A.R.S.E.

I'm starting this thread so one, I don't hijack threads asking for help and two, I want to tap into the brains of the photo guru's here to help my own development along. I used a dslr 10 years ago during a multimedia course I did but it's long forgotten some of those skills and using a camera is one so I am re-learning again.

I've remembered sunny 16 and lunar 11 and I'm getting somewhere with stars and the night sky. Yesterday I was taking pics of dogs toys in the lounge without a flash learning how to get that natural looking light we see inside normally. This proved to be really helpful.

But is it worth me getting a light meter at this stage? I've only had my camera for not even a month, I know light meters are handy and I used one doing a multimedia course. But am I better off at this stage learning to shoot by trial and error to better understand lighting conditions, focal length, exposure ect... ?

My light meter hasn't been used since Uni. These days, I'd suggest they aren't really all that necessary unless you're shooting in studio conditions and trying to work out flash ratios.

There is a significant difference between the light meter in your camera and dedicated meter though. So learning the difference will help you understand how your cameras metering system works, and also, why you may at some point need a light meter.

Cameras use what's called a reflected metering system. They measure light that's reflected off a surface/subject. It also sets the camera as correct exposure when this surface is metered as a middle grey. What does that mean?

Well. Shoot a black object, and stick your meter in the camera to correct exposure, and you will have a grey object - 18% grey to be exact.

Shoot a white wall or white board etc and again set the camera to correct exposure. And it will also come out the exact same level of grey. Knowing this though, you can compensate, and over or under expose off a black or white subject. It's usually around 2-2.5 stops. This is really best done using spot metering. If this is all getting a bit complex, feel free to ask questions.

A light meter uses 'incident' light to get it's readings. Basically light falling on to a subject. This means it's an accurate exposure, even if the subject is bright white or black. It doesn't have to allow for the level of reflectance off a subject. Better meters also have better spot metering than your camera will.

I may fire up my meter again for this new job since I'll be shooting a lot more in studio conditions and in laboratories. But depending what you like shooting you can do without for most subjects if you understand your camera well. That comes with practice and time.


Sent from Han Solo using TK-421's phone.

What Dex has said is good advice, I use my meter probably only 10% of the time.

Further to that, the main thing that go towards getting natural looking light indoors is to use a large off camera light source.
You can achieve that initially by using a speedlight with a swivel head so that you can bounce the light off a large reflective object such as a wall or ceiling.
Of course, if your walls or ceiling aren't white you will introduce a colour cast.

From there it's best to try to get the actual flash off the camera, (you would need a trigger and receiver), and use a large light modifier such as a softbox, umbrella or beauty dish. The bigger and closer the diffuser, the softer you shadow transitions will be. Also it's best to feather the light so that you are not using the centre of the light source shining straight at your subject as that will introduce harsh, specular highlights.

While a meter is great for working out your ratios, many amazing photographers don't use one at all and rely solely on the histogram and LCD screen of the camera.

Yep. Big light source is the key!

And those 'diffusers' you see on peoples speedlites are doing NOTHING except wasting their batteries. The light source being the same size, is no more diffuse and only the intensity is cut down. You'd get the same result powering the flash down with out it. Actually it would be better then because you'd have a shorter flash duration.

/end rant

Sorry. A bit off topic.


Sent from Han Solo using TK-421's phone.

Cool thanks for the info. I will get a light meter but it won't be a priority. The 55 to 300 mm lens I want will be.

I have been checking shots in the LCD and if I need to I can hook the camera to my surface rt. It's USB is really bloody handy and being windows it doesn't need any drivers. Just got to remember to charge it and take it with me.

I can vouch for Sekonic as a great brand of light meter.


Sent from Han Solo using TK-421's phone.

Mine actually spent a couple of nights in a field with dew and rain and 0 degree temps and is still working 100%


Sent from Han Solo using TK-421's phone.

Don't become gear junkie. It won't improve your photography.

That's why I'm asking before I buy. It's like playing guitar, you can spend over 3 grand on a Gibson Les Paul but if you can't play then it's pointless.

