# Exposure Advise On Meter



## smoke665 (Dec 13, 2019)

It's seemed that lately my incident meter and my camera haven't always been on the same page, causing me to correct post. Tonight did a rather unscientific  quick threesome, one as per the meter, then +1/3, and +2/3. If I'm reading these right, it looks like they are off. Light was adjusted for f/8 in all the shots, only the aperture  was changed between shots. No adjustments other then crop post.

#1 as per meter f/8 and the corresponding histogram


  

#2 at f/7.1 and the corresponding histogram
  

#3 at f/6.3 and corresponding histogram
  

After looking at these I'm not so sure that I couldn't squeeze another 1/3 stop out, making the two read a full stop apart. Am I  missing something here, or is it possible my meter could be that far off. This is an older model L308 which unfortunately doesn't have calibration adjustment but has been fairly close in the past. The battery seems to have lasted a long time, could it be a weak battery??? Or, do I need to be looking for a new meter?


----------



## tirediron (Dec 13, 2019)

Are you looking only at the histogram, or at the actual exposure?  To me, the correct exposure appears to be somewhere in between #1 and #2.  #3 is distinctly over-exposed.  A lot of the 'far left' you're seeing in the histogram is a result of the dark background, black meter, and dark table-top.  To me, a meter that's within or less than 1/3 stop from visually ideal is within spec.


----------



## smoke665 (Dec 13, 2019)

tirediron said:


> Are you looking only at the histogram, or at the actual exposure?  To me, the correct exposure appears to be somewhere in between #1 and #2.  #3 is distinctly over-exposed.  A lot of the 'far left' you're seeing in the histogram is a result of the dark background, black meter, and dark table-top.  To me, a meter that's within or less than 1/3 stop from visually ideal is within spec.



Both. Looking at the image, judging highlights, midtones, shadows, saturation, and overall brightness. Using the histogram to judge the amount data available. Can you explain why you see #3 as overexposed? Granted it's bumping the right, but whites are not blown? I appreciate another set of eyes and opinion on this.


----------



## tirediron (Dec 13, 2019)

Agree that nothing is blown, and the degree of over-exposure isn't significant, but the highlights just seem a bit hotter than I would opt for.  This may also be due to differences in our monitors.


----------



## dxqcanada (Dec 13, 2019)

Stick a greycard there and use your camera's reflective metering off that ... then compare that to the incident meter reading.


----------



## smoke665 (Dec 13, 2019)

dxqcanada said:


> Stick a greycard there and use your camera's reflective metering off that ... then compare that to the incident meter reading.



Incident is measuring flash. Camera reflective won't read incident/flash.


----------



## smoke665 (Dec 13, 2019)

tirediron said:


> but the highlights just seem a bit hotter than I would opt for.



I realize that when you're tweaking that last little bit it's a judgement call. Thanks for checking, having another opinion helps.


----------



## dxqcanada (Dec 13, 2019)

Ah, I missed the flash part ... thought it was ambient light.


----------



## Derrel (Dec 13, 2019)

Although we can see the histogram we need to know how much exposure correction has been applied to the jpeg images via the curves. Based upon your test scene I think you could brighten or darken these images quite easily so the tone curve would be more important to consider than just the histogram data. When looking at a JPEG image we have to consider how the raw file looked with a fairly flat or linear tone curve. It is possible that your default import curve is affecting our interpretation of the jpeg images?

It is not that uncommon for a reflective light meter reading to be somewhat different from an incident Light reading. Because your camera cannot measure Flash with its built-in reflected light meter, it is quite difficult to compare.

You have to be aware to that Nikon's 3D color aware Matrix metering gives you an exposure reading that is close to perfect based upon not only the reflecting light value but also upon the color that the meter has determined an object is. The Nikon 3D color Matrix metering can differentiate between white sand,grey sand, and brown sand because it is a color-aware metering device, whereas a light meter is a dumb,color-blind device which is designed to give you a reading which has to be interpreted somewhat. The modern Nikon is metering for color positive, RGB digital...


----------



## smoke665 (Dec 13, 2019)

Derrel said:


> Although we can see the histogram we need to know how much exposure correction has been applied to the jpeg images via the curves. Based upon your test scene I think you could brighten or darken these images quite easily so the tone curve would be more important to consider than just the histogram data



Hey man, hoping you'd chime in. While the camera preview is always a guess as to what the "camera gods" in their infinite wisdom have applied, I was careful to make sure I had no presets applied including tone curves or camera profiles when I imported to Lr. Once there, the only adjustments made was to crop. I assumed that on export Adobe generated a JPEG that should have been devoid of any editing enhancements. 

