Different methods of exposure

[Clonetrooper]

Recently I've been reading a couple of books both enjoyable.

The obvious one everyone mentions 'understanding exposure' and Michael Freemans 'Perfect Exposure'.

Before I get too confused I thought I'd ask a couple of questions.

They seem to use different methods, Peterson meters off the area he deems most critical and recomposes then ignores his meter reading depending on the result he wants and where the sun is.

Freeman talks about weighing up the average light/grey and using exposure compensation to bring out the tones he wants.

Is this two different methods to achieve the same results, which one do people here most use.

Forgive me if I have interpreted this wrong, I thought it best to ask before making assumptions to lead me in the wrong direction

 

[The Matt]

All exposure methods are means to the same end. 1/60th at f8 is the same whether you arrive on it through 5 minutes of careful measurement and calculation, or average metering and a touch of exposure compensation, etc... If you're shooting digital it doesn't really matter how you chose to expose. As long as you check your histogram and adjust as needed you'll still get what you want.

 

[AndyB]

Danny it really depends on what you are photographing. In some cases you might place more importance on a particular subject or area in the picture and you would therefore spot meter that area and set your exposure acording to that reading (i.e use manual). In other compositions you might decide you want everything to be as close to perfect but you accept some parts wont be so you can use average metering. You can of course use average by spot metering different parts of your composition and making a decision to what you think will be the best settings to use.

Also dont get too hung up on histograms. They are a guide to show if you've really blown something but they dont tell you if you've got the result you were aiming for. You still need to know what you are metering.

 

[phototuition]

I would tend to agree with Matt. Keep things simple. We can make the technical side of things as complex or as simple as we want to. If your passion is for creative photography and not equipment and technique a good starting point would be to use Canon's highly effective evaluative metering setting and learn how to interpret the histogram to determine how appropriate your exposure settings are.

This will always give you a result which will, perhaps with a little post processing give you the result you want. There's loads on the web about histograms and it's well worth getting to grips with.

John

 

[AliB]

There are probably infinite variations on using metering but as the others have already said it very much depends on how you shoot and also what you shoot. It's all about light at the end of the day and it's probably more important how that light falls on the subject that exactly how you metered for it in the first place.

I can understand you wanting to get your technique right but technique also changes with circumstance.

Sorry it's a bit of a non answer but I've seen loads of different photographers doing the same thing in different ways. One will use an incident meter while another will ignore spot metering and zoom in on the subject to meter off the critical part. Both will get the shots they want but arrive there by different routes.

So work out what makes sense and works for you!

 

[Alastair]

I've not read that Freeman book (but his The Photographer's Eye is an excellent book), but I found the way Peterson explains it in Understanding Exposure to be accurate, easy to use and he explains it well. He also gives some really good tips on where to look in the scene to take an exposure from.

You need to find a way that works for you. Try both ways.

 

[stevedunster]

All internal camera light meters get confused in some situations.

Internal light meters assume that, on average, the average value of all the pixels in your picture is 18% grey. Whenever this is not the case (like when shooting a white wedding dress), light meters mess up.

You have three choices:

1. Get to know when your light meter is fooled and use exposure compensation to compenstate (the system discussed in Understanding Exposure)

2. Expose for an 18% grey card (filling your frame) and use this exposure in Manual to shoot any colour mix and get spot on exposure

3. Use an incident light meter and exposure in Manual mode to shoot any colour mix and get spot on exposure

...of course you then may adjust the exposure further for artistic reasons e.g. stop down to increase saturation, stop up to make colours pastel and dreamy, seriously stop down to create silhouettes.

Hope this helps

Steve

 

[HoppyUK]

Forgive me if I have misunderstood the OP, but a lot of newcomers often think that if you use things like spot metering or take incident light readings and then apply manual settings, then you somehow get a better result.

You don't. Optimum exposure is optimum exposure - a certain amount of light delivered to the sensor. And it makes no difference how that is measured or calculated or set.

These metering methods really date back to shooting film, where you only have one chance to get the exposure right and photographers used a variety of techniques to achieve that, depending on the subject and the light, the kind of film, the sort of result you are after, and then just personal working preference.

None of that really applies with digital and TBH I think a lot of the metering options in DSLRs are only there because so many users comes from a film background and have developed a certain way of working that they don't want to change. Modern evaluative/matrix metering is really very good indeed and if it's not spot on then it will always give you a result that is close. Then you can see exactly what you have actually got by checking the LCD and histogram. Then adjust it to taste, usually with the +/- compensation. No calculation/guesswork involved or necessary.

