My first camera was a Minolta SRT-101. I loved that camera. It was an excellent tool for learning about photography and manual exposure. As it was completely manual in operation, the internal meter was my only guide for achieving correct exposure, outside of using an external source or just guessing. Fast forward 20-plus years and the way I use an internal light meter has remained largely unchanged. That all changed recently.
In 2021, I upgraded from a DSLR to a mirrorless system. As I continue to gain experience with the new camera, my methods and approach are rapidly changing. I am quickly learning that going from a DSLR to mirrorless was not simply an upgrade, as I first thought, but more accurately described as a brand new ecosystem to explore. There are many ways in which I am rethinking and adjusting the way I shoot, but in this article, I want to specifically discuss my use, or rather non-use, of the light meter.
EVFs and a New Way to Do Things
One of my biggest hesitations when upgrading to mirrorless was the fact that I had to sacrifice my optical viewfinder. I felt very strongly that an EVF was going to be inferior to an optical viewfinder and not provide an accurate view of what my images would look like when using exposure simulation. I also believed that an EVF for studio work would be a compromise and worried that it might even be a distraction since I would be looking at what I considered a small, grainy, monitor. Keep in mind that I had only worked with older EVFs, so I had no idea what to expect with a modern mirrorless system.
Needless to say, the EVF in my new mirrorless camera is as close to flawless as one can expect. It is extremely accurate in regards to exposure, color, and contrast. This means that, while using exposure simulation, what you see is what you get. And that leads me to the point of this essay.
Eyeballing It With Some Help
There was no time when I purposely decided to ignore my light meter. It just happened on its own, and I realized it after the fact. This is because at some point I found myself eyeballing my exposures and using the screen itself as my guide to getting it right. Now, there will probably be some pushback on this, and I already know the potential drawbacks of this method, so let me qualify it a bit. Firstly, I always shoot in raw, which gives me the maximum latitude in exposure should I need to make adjustments later. Second, I shoot with the histogram enabled, which I have found to be a much better instrument to use for metering than the exposure meter scale. Instead of looking at a line that resembles a ruler, I now see a graph of where my lights and darks are sitting. This visual makes changing my settings faster and more intuitive if I need to make a change after eyeballing it with my screen. But, more often than not, I use the histogram as a backup to make sure my exposure is in an acceptable range, i.e., not clipping either edge of the graph. Because the EVF is incredibly accurate and such a high resolution, this method has been working quite well for me.
Creative Exposure in Real-Time
One of the largest benefits of using this method is that it allows me to be more creative with my lighting, while largely ignoring the “correct” exposure. For example, I can purposely choose to underexpose a landscape scene in daylight, giving a much more dramatic look to the image. Conversely, I can purposely overexpose a portrait, for example, to give it a dream-like quality. By using my eye and not being constrained to a measurement line, I can open up many creative doors. Not to mention the fact that light meters are often wrong when it comes to difficult lighting situations. In the past, as many of us have done, I would meter an evenly lit part of a scene and then recompose. In my new camera, the view is the same as the results after pushing the shutter button, so the act of composing images in the viewfinder has become an easier and more enjoyable experience.
Yes, There Are Always Exceptions
As with anything, there are always exceptions and times when I avoid eyeballing it. For instance, this method does not work in a setting where strobes are being used. So, in my studio, I have exposure simulation shut off and use my mirrorless camera more similarly to how I shot with a DSLR. Additionally, there are instances where I prefer the meter over eyeballing, especially when the lighting situation is extremely bright or dark across the entire frame. In this case, the screen can become less than reliable, but I have not found this to be a common occurrence.
Unlearning What I Have Learned
I think it is natural to resist new technology, especially when one is set in their ways and happy with the tools they are used to. And this was exactly how I felt when moving to a mirrorless system. My initial instinct was to use the new tool exactly as I did the old one, but as I grow with the mirrorless ecosystem, I have started to take Yoda's advice and unlearn what I had previously learned. Taking my old ways and forcing them onto a very different tool is not only unwise but shows a rigidity to change and adaptation. I also think that younger photographers who started on mirrorless have an advantage over those of us who grew up on DSLRs, since their shooting methods are based on exactly what the technology does and not what they would expect it to do based on experience with an older and perhaps soon-to-be-archaic system. I think that this topic deserves further exploration, but for now, I am embracing the new technology and enjoying that each day I discover new ways to create excellent images.
15 Comments
It is great to see the full final exposed image right there in the EVF, no chimping needed.
I have at least 4 light meters. I used to always use them with film, and usually when I use studio strobes if just to get into the ballpark exposure. But usually not needed 98% of the time.
They have been gathering dust, I can' even find a serious film shooting hipster dude in Silverlake to buy them, one even has a needle and a dial!
Hey Mike, even in my studio I don't use a light meter for most of my work. I shoot tethered to a large monitor and use the histogram/eyeball approach, similar to what I do with the EVF. It's a brave new world LOL
Not using a meter in the studio also maybe helps "liberate" people from per-determined ratios and lighting schemes, and to get a little more creative.
Pete_ are you using strobe? With dim modeling lights in a dark studio, I have to bump the EVF brightness to see what is going on. But I shoot to a laptop so I see the proper exposure,
Timothy- I learned photography from an old timer corporate photographer (friend of Irving Penn) so other than Rembrandt he ignored those pre determined portrait ratios, taught us to see what light works best. I still don;t see the butterfly with "butterfly lighting" although I probably use it...
I'm still waiting for professional video tools like false color to migrate down to mirrorless, stills-based cameras. Because they're great, and it's certainly possible. Magic Lantern even had some of them available for DSLR's (maybe not in stills mode, though--can't remember).