You've confused me on reflective readings. The canera was on manual. The incident meter was used to adjust the flash (speedlight) to f/8. No camera metering was used. The light and shutter remained constant in the three shots, only the aperature was changed manually.

My concern has been that I was originally opening up a 1/3 from the incident reading of the meter, but lately it seems that I've had to add increasingly more exposure compensation post. The test shots seem to indicate to me that the meter is in fact reading significantly under exposed.


----------



## Derrel (Dec 13, 2019)

Every jpeg image has some type of tone curve applied to it.

If you need to add exposure then perhaps something in your system needs to be calibrated more exhaustively.

One thing I can think of might be how you have the meter sitting in relation to your strobes. For example are you pointing the meter at the camera, or directly at the front face of the light modifier? You might see if there is much difference. Perhaps you prefer a more open Shadow. Incident light metering in my opinion is great for getting the Highlight tone value set, but that does not determine how about your shadows and midtones look.

Most incident light meters will give you a good highlight tone when you are using a color positive system, such as color slide film, or modern digital.

I think you should be aware that there are two schools of thought as far as where the dome is pointed when metering. One school of thought holds that the hemisphere should be pointed straight ahead,at the camera, while the other school of thought sees the photographer aiming the hemisphere directly at the main light.

Secondarily let me say that your light meter uses what I call a "small hemisphere", whereas my Minolta uses a much larger and more gently rounded sphere. Perhaps this smaller hemisphere is more sensitive to aiming differences.

Your your original post seemed to indicate that you were having a difference of opinion between your camera meter and your light meter and that is what I was talking about


----------



## Derrel (Dec 13, 2019)

Let me state it again:every jpeg image created from a raw file has had some type of tone curve applied. This is a very important part of how bright the image looks. Just open the image and go to the curves dialog and you will see exactly what the Adobe default curve is. This curve could greatly affect your interpretation of the exposure.


----------



## Derrel (Dec 13, 2019)

smoke665 said:


> It's seemed that lately my incident meter and my camera haven't always been on the same page...snip
> 
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## JBPhotog (Dec 13, 2019)

The best way to determine exposure accuracy is shoot a control target that has a full scale of known densities such as a colour checker, grey card with reference data or my preference Sekonic Exposure Profile Target II. That way you can check the RGB values in post to known values on the target. Back in the film days this was a common process followed up by diligent processing and final densitometry readings for both negative and reversal emulsions.

For digital it is a wee bit different as in shooting in a particular profile can influence readings but a known single grey value should give you very close exposure guidance. The caveats is, it should not be a WB card since it’s only purpose is to set WB rather than exposure, so use an exposure target for best results.

Also, if you flash exposures are suspect, likely the incident ambient readings are too. A sunny day, exposure target and filling the frame with your target with the lens at infinity should confirm both camera and handheld meter to the sunny 16 rule.


----------



## smoke665 (Dec 14, 2019)

Derrel said:


> smoke665 said:
> 
> 
> > It's seemed that lately my incident meter and my camera haven't always been on the same page...snip
> ...



Sorry I may be saying it wrong. In this example my incident meter is reading f/8 with the flash, but if I set my camera to f/8 the image is underexposed. Its an older Seconics meter that I've had for awhile, I've always had to open up about a third stop from what the meter reads, but of late it seems to be getting worse. I'm having to correct the exposure more and more in post.

As to any curve adjustment applied to the JPEG I'm not seeing it reflected when viewing in Lr?



JBPhotog said:


> Also, if you flash exposures are suspect, likely the incident ambient readings are too.



As I rarely, if ever, use the meter for reflective readings, relying instead on the camera metering, you could be right. I've been looking at exposure targets for some time now, but kept postponing the purchase. Might be time. I have an Expo Disc that was part of a box of stuff I bought, but never used. Supposedly it can be used to dial in an 18% gray exposure by centering the spike in the histogram of a test image.

Another thought I've had is how much could different lenses have in the equation?


----------



## smoke665 (Dec 14, 2019)

Redid the test this morning with fresh battery in the meter. Then did the following side to side composite with no adjustments other then cropping to fit. Flash was adjusted to read f8 on the incident meter. From left to right - Camera set per meter f8 ISO 100, 1/3 stop adjustment to f7.1, 2/3 stop adjustment to f6.3, and finally a full stop adjustment setting the  aperture back to f8 and raising the ISO to 200. 






