Just buy a simple incident light meter and save yourself all that bother. This is how we used a lightmeter for over 60 years in the film era. Good of you to have brought it up though, as reflected light metering, even advanced Matrix Metering can give incorrect results.
Hi thanks for the suggestion. The light meter does not calibrate light colors. It just measures the correct light. Even for black and white photography in digital age and on digital camera the color calibrating matters. I rarely use it but if precision is a factor that is the only and easiest way.
@@bonevchannel Thanks for the reply. I know very well about ' colour calibration'. We had to do it regularly when shooting Ektachrome 4X5 for product photography. We used a colour temperature meter, which those days cost an arm and a leg. Some digital cameras allow setting the white balance eitehr directly in Kelvin, or a custom one which I never found to be reliable.
@@lensman5762 indeed those color meters are still valid today even more precise but are now two arms and two legs 🙂 These two gadgets does it instantly one in the camera directly.
You have missed the whole point of this demo. As you even acknowledge, traditionally a separate color meter along with a separate light meter would need to be used a long time ago. This process handles both color and exposure with a simple tool.@@lensman5762
I'm confused, how does this have anything to do with color? You're talking about exposure and white balance and all of that is doable with a few clicks in lightroom. No need for all the faf.
Not really. If you want the perfect colors it is always better to calibrate. Imagine if you are in a studio set. If you calibrate the color all your photos look the same and have the right colors out of the camera. I know you can calibrate to your liking one image and copy paste to all after that but really there is a difference in color tones when the camera does the work. It is very visible if you try to do a develop B&W out of calibrated and non calibrated shot. On top of that dealing with exposure after that is not recommended especially when somebody is paying you the money to give him the best possible result.
Unfortunately a lot of "photographers" rely on post production to get their images looking acceptable. But there is much to be said about a photographer who can get both exposure and color correct all within camera the first time. It is unfortunately a dying part of the art of photography, clearly.
@@bwest6275 what you are saying is related to how fast we want to take a photo. In a set photography you have a lot more time and all this is still part of the process for studio photography where you do product photography for example. Fast = everyday, Setting everything and getting the result you want straight from the camera = craftsmanship. I am not saying we should spend a whole day on a single photo simply because it is impossible but still when you can why not 🙂
@@bwest6275 😂 if I need to photograph the light that comes ON my subject to measure exposure before actually shooting my subject for each shot i would not photograph anything. 1) This is good for studio work where you can take your time. 2) with most cameras today, you don't need to do this for most shooting situations. Auto WB and auto exposure work amazing in recent cameras. Also because most cameras are not using an outdated spot metering system. 3) there is abolutely nothing wrong with relying on post-processing to finetune your photos. Stop trying to preach some 'pure photography' bullshit.
Interesting, helpful and educational. I learned something. Thank you.
@@zoltankaparthy9095 I am glad you liked it. Please subscribe to the channel to support it.
Just buy a simple incident light meter and save yourself all that bother. This is how we used a lightmeter for over 60 years in the film era. Good of you to have brought it up though, as reflected light metering, even advanced Matrix Metering can give incorrect results.
Hi thanks for the suggestion. The light meter does not calibrate light colors. It just measures the correct light. Even for black and white photography in digital age and on digital camera the color calibrating matters. I rarely use it but if precision is a factor that is the only and easiest way.
@@bonevchannel Thanks for the reply. I know very well about ' colour calibration'. We had to do it regularly when shooting Ektachrome 4X5 for product photography. We used a colour temperature meter, which those days cost an arm and a leg. Some digital cameras allow setting the white balance eitehr directly in Kelvin, or a custom one which I never found to be reliable.
@@lensman5762 indeed those color meters are still valid today even more precise but are now two arms and two legs 🙂 These two gadgets does it instantly one in the camera directly.
@@bonevchannel LOL, very true.
You have missed the whole point of this demo. As you even acknowledge, traditionally a separate color meter along with a separate light meter would need to be used a long time ago. This process handles both color and exposure with a simple tool.@@lensman5762
I'm confused, how does this have anything to do with color? You're talking about exposure and white balance and all of that is doable with a few clicks in lightroom. No need for all the faf.
Not really. If you want the perfect colors it is always better to calibrate. Imagine if you are in a studio set. If you calibrate the color all your photos look the same and have the right colors out of the camera. I know you can calibrate to your liking one image and copy paste to all after that but really there is a difference in color tones when the camera does the work. It is very visible if you try to do a develop B&W out of calibrated and non calibrated shot. On top of that dealing with exposure after that is not recommended especially when somebody is paying you the money to give him the best possible result.
Unfortunately a lot of "photographers" rely on post production to get their images looking acceptable. But there is much to be said about a photographer who can get both exposure and color correct all within camera the first time. It is unfortunately a dying part of the art of photography, clearly.
@@bwest6275 what you are saying is related to how fast we want to take a photo. In a set photography you have a lot more time and all this is still part of the process for studio photography where you do product photography for example. Fast = everyday, Setting everything and getting the result you want straight from the camera = craftsmanship. I am not saying we should spend a whole day on a single photo simply because it is impossible but still when you can why not 🙂
@@bwest6275 😂 if I need to photograph the light that comes ON my subject to measure exposure before actually shooting my subject for each shot i would not photograph anything.
1) This is good for studio work where you can take your time.
2) with most cameras today, you don't need to do this for most shooting situations. Auto WB and auto exposure work amazing in recent cameras. Also because most cameras are not using an outdated spot metering system.
3) there is abolutely nothing wrong with relying on post-processing to finetune your photos. Stop trying to preach some 'pure photography' bullshit.