If you're shooting in a studio setting, you could always incorporate a small Ninja monitor or something of that ilk to get that, but like you I'm hoping for the day when scopes become available to stills cameras.
I'm probably going to pick one of those up eventually for video stuff but that's a cool idea too.
I agree that the modern EVFs have changed things. Regardless, what you can do with one mode you can do with any other mode, the modes just make it quicker and easier to achieve adjustments in various scenarios. In that regard, Shutter priority is best for moving subjects, Aperture is best for close up or similar conditions where depth of field becomes the most important factor, While manual is best for absolute (but slowest) control of everything.
In this article, this fellow is describing a scenario of not using the light meter but rather eyeballing it thanks to the changes the EVF has brought to the field. I mostly agree with him on this, but I don't understand why he is ignoring the modes as each mode is best suited to a different scenario and there is the new P mode ideally suited to the newly possible scenario of eyeballing as discussed.
In that regard, you set the camera to P and it will make the best possible automatic A and S adjustments in real time based on its, dam good and faster than human, internal algorithms. In other words, if it detects a fast moving subject and detects the scene is over exposed, it adjusts the S speed higher... if it's in spot metering mode and detects the spot is on a close object but the scene is underexposed, it makes the assumption you want high Bokeh and opens the A more (often you can set these things in the menu) instead of lowering the S speed.
The point is, P mode is making better decisions than you ever possibly could just by looking at the (non-color) histogram and it's making faster decisions than you can just by analyzing the scene to determine which parameter to adjust.
Now when it comes to the desire to do more "eyeballing" metering, this is where P excels thanks to the exposure compensation control. This mode and this control go hand in hand, its far better suited for eyeballing than any other mode and, although you can do it other modes, it is almost pointless as it was in film cameras as you can get the same effect by actually adjusting instead of compensating... but in P mode, it makes great sense and adds huge speed to the eyeballing process regardless of subject; finally a logical use for exposure compensation! Your now compensating for the cameras decisions and the end result is the fastest and by far best method for 'eyeballing' in most scenarios.
Thus... I would suggest that's a better approach if eyeballing exposures is your highest priority operating mode, as it usually is for me as well... because that's what this was designed for and it was designed well.
So Pete - when will you feel brave enough to drop the RAW and compose the final picture "in camera"?
If you shot with an SRT-101 on transparency film then you know the drill - how choice of film stock, lens perspective, focus, aperture, speed and white balance for the picture is set the moment that the shutter button is pressed.
This approach also closes down the "over processing" of images which is reaching its heights with AI software and a whole world that seems to have gone orange n'teal. How unnatural are many of those images looking now - what about in a decade from now?
For photographers with an interest in the movement for "getting the picture right first time", check out a book called "In Camera: How to Get Perfect Pictures Straight Out of the Camera" - by the excellent Gordon Laing.
Hey Paul, good point. I always shoot raw + jpeg, but most of the time I end up using the JPEG as is or with minor adjustment. I like having the raw files just in case, but I am definitely a believer that you should get it right (or as close as possible) in camera, whether in the studio or out and about. I'm definitely not a fan of the over processed stuff like you for most things.
SOOC is over rated..change my mind :-D
I see no reason not to shoot raw, as someone who shot E6 film and did snip tests, pushed and pulled film 1/3 of a stop for years I'm happy to have the latitude of raw, sort of like shooting color neg film.
Also spent many hours printing the "perfectly exposed" SOOC film in darkroom, there was a website that showed contact sheets from the 50-60-70s that were covered with markups for burning, dodging, bleaching and other darkroom tricks.
----------
Funny that the cover blurb is from Trey Ratcliff, from what I have seen, his work is miles from "straight out of camera.."
'brave enough to drop the RAW' is a joke, right?
I shot E6 for years. If I would have had RAW workflow available I would have taken it. You don't get a medal for a great JPG out of the camera. Non-destructive editing in RAW gives me options that JPG simply doesn't.
A lot of over-processed and hyper-saturated pics are because the aging photographer needs cataract surgery.
Great article We've seen so much clickbait about the greatness of optical viewfinders, asking if EVF "has caught up yet". Whereas after the first time I tried an EVF, I never wanted optical again. Besides the points made here about exposure, mirrorless/EVF has a couple more advantages, especially for people over 50; I wrote a blog post about this which some might find interesting:
https://jimhphoto.com/index.php/2019/12/10/mirrorless-its-the-little-th…
Welcome to Mirrorless. Metering and Histograms Oh! My! First understand that what you see in the EFV/Camera LCD is a in camera cooked jpeg! Read about setting that affect your jpegs even if both jpeg/raw look alike. Example with Sony's there is a selection called D-Range Optimizer with about 5 different settings that will give results in jpegs that are impossible to get in RAW post processing, a Nat Geo photographer did both jpeg and raw sent the jpeg first then the raws later and wanted the RAW to look like the jpegs and post processors could not do it. Next get out and do a sunset/rise look at then look at the LCD they will not match until you use a WB setting and Creative Style are set also using a metering mode, yes night vs day and points of metering can change things. Also Creative Styles you see in programs are best guesses when selecting one over the other say in Lr. To start you need a grey dome not a flat one and set the color in camera with it and not use the white balance selections or AWB. That only gets a color temp to be sure your exposure level with whites and darks are correct you need the Datacolor Spydercube to correct those. Ever do a sunrise/set at the Grand Canyon (look at post cards online), in the depths of the canyon the shadows are blue and not what is really seen with the eyes the same for whites of boats during a sunset/rise. Correct with less Dehaze. Lastly get rid of the strobes and use the new LED with selectable color temps and not guess at exposure. Also some mirrorless have a two level Auto mode that will save in both RAW and jpeg try it sometime the results will surprise and you paid for that also with the camera.