Not shown above, but when I let Lr do an Auto adjust, it bumped the exposure on the original .86, on the second it raised it .52, on the third .20, and surprisingly on the last .15. 

I need to repeat the test with all the studio lights contributing, to test the theory on other lenses, and skin tones, but it appears that the simplest for me might be to just bump the ISO, rather then deal with 1/3 aperture stops. All of the images show data from left to right, and none are blown, so my feeling is to opt for the exposure that gives the most data in the file????


----------



## JBPhotog (Dec 14, 2019)

Good to see you did another test.

The main issue as I see it is, you don't have a known control such as an 18% grey card. For example, the inclusion of an 18% grey card will provide you with a known value when correctly exposed. In post an eyedropper exposure value of a correctly exposed 18% grey card should be R:124, G:124, B:124. You don't have a known control in your test photos so what is actually influencing the histogram is quite frankly unknown.

One more issue that can affect exposure is lens extension, as you rack the focus ring to achieve an in focus subject that in your examples is quite close, you affect the distance the lens elements are from the sensor. For example, a micro lens(or some would say macro, a technical term intermixed) when at its closest 1:2 or 1:1 lens magnification will drop the exposure reaching the sensor by as much as 2 stops. That is why when actually calibrating a camera meter the lens should be set to infinity and your 18% grey card should fill the frame, an out of focus target is irrelevant when seeking exposure accuracy. One can then use the camera meter to determine if the hand held meter gives the same reading or visa versa. With flash, the lens should still be set to infinity and two stops down from wide open(if possible), one should choose a lens that produces less vignetting or at least a solid portion of the centre at which one can test with an eyedropper in post.

For the most part, your hand held meter if properly calibrated and the camera and lens are functioning correctly they should produce bang on exposures. Camera light meters on the other hand can be subject to manufacture bias but that's another topic.


----------



## smoke665 (Dec 14, 2019)

@JBPhotog  I was well out of the minimum focus distance on the lens, and cropped but I see your point. I shot these with my FA 100 mm f2.8, would a 50mm f1,4 be a better choice?

I was not aware that shooting the grey card OOF would not have a bearing on the exposure value. That sounds somewhat like the approach that the Expo Disc uses. For incident exposure you can take a test shot and look at the histogram, if the spike is centered in the middle, the exposure is correct. If not you adjust either way to bring it to the center. I found it in a drawer, but unfortunately it's not in a diameter that matches any of my lenses, and I don't have any compatible step down rings.  Once I get through the holidays, I'll order a target and try again in studio, profiling all the glass.

Rather than a solid grey target, have you used one of these???  GEP Store: Exposure Target - Large they look fairly simple.


----------



## Derrel (Dec 14, 2019)

Have you consulted a thorough testing agency like dxomark to see if your camera manufacturer offers you real, true, dead-on accurate ISO speeds? It is not uncommon for ISO to be slightly off from true. If the normal ISO setting of 100 is really 80, or 64, then a particular camera model will have better noise scores in strict Laboratory Testing. If ISO 400 is really ISO 250 or 320, then the same thing is true, better noise results at a well-known intermediate ISO setting. ISO settings are not really dead-on accurate in most cameras, as far as I know. This subject has been bandied about in photo forums for multiple years now.

The need to add a bit of exposure from your meter reading has been common for a long time. Fine-tuning your working methodology is normal, and it helps account for all sorts of variables such as misadjusted lens diaphragms, light loss due to hi element numbers, differences in f/stop versus T-stop, etc..

It would be a simple adjustment to lower your light meter  ISO setting one third or one half or even 2/3 of a value. Shoot your camera at ISO 100, but set the light meter to ISO 50, or 64, 80, and you have easily perfectly adjusted your light meter to your working methods and your equipment.


----------



## Ysarex (Dec 14, 2019)

smoke665 said:


> Redid the test this morning with fresh battery in the meter. Then did the following side to side composite with no adjustments other then cropping to fit. Flash was adjusted to read f8 on the incident meter. From left to right - Camera set per meter f8 ISO 100, 1/3 stop adjustment to f7.1, 2/3 stop adjustment to f6.3, and finally a full stop adjustment setting the  aperture back to f8 and raising the ISO to 200.
> 
> View attachment 183662
> 
> ...



