a DSLR is not a light meter.

They *all* include a light meter. Which of course means
that in fact a DSLR *is* a light meter. (Pretty fancy
one, too!)

[Lines of discussion based on another false statement
by Alan Browne deleted as non sequitor.]

And arguing about whether the camera manual describes
it, whether it is harder than using an external flash
meter, or whether vice grips can drive nails is just
*irrational* *blather* designed to obscure just how
wrong Alan Browne's statement was to begin with.

No it was a simple example to illustrate why
professionals use the proper tool for the job.

More irrational argument to support irrational argument
to hide the simple fact that what you said to begin with
is still false, has been proven false, and will remain
false.

(BTW, claiming that professionals only do what is
described in a manual is *absurd*. As well as
irrational.)

And there you go again. That's just irrational Alan.
No matter how many times you make up these silly
arguments, it remains the same: You *can* use a DSLR to
set fill light ratios.

I didn't say you could not.

Don't you ever get tired of lying? What point is there
in denying it, when it has been quoted again and again.
That *is* what you said:

Alan Browne wrote:
Floyd L. Davidson wrote:
Alan Browne wrote:
Can I hook my strobes to it for metering purposes?
Why not?
'cause you won't be able to measure the ratio of fill to key.
That is the point of discussion. "You won't be able
to".

I said that, unlike a light
meter, there is no specific function in a DSLR for

You said (see the quote above) that it cannot be done
with a DSLR, period. Then you went on to claim that the
reason it can't be done is "no specific function in a
DSLR", which is logically an invalid statement.

setting lights. You, on the other hand described a
tedious (and untested) method to do it.

I described the exact method used with a flash meter!
Didn't you catch that? No difference! And it has been
tested many times by many people.

And you can use vice grips to drive nails if you like, but I won't.

What I said: "'cause you won't be able to measure the
ratio of fill to key. This could be implemented in a
camera, but is not to date."

And that is 1) an untrue statement followed by 2) an
irrational statement to support the untrue statement.

eg: the _function_ to do so is not there.

Obviously the function *is* there, it *can* be done, and
you are now backed up to a wall and squirming like a
weasel in a trap.

Yes, you
could use something like your tedious, unproven and
untested method and get there. Much as a carpenter
_could_ use vice grips to drive nails.

There you go again, making irrelevant, irrational, and
absurd comparisons to deny something that has been
proven true.

[Massive continuation of this weaseling tripe
snipped.]

*PLONK*

The sound of Alan Browne bouncing off the walls in
the corner he backed himself into.

--
Floyd L. Davidson http://www.apaflo.com/floyd_davidson
Ukpeagvik (Barrow, Alaska)

On Aug 10, 11:55 am, "David J. Littleboy" wrote:
"Lobby Dosser" wrote:

Lets see, they give you a histogram, and provide a
blink-on-over-exposure LCD display... for the last 15
measurements?

Who needs them?

No one with an eye and a spot meter after two readings.

The histogram only covers +/- 2 EV in a lot of dcams, so the highlights
flash in places that are well within the range of even may slide films (e.g.
Provia 100F and Astia 100F).


but let's not allow facts to get in the way of a
good dose of totral ignorance masked as
a "technorant", shall we?

:-)

On Aug 10, 12:01 am, (Floyd L. Davidson) wrote:

If it isn't relevant to you, *you* are forced to remain
with what was state of the art two or three decades ago.

It is totally irrelevant to light metering. Period.

I've known hundreds of EE's that didn't have a clue as
to what Shannon did.

Oh I dunno: maybe because his work is totally
irrelevant to EEs?
Or rather: they don't "worship heros" like you do.
That makes them luddites, of course.


Ignorance is bliss; you are dead wrong. Look at the
changes which took place in the telecommunications
industry as technology became available to drive
"digital" instead of "analog", and you will get an idea
what the future is for photography.

I couldn't care less about the changes in the
telecomm industry, you blithering idiot.
Like I said: it has NOTHING to do with light
metering in photography. Regardless of
what may be in the future for photography.


Of course all you have to do is look at what has already
happened (Point & Shoot, 35mm SLR, and the "Drug Store
Print") in the photography business, and it should be
obvious.

All perfect examples of applied telecomms theory,
no doubt?
Jeez...


You have to go to 1949 for the birth of Information
Theory.

Bull**** of the highest degree. You have to go much
EARLIER than that.

