The art of the handheld light meter...

[Ken_Watson]

Do you use a handheld light meter for outside / general photography even if you have a built in light meter in your camera?

I'm talking outside photography here. The advantages of using such a device for studio set ups etc. are obvious.

I've just bought a basic little Sekonic model as an experiment to see if incident light readings give a more consistently accurate result than the camera's built in reflected light meter.

Not surprisingly the Sekonic produces more accurate exposures when shooting predominantly dark or very bright subjects and the camera and light meter are generally in agreement on midtoned subjects.

No doubt the experienced photographers on the forum who are very conversant with the performance of their camera and perhaps also have good intuition with regards to ambient light levels will be able to estimate an exposure / F stop combination without looking at a meter. I'm not quite there yet but I'm at the stage now where I can guess fairly close to the right exposure before checking the meter.

So, for those of you that use an incident meter for general photography, how often do you use one?
Do you find it a godsend or cumbersome extra bit of kit to cart around?
Do you find that you get more consistently accurate results than your camera meter?
Do you find that an incident light meter slows you down or enables you to be one step ahead for the next shot?

I'm interested to know your thoughts and experiences.

I've done a limited number of comparison shots up to now using my X100 as its a fast and convenient way of comparing the digital images as metered by the camera and the Sekonic.

My next experiment is to shoot a roll in my M6 using the M6's meter and the Sekonic to see how that compares.

Thoughts, opinions gentlemen?

[mbdiesel]

When I am shooting with my F5, I never use external meter. F5 has the best meter I have seen. For other cameras with no meter, I use gossen lunasix mostly in reflective measuring mode. Sometimes if I can get close to the subject, I take an incident reading.

[hausen]

I use my Sekonic spot meter with most of my gear. I don't always get the chance to shoot at the best times of the day and find a spot meter helps making those tough decisions about what to let go when dynamic range of shot exceeds film/sensors capabilities.

[Araakii]

At first it might slow you down but after 3-5 shoots you will be fine. I always use a handheld meter, but it's a tiny one that doesn't add any weight.

[Chriscrawfordphoto]

I always use a handheld meter, except when I shoot with the Olympus OM-4T, which has the most incredible spot metering system. For everything else, a handheld is always used, and the built in meters ignored.

I use incident for shooting slide film and with my Canon 5DmkII digital camera. I use a spot meter for all my black and white work. My handheld is the Minolta Flash Meter VI, which has a built in one-degree spot meter and incident meter all in one. I also use it in the studio for commercial work since it can meter my studio strobes.

[Richard G]

Used a Gossen Digipro F most recently, almost always in incident mode. Sits flat inside a jacket pocket and easily retrievable. I have used it with the M6 but mostly the M2. Stops me mucking around with metering every shot. I never find it an encumbrance. I will go naked with the M2 and sunny 16 sometimes. Haven't used the hand held with the M9 - yet.

[mathomas]

I use a little Sekonic TwinMate. I use it about 90% of the time with un-metered cameras (the other 10% I use Sunny-16). On metered cameras, I tend to use the in-built meter, and compensate for tricky (say backlit) subjects with exposure compensation. I have a Leica R8 that claims to have fancy matrix metering, but it seems like I still have to do exposure compensation.

I find that I get really good exposures doing incident hand-held metering. I prefer it, as a technology, to in-camera reflective metering (except that in-camera is so convenient). It doesn't bother me at all to have to do manual metering, and I usually just take a couple of readings (sun vs shade, for example), and keep them memorized (in my head) to use while shooting. Occasionally, if I move into different light, I adjust "by intuition", based on the memorized readings.

[Ronald M]

Whenever practical, A handmeter is better. Incident remains my preferred,but I will take out the Pentax Digital SPot meter for whenthe subject or similar light in not accessible.

If you bother to learn correction factors for common objects that you apply to reflective readings be they in camera or by hand, you will go a long way towards helping yourself.

Cross lighted snow, blue sky, spring grass, summer grass, tree bark, palm of your hand, blacktop road, are all objects you need to know the correction factor for you meter/camera. Very little you measure is true 12/18 % grey.

[Ken_Watson]

Thanks guys for your time and some great info. I think your posts confirm that my Sekonic will be a useful addition to my camera bag.
I particularly like Mathomas' advice regarding the two meter readings or light and shade and then adjusting as required as the light changes. The seems to me to be a great way to make fast informed adjustments on the move which should hopefully minimise missing the shot. I'll definitely experiment with this method. Thanks, Ken.