In your first post you noted concern about the accuracy of your meter. None of the tests you're doing appropriately reflect or provide info about your meter's accuracy. You're looking at raw files rendered in LR. Derrel was correct to note that Adobe's processing is a factor here and not a control variable. You can't make a judgement about the accuracy of your meter based on a camera raw file and Adobe's interpretation of that file.

So what you're doing is useful for you to sync your meter and camera to get a best result but you don't have any know constant in the loop that you can use that will allow you to judge the accuracy of the meter. If anything the meter is probably the most reliable player in the crowd.

If you want the exposure that gives you the most data don't bump up the ISO as that reduces data -- use an EC adjustment that changes f/stop or shutter speed.

Joe


----------



## Derrel (Dec 14, 2019)

What you really should be trying to arrive at is an exposure index commonly abbreviated as EI. I would guess that your EI should be roughly 1/2 stop lower than the iso level that your camera is set to, at least when the camera is set to ISO 100.


----------



## smoke665 (Dec 14, 2019)

Ysarex said:


> In your first post you noted concern about the accuracy of your meter.



Not so much about the accuracy, but rather matching the two, so that if the meter says f** and the camera is set to the same, I should be reasonably sure that my exposure will be correct for a flash shot. I'm assuming that I should be somewhere in the +/- 1/3rd stop, but it's more like just over 2/3rds stops. I realize the problems with histograms, but that's not the only thing I'm judging the image on. 



Ysarex said:


> If you want the exposure that gives you the most data don't bump up the ISO as that reduces data -- use an EC adjustment that changes f/stop or shutter speed.



So would there really be that much data loss between ISO 100 and 200?? While I can adjust the aperture to account for the difference but then I run into a declining DOF. Shutter adjustment is pretty much a non issue on flash photograph, unless you're dragging the shutter to include ambient light.



Derrel said:


> It would be a simple adjustment to lower your light meter ISO setting one third or one half or even 2/3 of a value. Shoot your camera at ISO 100, but set the light meter to ISO 50, or 64, 80, and you have easily perfectly adjusted your light meter to your working methods and your equipment.



Well duh, I hate it when I get tunnel vision on a problem.  Since the L308 doesn't offer calibration I'd completely eliminated it as a solution only viewing it as a problem. I followed your advise setting the meter ISO to 64, to get the 2/3rds of a stop I needed, adjusted the light to read f/8 on the meter, set the camera to f/8, ISO 100, problem solved. That gets me close enough that only a tiny bit of adjustment will be needed post. Thanks Derrel!

I need to set it up in studio and test on a subject, but for now I think I have a baseline that I can adjust to. That still doesn't explain why the difference seems to be getting worse. Eventually I'm afraid I see new meter in my future.


----------



## Ysarex (Dec 14, 2019)

smoke665 said:


> So would there really be that much data loss between ISO 100 and 200?? While I can adjust the aperture to account for the difference but then I run into a declining DOF. Shutter adjustment is pretty much a non issue on flash photograph, unless you're dragging the shutter to include ambient light.



Oh right flash -- no shutter speed. So exposure in your case is flash + f/stop. ISO is not going to change exposure then and will not effect how much data you record unless you cause some ISO clipping in which case you would lose data off the top. If raising the ISO then makes the raw image easier to work with in LR no harm; you're just under-utilizing the sensor some.

Joe


----------



## JBPhotog (Dec 15, 2019)

smoke665 said:


> @JBPhotog  I was well out of the minimum focus distance on the lens, and cropped but I see your point. I shot these with my FA 100 mm f2.8, would a 50mm f1,4 be a better choice?
> 
> I was not aware that shooting the grey card OOF would not have a bearing on the exposure value. That sounds somewhat like the approach that the Expo Disc uses. For incident exposure you can take a test shot and look at the histogram, if the spike is centered in the middle, the exposure is correct. If not you adjust either way to bring it to the center. I found it in a drawer, but unfortunately it's not in a diameter that matches any of my lenses, and I don't have any compatible step down rings.  Once I get through the holidays, I'll order a target and try again in studio, profiling all the glass.
> 
> Rather than a solid grey target, have you used one of these???  GEP Store: Exposure Target - Large they look fairly simple.



FWIW, I always used a 50mm when doing film densitometery calibrations. The main issue is to not cast a shadow on the card. With digital I am not as fussy and use the lens I am seeking numbers on.

I have never used the card you linked to, my exposure card is the Sekonic Exposure Profile Target II but I use it with my L-478DR-U to build DR profiles for my cameras. As long as you have a known target that has some references for quality and testing then it should get you real close.


----------