Photography is just past that point today, about equal
to where telecommunications was in maybe 1975. To
imagine what the next 20 years or so will bring, compare
the years 1975 to 1995 in the telecom field.

Finally, you admit that photography has nothing to do
with telecommunications theory. Amazing.


You actually don't know a thing about this.

Actually, it is now very clear who parrots around
disconnected bits and pieces of information
straight out of wikipedia...

Oh my, a Luddite who says if it is digital it isn't
really photography!

Total inability to grasp the most basic English.
And you call yourself a technician?

"Image capture", eh? That's a good
one, that I'll have to remember so I can use it as a
party joke.

By all means. Jokes are your speciality.


Look, if you don't know that there are *no* "digital"
sensors involved, why are you even discussing technical
topics like this?

"Technical topics"? There is NOTHING
technical about your topics. Unless
you confuse "gawking at the blinking lights"
with technology.


It's an analog sensor, and it is the
exact same sensor technology in either a film or a digital
camera.

LOL! Good joke.

obvious advantages it has is being able to produce *any*
type of characteristic match desired (or select from
40,000 of them if that is what someone wants, which is
exactly what matrix metering is).

You confuse "being able" with "doing".
A typical error of gawkers.

That statement is ridiculous. Do you actually believe
that sort of thing? Voodoo, eh?

No. Science. Something you are foreign to.

Please tell use exactly what characteristic it is that a
"film meter" has which differs from one for your
imaginary "digital sensor" (or you might even try an
electronic sensor, which actually does exist in either
film or digital cameras).

It's not "tell us", you are hearing voices again.
It's you and you alone. You don't speak for a crowd.

Different processing parameters. But
I'm fully waiting for your "telecomm injection"
next?


You are *way* out of your league.

Au contraire. There is no "league" here.

Please note also that
I didn't bring "advanced technology" into this,

Oh really? So what was all that crap about
"what is going to happen next", and the
"next 10 years" and all that jazz?
Blinkenlights? Or fumes?

supposedly isn't. Yet it becomes obvious that if we so
much as try to discuss what it is, people like you are
totally unable to follow because they lack enough
background (and have too much bias) to even engage in a
summary discussion.

Completely wrong. The OP asked a question
about metering. You replied with telecommunications
theory and what is "going to happen next".
In other words: a load of crap.


It is rather clear why you are
rejecting, out of hand, anything developed in the last
20 years!

Completely wrong. What I am rejecting is your
simplistic interpretation of what happened in the last
20 years and your incredibly naive extrapolations
for the future.

still like some of what I did then... but not to the
total exclusion of anything modern just to avoid having
to think!

Funny! And here I am thinking that the
evolution of modern technology is to avoid us
having to do anything the hard way?

On Aug 10, 1:45 pm, viewerofrecphoto wrote:
Thank you all for the interesting discussion!

For my landscape work, I'm going to spend the time to learn how to use
my spotmeter, in addition to metering from a gray card, because I
definitely blew some highlights on my latest bright sunlight shots.

We all do. A spot meter is one of the best ways to avoid
the problem. In combination with the grey card you got the best
way to handle the problem.

For my portrait work, I'll continue to use my flash meter.

Yes, that is the way I've found as well to handle that
type of photography. Nikon's ttl flash and the modern
version of it is good but not infallible. the old flash meter
is still the most reliable for this.

Noons wrote:

You have to go to 1949 for the birth of Information
Theory.

Bull**** of the highest degree. You have to go much
EARLIER than that.

Your ignorance is absolutely astounding.

This is one example, I snipped the rest, which were all
at the same level.


--
Floyd L. Davidson http://www.apaflo.com/floyd_davidson
Ukpeagvik (Barrow, Alaska)

On Aug 14, 1:57 pm, (Floyd L. Davidson) wrote:

Your ignorance is absolutely astounding.

This is one example, I snipped the rest, which were all
at the same level.

sorry, but I doubt you even know what a level is...

Noons wrote:
On Aug 14, 1:57 pm, (Floyd L. Davidson) wrote:
Your ignorance is absolutely astounding.

This is one example, I snipped the rest, which were all
at the same level.

sorry, but I doubt you even know what a level is...


I was going to suggest one of these: http://preview.tinyurl.com/325sgw

but I suspect Floyd thinks a dSLR would be much better for the job.