I know that might not be answering your question directly and it's always nice to know what the camera is up to and how it arrives at its decisions, but there you go. I was going to be even more unhelpful and say that I think Bryan Peterson's book is confusing in parts, and plain rubbish in others, plus it refers to film use and only has a couple of pages tagged on the back about digital. But I won't say that

 

[EOS_JD]

Hoppy has a very different idea to metering from me. Whilst I understand the points made, it really depends on what you are shooting, the conditions you are shooting in and your workflow.

I've reached a point where I'm looking to shoot more in M than in Av mode because I want consistency. When shooting a wedding or other event, I don't want to be editing every shot to get consistent looking exposures. Using Av can mean two or three different exposures of the same subject in the same light!! As I zoom in out the cameras meter will change depending on what's in the scene. I don't really want that. Using a light meter to check the incident reading gives me a correct exposure. Sure I can change the numbers around to give preference to speed or dof but always keeping the same EV (where I can) and I'll get nicely exposed consistent results and that's what I need and want.

Shooting as Hoppy states will get decent results but those results will require time to fix. And I bet we all want to spend less time fixing and more time shooting (or doing whatever it is you want to do).

As stated above there are a few options to choose from and each of us has his own preference - mine is now leaning towards one of certainty and consistency and I think that can only benefit in the long term.

Jim

 

[_andyjb]

Very interesting points of view. thanks guys.

andy

 

[HoppyUK]

Hoppy has a very different idea to metering from me. Whilst I understand the points made, it really depends on what you are shooting, the conditions you are shooting in and your workflow.

I'm not sure he does Jim What you describe is more to do with setting and locking the exposure rather than metering method - and I wouldn't necessarily disagree with it.

Exposure measurement (the OP's question) and exposure setting are two separate operations.

I've reached a point where I'm looking to shoot more in M than in Av mode because I want consistency. When shooting a wedding or other event, I don't want to be editing every shot to get consistent looking exposures. Using Av can mean two or three different exposures of the same subject in the same light!! As I zoom in out the cameras meter will change depending on what's in the scene. I don't really want that. Using a light meter to check the incident reading gives me a correct exposure. Sure I can change the numbers around to give preference to speed or dof but always keeping the same EV (where I can) and I'll get nicely exposed consistent results and that's what I need and want.

That will give you consistency, because you have 'locked' the exposure in manual. That will give you immunity from subject variation as you describe, but if the light changes, you're snookered.

An incident reading doesn't necessarily give you correct exposure (whatever that may be). It will peg the highlights to a certain point relative to 18% grey and if that's what you want then fine (and perfect for shooting slide film) but 'optimum' exposure depends on other factors and with digital it could be argued that 'expose to the right' of the histogram will ultimately give you the best result in terms of maximising the sensor's data capture. That will generally mean giving more exposure than indicated by an incident reading.

Shooting as Hoppy states will get decent results but those results will require time to fix. And I bet we all want to spend less time fixing and more time shooting (or doing whatever it is you want to do).

As stated above there are a few options to choose from and each of us has his own preference - mine is now leaning towards one of certainty and consistency and I think that can only benefit in the long term.

Jim

Yes, it will give better than decent results - it will give optimum results for a given situation. Because you are taking a reading, which will noit be far out at worst, and then optimising it with +/- compensation, rather than blindly following an incident reading.

If you then want to take a series of pictures in the same situation, particularly where the subject is changing but the light is not, then transferring the final settings to manual is of course a sensible procedure.

For a newcomer, taking an incident reading and setting that in manual is quite likely to lead to errors. And if you do it properly, it will take ages.

 

[EOS_JD]

That will give you consistency, because you have 'locked' the exposure in manual. That will give you immunity from subject variation as you describe, but if the light changes, you're snookered.

In fast changing light conditions I agree and I'd probably need to revert back to Av mode and use EC or have an assistant on-hand to take meter readings when the light changes. A challenge but no great difference - Usually a couple of readings - one with sun in and one out - should be enough to allow me to carry on pretty quickly and just move between exposures - a little care obviously is required in these conditions.

An incident reading doesn't necessarily give you correct exposure (whatever that may be). It will peg the highlights to a certain point relative to 18% grey and if that's what you want then fine (and perfect for shooting slide film) but 'optimum' exposure depends on other factors and with digital it could be argued that 'expose to the right' of the histogram will ultimately give you the best result in terms of maximising the sensor's data capture. That will generally mean giving more exposure than indicated by an incident reading.

