Yes, a good subject!

Not very sophiscated I know but I mostly just take a picture using the camera's meter reading and then check the result on the screen on the back. Because I'm nearly always in manual mode, it's then very easy to adjust the exposure either up or down a bit as required.

In some cases, such as mainly dark or light backgrounds, you can take a fairly good guess at which way you need to go (remembering that the camera will want to make the picture look 'average grey').

Using a hand-held meter might be better but, as both Thorsten and Ciaran have explained, you may still have to adjust your exposure from the meter's reading too.

Being able to see how the exposure has worked out by checking the screen on your camera has to be one of the biggest advantages of digital cameras over film cameras - not need to guess and hope for the best any more!

Nice post.....I generally use a lightmeter for critical work... I use the Sekonic 358 and before that the 308 both and I am biased here, are great pieces of equipment.......I often wonder why cameras dont have one built in...slotted into the body somewhere    I particularily  like the weatherproofing that the 358 has, which came into its own during some recent work in a damp, wet environment shooting plants. And for really critical work its a must for me.

In general I  would use a series of methods for light reading and more often than not, I dont always want a perfectly exposed image. Sometimes the end result I am looking for can be way off what would be termed 'exposed correctly' ...as the pics of models in my portfolio show.

I learnt very quickly though after my move from film into digital that RAW does not always work for post correction and my inbuilt meter although very good, loses the plot in certain lighting conditions....I thought the myth was too good to be true....though RAW has many major advantages and is the only choice for my primary workflow format.

On the fly shooting outside without  a meter I would revert back to the old trusted 'patch of grass or tree foilage' for an average reading....I always find that is not too far off the mark.

The beauty of digital is you can actually see a histogram and image...you can zoom in and see a reasonable impression of what you have.....which really is sheer luxury.....compare that to working with film transparancies and its a step ahead in light years.

I get used to my camera and I learn how it behaves....how much its out and how much I need to compensate....basically from my own experience with bodies, I believe no two camera behave the same.   

Also working with lightmeters over the years gives you a sense of the light around you and on most occassions its possible to make a good estimation of the speed and f stop based on that....working through the camera meter does not bring this to you in the same way as a hand held lightmeter does.

Art