[Araakii]

Sometimes "missing the shot" due to incorrect exposure can yield nice, unexpected results.

[Keith]

A camera with a centre weighted reflective meter is fine as long as you understand what it's trying to do when you point it at a particular scene. It wants everything to be middle grey which means it will over expose blacks and under expose whites. I look at what's in my viewfinder and decide what compensation is needed to keep it in balance.

Carrying a meter is a pain and I will do it occasionally and take incident readings but I much prefer to use the meter in the camera when I can if it has one.

[Ken_Watson]

Originally Posted by Araakii

Sometimes "missing the shot" due to incorrect exposure can yield nice, unexpected results.

I was referring to missing the opportunity completely. But I totally agree with your comment. Likewise I've seen some nice effects when the shutter speed has not been 100% optimum for what was required but has nevertheless produced an interesting image.

[jmilkins]

I have a gossen digisix and a Minolta IVf. The Minolta or the On4ti's meter is great to use as multi-spot, and I grew up on increasing segment matrix or multizone metering in SLRs.
Recently though I've come to enjoy the fluidity and flow of going with a handheld as a base measure then starting to develop sunny 16 with a Canon P Leica M2 or OM1. It,s very liberating and a psychological trick that connects me more to the scene - feels like I've had more input into the creative process by simplifying the metering component.

[Ken_Watson]

Originally Posted by Keith

A camera with a centre weighted reflective meter is fine as long as you understand what it's trying to do when you point it at a particular scene. It wants everything to be middle grey which means it will over expose blacks and under expose whites. I look at what's in my viewfinder and decide what compensation is needed to keep it in balance.

Carrying a meter is a pain and I will do it occasionally and take incident readings but I much prefer to use the meter in the camera when I can if it has one.

Keith, I get you completely. That is how I normally work too (compensating for blacks and whites when using the camera's meter).

One small advantage I've noticed when shooting on the street is that, unlike the camera, the light meter draws little attention. Or at the very least, the potential subjects are unaware of one's intentions. Therefore, I can preset the aperture and shutter before lifting the camera up to my eye, which is a pretty fast way of taking a shot. Of course, the subject has to be bathed in the same light as the incident meter, but as I mainly use a 35mm lens on the M6, this is usually the case.

[Ken_Watson]

Originally Posted by jmilkins

I have a gossen digisix and a Minolta IVf. The Minolta or the On4ti's meter is great to use as multi-spot, and I grew up on increasing segment matrix or multizone metering in SLRs.
Recently though I've come to enjoy the fluidity and flow of going with a handheld as a base measure then starting to develop sunny 16 with a Canon P Leica M2 or OM1. It,s very liberating and a psychological trick that connects me more to the scene - feels like I've had more input into the creative process by simplifying the metering component.

John,
The input and control aspect of what you choose to do with the light rather than accepting the camera's interpretation was what drew me to experimenting with the light meter also. I was interested to see the different results from incident and reflected light measurement and to see if my compensation for lights and darks in a reflected reading were accurate.

(nice bike in your avatar btw!)

[VinceC]

I prefer an incident meter over anything inside the camera. On the other hand, before I learned about incident meters, I was taught, when using negative film, to meter on the neutral gray in the scene (for example, grass) and on the highlighted area when using slide film. In my experience, incident meter gives you the accurate reading whereas using in-camera meter requires more knowledge of what you are doing. All the improvements in in-camera metering the past quarter-decade have been aimed at trying to come up with tecnical/software solutions to try to replicate the accuracy of incident readings.

[haempe]

Originally Posted by VinceC

I prefer an incident meter over anything inside the camera. On the other hand, before I learned about incident meters, I was taught, when using negative film, to meter on the neutral gray in the scene (for example, grass) and on the highlighted area when using slide film. In my experience, incident meter gives you the accurate reading whereas using in-camera meter requires more knowledge of what you are doing. All the improvements in in-camera metering the past quarter-decade have been aimed at trying to come up with tecnical/software solutions to try to replicate the accuracy of incident readings.

Vince, that hits my thoughts on the topic very well.
I found myself the last months metering a patch of grass and then shoot with this settings until I think, the light has changed.
And this kind of metering works even better (more accurate) with a handheld incident meter.

[Sparrow]

When it's sunny one doesn't really need a meter I suppose, outdoors I simply measure how bright the sky is and work it out from that, an incident meter obviously