You sure that's right? I don't thiunk so (not with my meter)! An incident meter takes a reading of the light falling onto the subject not reflected from it so is not adjusted by trying to make whites or blacks go grey. It should produce white with detail in the highlights and/or black with detaiul in the shadows.

Yes, it will give better than decent results - it will give optimum results for a given situation. Because you are taking a reading, which will noit be far out at worst, and then optimising it with +/- compensation, rather than blindly following an incident reading.

You don't have EC as such when shooting in M. An incident meter reading will providce the correct EV - the exposure you set should be based on that same EV.

If you then want to take a series of pictures in the same situation, particularly where the subject is changing but the light is not, then transferring the final settings to manual is of course a sensible procedure.

For a newcomer, taking an incident reading and setting that in manual is quite likely to lead to errors. And if you do it properly, it will take ages.

Maybe I've got it wrong Hoppy - will be useful to find out more though

 

[AliB]

When shooting a wedding or other event, I don't want to be editing every shot to get consistent looking exposures. Using Av can mean two or three different exposures of the same subject in the same light!! As I zoom in out the cameras meter will change depending on what's in the scene. I don't really want that. Using a light meter to check the incident reading gives me a correct exposure. Jim

Bingo!

Exactly what I do and for the same reasons.

For anyone really interested int he difference between reflected and incident light readings, the Sekonic website is the place to read up on it

 

[Jchaplin]

An interesting discussion - correct me if I'm wrong but don't you have to add say 1.7 stops to an incident reading to expose for white properly as the meter is reading for 18% grey??

 

[AliB]

Nope, beacuse the incident light meter reads the light falling on the subject independant of it's colour or tone you can safely use that reading to obtain a correct exposure. It's one of the major plus points of using an incident light meter.

Explanation from Sekonic
A better alternative to reading the light in many scenes is to use an "incident meter". Hand-held incident meters read the intensity of light falling on the subject and are usually taken from the subject position. Because they are not affected by variances in subject colour or reflectance, incident meters accurately record the amount of light falling onto the subject. In the majority of situations, an incident reading is extremely accurate and records tones, colors and values correctly.

It's the reflected meters that use the 18% grey assumption and one reason why you need to account for incorrect readings when using your camera's meter.

 

[Jchaplin]

I stand corrected thanks Ali - the 1.7 stops would only apply to a reflective measurement taken from a white subject (as the meter still assumes its 18% gray).. understood, thanks.

 

[AliB]

Spot on

Although the amount of extra exposure would, of course, depend on the amount of illumination which is one reason why it gets a bit tricky

 

[Jchaplin]

Aye, it's a tricky one - but the consistency of exposures is a major benefit for sure - particularly if zooming loads. I would've thought an idea technique for doing wedding group shots etc. as long as the light is fairly consitent.

 

[EOS_JD]

I stand corrected thanks Ali - the 1.7 stops would only apply to a reflective measurement taken from a white subject (as the meter still assumes its 18% gray).. understood, thanks.

From memory the dome in the meter works like an 18% grey card. When you take the reading it provides a correct exposure and no compensation will be required to get white or black correct.

It's like shooting a grey card without carrying one around and having to increase/decrease the exposure to get the correct one.

 

[HoppyUK]

In fast changing light conditions I agree and I'd probably need to revert back to Av mode and use EC or have an assistant on-hand to take meter readings when the light changes. A challenge but no great difference - Usually a couple of readings - one with sun in and one out - should be enough to allow me to carry on pretty quickly and just move between exposures - a little care obviously is required in these conditions.

I'm not sure the OP has an assistant on hand with a separate meter

You sure that's right? I don't thiunk so (not with my meter)! An incident meter takes a reading of the light falling onto the subject not reflected from it so is not adjusted by trying to make whites or blacks go grey. It should produce white with detail in the highlights and/or black with detaiul in the shadows.

Yes, I'm sure. An incident light reading is no different to taking a reflected light reading off an 18% grey card. And as such, it assumes (ie is calibrated) to pin the highlights at a certain point above that. Which may or may not be where you want them (probably is for slide film) and in most situations when shooting digital will not maximise the data capture of important subject tones. That depends on the subject, and white brides and dark grooms are a classic dilemma, but in terms of an optimum result, a degree of pushing the histogram to the right will very often put usefully more detail and tone separation in the shadows without sacrificing any important highlights (which are probably blown anyway). Of course, with ETTR technique, you have to pull everything back down to the correct tonal levels in post processing but when you've done that the enhanced detail in mid-tones and particularly shadows will remain. Here's a link on expose to the right from Luminous Landscape http://www.luminous-landscape.com/tutorials/expose-right.shtml

You don't have EC as such when shooting in M. An incident meter reading will providce the correct EV - the exposure you set should be based on that same EV.