Shoot in raw.
Shoot in manual.
Explore the cameras limits and see what it can and can't do.
Decide what discipline you want to do and learn what's required to be good at it.
Familiarise yourself with the greats like Man Ray, Brassai, Brandt, Bailey, Adams and Newton and find out what made them great.

All this you can do for next to no cost.

And above all else, have fun.

For me as a budget photog

Must have :

A filter for every lens so you don't scratch your lens ever
A bag that is bigger then the one you are thinking of buying

Must have if can afford

A tripod if doing slower speed stuff , landscapes etc
A good flash


A nice toy that's relatively cheap and is great fun


An nd filter

DexterPunk wrote:Yep. Big light source is the key!

And those 'diffusers' you see on peoples speedlites are doing NOTHING except wasting their batteries. The light source being the same size, is no more diffuse and only the intensity is cut down. You'd get the same result powering the flash down with out it. Actually it would be better then because you'd have a shorter flash duration.

/end rant

Sorry. A bit off topic.


Sent from Han Solo using TK-421's phone.

I was not aware of that. But the diffusers look cool though

I like my macro stuff and I'm going to treat myself to some kenko tubes for a bit more 'zoomage' in time for the Spring. I currently don't own a flash though. Am I going to be ok without one or do I need a 430exII or a ring flash to go with the tubes? I'm guessing the shutter speeds will be a bit too low otherwise.

Yes in a sense your shutter speed will be better. Aperture is mainly your exposure control with flash, shutter can vary the background contrast in the scene. You will be able to use smaller apertures to increase your depth of field. If you can, grab yourself a TTL off camera flash cord so you can move your flash off the camera.


Sent from Han Solo using TK-421's phone.

Would it be wise to get some UV filters? I'm looking at from more lens protection than anything.

I plan to get a Nikkon 55 to 300 mm zoom shortly and it's going to be about last thing I get for a long time. Maybe a flash but only if I feel I need it. I won't worry about a light meter as I'll just check each shot and play around with settings to work out what's best.

At the moment I have the D5200 with the 18 to 55 mm lens, camera bag, tripod, remote shutter release. Add the zoom lens and that's enough gear I think. Then it's up to me to make it all work.

It's enough gear until it's not.

UV filters are only good for protection anyway. They used to block UV back in the film days. Digital sensors aren't sensitive to UV.

In fact, a student back at Uni did her research thesis measuring the optic quality of UV filters. One thing she found was a lot of them don't even block UV anymore even if you were shooting film.


But yes, they are pretty important to have to protect the front element of your lens. I've been lazy of late and haven't got them on a couple of my better lenses. The last one I bought was about $150... For a bit of glass that essentially does nothing but protect. You don't need to go that crazy unless you are using some fairly high end lenses though.


Sent from Han Solo using TK-421's phone.

The lens I'm going to have are not high end so I won't worry about it.

I think they are worth it. You can get cheapies for about $20.


Sent from Han Solo using TK-421's phone.

Kenkos and a 430EXII ordered That'll be my summer sorted!!

I've also spotted a £5 diffuser with good ratings for it on amazon so I might pick that up as well. And some guys on another forum were praising a Haida 10 stop filter that was about half the price of the Lee big stopper so I might give that a go.

If anyone's interested, I believe .photo and .photography TLDs are available from today.

So long as that diffuser isn't just the plastic thing that clips right on to your flash like I talked about up there ^^^^

TLD??



Sent from Han Solo using TK-421's phone.

DexterPunk wrote:So long as that diffuser isn't just the plastic thing that clips right on to your flash like I talked about up there ^^^^

TLD??



Sent from Han Solo using TK-421's phone.

LOL.

And I am with Dex, TLD???

Top Level Domain
as in .com or .net

You could have norbography.photo

I can't see too many going for .photography, too much effort to type.

I took this tonight with my new 55 - 300 mm lens. All I've done is crop it but I still have the raw pic. I'm posting because I'm wondering how I could improve this. It's 1/100, f11, ISO 100 and a raw file.



I can see why a full moon can be a bit boring unless you get right in close. The lens only cost me $300 and I'm pretty happy with it.