I was referring to Av operation.

Maybe I've got it wrong Hoppy - will be useful to find out more though

A bit off topic here (but that's never stopped me ) and so with apologies to the OP. Hope this makes sense.

 

[AliB]

For group shots I cheat and shoot Aperture priority! There is no point in overcomplicating things and with AP i can ensure I get the depth of field I need and so long as I have a decent shutter speed I'm good to go. With the Nikon i can also use auto ISO so I can set f8 or f11 1/250sec and the auto ISO takes care of any varying light. Neat stuff.

With the 5D you'd just need to set the aperture and make sure you have a good enough shutter speed manually setting ISo till you do.

It's the indoor stuff I shoot on manual so I get the control for things like window lit portraits. That's where it can make a difference, in tricky light.

 

[EOS_JD]

Aye, it's a tricky one - but the consistency of exposures is a major benefit for sure - particularly if zooming loads. I would've thought an idea technique for doing wedding group shots etc. as long as the light is fairly consitent.

When doing groups,light at one end can be different from the light at the other. Some meters also do an average of two readings which can be useful too.

 

[Clonetrooper]

A bit off topic here (but that's never stopped me ) and so with apologies to the OP. Hope this makes sense.

No problem at all it's interesting reading and food for thought.

It was really the differences these two authors used that interested me. One metering away/off the main subject and recomposing ingonring the meter reading and the other metering off what he considered to be the most important tone and using exposure compensation.

I guess they will both produce similar results, I was interested in the methods people used and this thread is providing some of that info.

Cheers guys, my aim before I start post processing is to work on my technique first so I don't spend anymore of my life thans needed infront of a pc screen

 

[HoppyUK]

Nope, beacuse the incident light meter reads the light falling on the subject independant of it's colour or tone you can safely use that reading to obtain a correct exposure. It's one of the major plus points of using an incident light meter.

Explanation from Sekonic
A better alternative to reading the light in many scenes is to use an "incident meter". Hand-held incident meters read the intensity of light falling on the subject and are usually taken from the subject position. Because they are not affected by variances in subject colour or reflectance, incident meters accurately record the amount of light falling onto the subject. In the majority of situations, an incident reading is extremely accurate and records tones, colors and values correctly.

It's the reflected meters that use the 18% grey assumption and one reason why you need to account for incorrect readings when using your camera's meter.

Incident meters use exactly the same assumption. They measure the light and put 18% grey where 18% grey should be, same as reading off a grey card, or off a white card and making an appropriate adjustment. In theory, it's the same principle as taking a reading off the palm of your hand and adding 1.3 stops.

That's fine of course, but it's not always optimum. Historically it always works well with slide film because with that there is no opportunity to adjust the final tonal range either in printing or in post processing.

But with digital (or negative film - that's the Zone System theory) you can adjust the brightness of the final image in a completely separate operation. That allows you to maximise the data capture on the sensor at the time of exposure, even though it means shifting tones away from their nominal value, because you can readjust them back down again in post processing (I'm talking Raw obviously).

Furthermore, an incident meter has no idea what the dynamic range of an individual sensor is, and with this in mind it seems that some camera meters are now calibrated to 12% grey (very hard to get hard info on that) which is a kind of a built in 'expose to the right' factor.

Basically, if I take an incident/18% grey reading and apply that directly, I'm losing at least a stop of exposure headroom that I know is there to be used.

 

[AndyB]

I think this thread serves to demonstrate that although there are 'rules' taught by photographers, each new photographer eventually gains a good understanding of exposure and metering (along with the limitations and quirks) and comes up with their own personal method that gets the desired result.

It's only through reading things like this that I am reminded that I use manual and spot almost all the time. It simply doesn't often ocurr to me to do it differently. But that's only the way I prefer to work and it wouldnt necessarily suit other people.

 

[stevedunster]

I'm with EOS_JD and AliB

Incident light meter and shoot in Manual. For many lighting situations this is less prone to error that fiddling around trying to estimate and second guess how much by the reflective meter is getting it wrong.

Of course I will stop and stop down from the incident light meter for artistic reasons, but I don't have to worry about different meter readings for different colours.

Also, where the lighting changes often and quickly I will sometimes bottle it and switch to Av.

Steve

 

[EOS_JD]

Incident meters use exactly the same assumption. They measure the light and put 18% grey where 18% grey should be, same as reading off a grey card, or off a white card and making an appropriate adjustment. In theory, it's the same principle as taking a reading off the palm of your hand and adding 1.3 stops.

That's fine of course, but it's not always optimum. Historically it always works well with slide film because with that there is no opportunity to adjust the final tonal range either in printing or in post processing.

But with digital (or negative film - that's the Zone System theory) you can adjust the brightness of the final image in a completely separate operation. That allows you to maximise the data capture on the sensor at the time of exposure, even though it means shifting tones away from their nominal value, because you can readjust them back down again in post processing (I'm talking Raw obviously).

Furthermore, an incident meter has no idea what the dynamic range of an individual sensor is, and with this in mind it seems that some camera meters are now calibrated to 12% grey (very hard to get hard info on that) which is a kind of a built in 'expose to the right' factor.

Basically, if I take an incident/18% grey reading and apply that directly, I'm losing at least a stop of exposure headroom that I know is there to be used.

Hoppy
Now I understand what you mean. There is nothing to stop you calibrating your meter to how you want it to perform. I appreciate there may be some headroom in the RAW image but to be honest for what we are doing you on't need that all the time. This is good for very specific shots and you can add some exposure if required if you want to.

In fact you can calibrate your meter to give you + or - a few stops to give you more consistency if you want +1 all the time.

But that still doesn't get round that shooting in M and using a meter will give far more consistent results. That's what most would want I guess and it may take a few seconds longer but the after effects in PP are huge.

JD

 

[Jchaplin]

JD - for a typical group shot then - would you go for Av and maybe EC +/- according to what you see (ie. lighter or darker scene fooling the in-camera meter) or would you use an incident meter and average it out from one end to another? Surely Av has to be quicker which in a wedding situation is quite often desirable?

Thanks for all responses... its very interesting to see what the different approaches are.

 

[EOS_JD]

I think this thread serves to demonstrate that although there are 'rules' taught by photographers, each new photographer eventually gains a good understanding of exposure and metering (along with the limitations and quirks) and comes up with their own personal method that gets the desired result.

It's only through reading things like this that I am reminded that I use manual and spot almost all the time. It simply doesn't often ocurr to me to do it differently. But that's only the way I prefer to work and it wouldnt necessarily suit other people.

Andy
It only comes down to what is right for you. Shooting with a meter and shooting with spot metering probably tae the same amount of time. Onlty with the meter you don''t need to compensate for the under/over exposure when metering off black/white.

So long as you understand what you are doing and why then it all starts to make sense. At one time I wondered if I would ever get it right but feel much more comfortable with exposures now.

 

[HoppyUK]

Hoppy
Now I understand what you mean. There is nothing to stop you calibrating your meter to how you want it to perform. I appreciate there may be some headroom in the RAW image but to be honest for what we are doing you on't need that all the time. This is good for very specific shots and you can add some exposure if required if you want to.

In fact you can calibrate your meter to give you + or - a few stops to give you more consistency if you want +1 all the time.

But that still doesn't get round that shooting in M and using a meter will give far more consistent results. That's what most would want I guess and it may take a few seconds longer but the after effects in PP are huge.

JD

Consistency is very important, especially for what you're up to. I would say in reality more important than absolute optimum accuracy, so long as it's there or there abouts. And TBH, I think it's a brave man who sails so close to the wind that the bride's white dress is sitting right on the edge of a precipice

It doesn't matter how you arrive at your exposure setting and if incident does it for you then that's cool, and you're not alone. And then manual locks it there. Sorted

The only point I was making about incident metering is that it's not a magic bullet. It is nothing more than a reverse way of taking a reflected reading off an 18% grey card, or indeed any other surface provided it is a known tonal value and you apply appropriate adjustment, such as the palm of your hand (+1.3 stops ). It is therefore subject to a number of variables.

What an incident reading does is measure the light source and then assumes that 18% grey will be right in the middle of the dynamic range, about three stops down from blowing. Fine, that works for slide film but while 18% grey is certainly in the middle of the dynamic range, it might not be three stops down. In fact, mostly these days, it isn't with sensors that can go to eight or nine stops quite easily. So, as a result, there's at least a stop or maybe two above that depending on the sensor, and also depending on how bright your important highlights are.

That's the principle behind 'expose to the right' technique. How effective it is depends on the camera and sometimes the subject, not to mention how brave you are. And if you're going by the histogram/blinkies, which of course you must, then watch out for how the contrast setting shifts it left/right by about a stop.

I guess a lot of this stuff is academic really. The technical side is all very well but I'd rather have a great expression in a portrait than an extra half stop of headroom on the highlights. But you should give ETTR a try - pushing the exposure a couple of stops up certainly puts wonderful detail and richness into the shadows.

I'm waffling...

 

[EOS_JD]

The only point I was making about incident metering is that it's not a magic bullet. It is nothing more than a reverse way of taking a reflected reading off an 18% grey card, or indeed any other surface provided it is a known tonal value and you apply appropriate adjustment, such as the palm of your hand (+1.3 stops ). It is therefore subject to a number of variables.

That's the thing about an incident rteading hoppy, no need to add or subtract exposure to get the right reading. An incident reading measures 18% grey from the light source you point at. The white/black points in the image make no difference as you are not metering from those and they have no input into the reading - unliuke a reflected reading your camera uses that HAS to be adjusted.

What an incident reading does is measure the light source and then assumes that 18% grey will be right in the middle of the dynamic range, about three stops down from blowing. Fine, that works for slide film but while 18% grey is certainly in the middle of the dynamic range, it might not be three stops down. In fact, mostly these days, it isn't with sensors that can go to eight or nine stops quite easily. So, as a result, there's at least a stop or maybe two above that depending on the sensor, and also depending on how bright your important highlights are.

I see what you are saying and as I mentioned it's simle to calibrate your own meter for your camera. Mine is set to +2/3rds of a stop.

That's the principle behind 'expose to the right' technique. How effective it is depends on the camera and sometimes the subject, not to mention how brave you are. And if you're going by the histogram/blinkies, which of course you must, then watch out for how the contrast setting shifts it left/right by about a stop.

By using the meter you obviously need to be careful what you are metering for. Is it the highlights of the face at a window - you point the meter at the ligt source - or is it the face of a person with a bright back light - You point at the camera shielding the meter from the back light and let the background blow - there may be just so much contrast that you know the camera won't capture everything and so long as you meter for what you wantr all will be well.

I guess a lot of this stuff is academic really. The technical side is all very well but I'd rather have a great expression in a portrait than an extra half stop of headroom on the highlights. But you should give ETTR a try - pushing the exposure a couple of stops up certainly puts wonderful detail and richness into the shadows.

THe use of the meter for me is all about consistency. I totally agree I'd rather have a great expression and a small overexposure than a dull exression with a perfect exposure.

THe beauty of consistency too is that if there is a little headroom, I can add that in a whole batch of images very quickly. Yes it may introduce some noise but at the generally small prints we produce from weddings it (noise) will never even be seen!

It probably matters more when the light goes down and the overall images are darker. Pushing the highlights to the right will certainly help the shadow areas.

 

[EOS_JD]

JD - for a typical group shot then - would you go for Av and maybe EC +/- according to what you see (ie. lighter or darker scene fooling the in-camera meter) or would you use an incident meter and average it out from one end to another? Surely Av has to be quicker which in a wedding situation is quite often desirable?

Thanks for all responses... its very interesting to see what the different approaches are.

JC it really depends on the light, If it's an overcast day, the light should be fairly even so you culd probably take a meter reading from the point where you are standing and get an accurate reading. The important thing is to be consistent with the other shots you have already taken so they all look the same. If in changing light Av and +/- EC and maybe fill flash will be the way to go - You may even be using flash anyway.... Really too many variables but jusyt be consistent as much as you can.

Ideally you want the whole group (if it's big) to be in a similar light - be that sunshine or shade. - Not half in half out!

Av may be slightly quicker but your consistency rate will fall dramatically. THis is the problem I have with Av and the reason why I'm changing over to M. Don't get me wrong I may still need the fall back position of Av at times.

 

[stevedunster]

Totally agree EOS_JD - beautifully put too

 

[EOS_JD]

Thanks Steve.

I'm still at the learning stage and bought myself some online training from Mark Cleghorn which I have found invaluable.

http://www.phototraining4u.com/dap/a/?a=2581

He has his own style and on the whole I like it. He creates great images in what looks very easy fashion from weddings through portrait sessions with males. females, couples and families and all the time explaining metering, posing etc etc,

Really great to see a working pro do his stuff and well worth the money - I actually got £100 in vouchers back to use at Loxley too which is great!

JD