Metering question.

Status
Not open for further replies.
jon ryan said:
OK, to sum up: You're going to shoot your first ever wedding using Aperture Priority and some sort of auto ISO. You will be able to adjust your dof as required, and will be happy for the shutter speed to drop (or presumably increase) at will. You are confident that you can do all of this without reference to any camera telemetry, as you regard metering to be either inaccurate or un-necessary and are wholly confident in your ability to accurately judge light-levels by eye, even during a wedding, which is one of the fastest moving and unpredictable photography challenges in the book.

A couple of other points occur:

Does your ability to judge light extent to the shots that will need flash?

Will you be using your back-up camera with a different lens, (ie for wide and close shots that arrive close together) or do you plan to swap lenses as required?
Click to expand...

Nope.

So wrong on all accounts.

I maybe wrong but...you sound incredibly arrogant and are reading what you want and making up your own story.

Why don't you just let me be, you're annoying me :)

How about this: if I do a bad job, I'll come and ask you how it's done?!

I think you should learn to live and let live.

Fact is: I know what i'm doing, I produce good images...just leave me to my own devices, I don't need your arrogant input.
 
Phil Young said:
Yep but in my opinion...if you're shooting manual all the time, you shouldn't need a meter anyway.
Click to expand...

Phil Young said:
I wouldn't want to rely on a meter, I like to walk into a scene and know exactly what settings to use.

I like to think if it the same as a chef that's given a certain weight of beef and knowing what time to cook it without a meet thermometer.

But of course I understand if one is not confident with that then a meter should be used.
Click to expand...

Phil Young said:
Some will disagree with me, others may prefer to practice with the light without using meters until they know what changes to make and how much.

I use mode when I need to be quick but when I do use EV compensation rather than metering.

For me, metering takes away my calculations and I feel like i'm relying on technology so spent a lot of time learning not to :)
Click to expand...

Phil Young said:
I don't like using the metering because I prefer to get the exposure right myself, with my experience and knowledge of lighting...I don't see why it's a negative thing or why others can't understand it - if I get the exposure right then I feel better about my subject knowledge, just like any other job (or part of a job).

Anyone is free to disagree with me and use what ever methods they prefer to get their exposure right, I just prefer to use my brain rather than a camera brain...similar to maths teachers preferring to work out a sum in their head rather than use a calculator - both give correct answers but working it out gives a better sense of achievement.

For all those that prefer a different method, that's your privilege...but my preferred choice is my own, there's no right or wrong way here guys :)
Click to expand...

Phil Young said:
Actually metering should be thought if as an exposure assistant and you can work absolutely fine without it...your choice whether you use an assistant or not :)
Click to expand...

Phil Young said:
I just leave my metering on evaluative and adjust the EV comp as necessary.

If I need more than 2 stops lg compensation 9/10 times i'm on manual anyway and my last resort is to change to spot and let the camera sort it out the "calculation" (for lack of a better word) for me.

Like I said, there's no right and wrong way to getting the exposure, it's just what I prefer.
Click to expand...

Phil Young said:
Nope.

So wrong on all accounts.

I maybe wrong but...you sound incredibly arrogant and are reading what you want and making up your own story.

Why don't you just let me be, you're annoying me :)

How about this: if I do a bad job, I'll come and ask you how it's done?!

I think you should learn to live and let live.

Fact is: I know what i'm doing, I produce good images...just leave me to my own devices, I don't need your arrogant input.
Click to expand...

No problem. No problem at all. Clearly there is nothing left for you to learn. You know it all. Congratulations! :clap:

PS: On this:
How about this: if I do a bad job, I'll come and ask you how it's done?!
Click to expand...
Have you though about asking how it's done before you do it? Just a closing thought. (But it may be best to ask someone else, if you don't mind).
 
Last edited:
Phil Young said:
How about this: if I do a bad job, I'll come and ask you how it's done?!
Click to expand...

...and whilst you are asking how it's done, who is going to make it up to your clients whose wedding photography you've trashed?


You don't seem to get that this isn't about a personality clash. It's advice from people who know what they are doing- egos have zip all to do with it.

Av doesn'twork that well when you have a massive dynamic range; which is incidentally what you are likely to be getting at a wedding.


Your opinion stands at:

Phil Young said:
Fact is: I know what i'm doing, I produce good images...just leave me to my own devices, I don't need your arrogant input.
Click to expand...

.. but you don't know what you are doing.

You haven't photographed a wedding before and most of your sets are static with constant light.

FFS take some decent advice when it's meant as such, before you cock up someone's big day, not after!!
 
Last edited:
DemiLion said:
...and whilst you are asking how it's done, who is going to make it up to your clients whose wedding photography you've trashed?

You don't seem to get that this isn't about a personality clash. It's advice from people who know what they are doing- egos have zip all to do with it.

Av does work that well when you have a massive dynamic range; which is incidentally what you are likely to be getting at a wedding.

Your opinion stands at:

.. but you don't know what you are doing.

You haven't photographed a wedding before and most of your sets are static with constant light.

FFS take some decent advice when it's meant as such, before you cock up someone's big day, not after!!
Click to expand...

Lol you make me laugh.

If you knew me you would understand why.

All I can do is be organised and plan for the worst case scenario.

I'm banking on me doing a good job (photography is photography, ultimately it's preparation and attention to your job that's different in most cases).

Watch this space (licks finger and wipes eyebrow).

Lol, I'm being annoying now but anyway...we'll see what happens and weather I can live up to my predictions of some cracking shots ;)
 
Rapscallion said:
I though this was the friendly forum!!
Click to expand...

It is LOL ;)

But there seems a lot of argument for the sake of it here, some misunderstanding that looks almost deliberate, and words putting in other peoples' mouths.
 
HoppyUK said:
It is LOL ;)

But there seems a lot of argument for the sake of it here, some misunderstanding that looks almost deliberate, and words putting in other peoples' mouths.
Click to expand...

Yeah....

Shame really. There are some genuinely helpful members here but there is a lot of d**k measuring which gets really boring...
 
OK, I'll risk the wrath of the mods and say this.

Phil - I totally understand the frustration expressed by some.

You seem to be claiming a talent that is extremely rare, but are confusing the issue with the terminology you use.

I'm not thick, but having re-read this thread I'm not sure what it is you are claiming your approach is.

When questioned about this rare talent you throw your dummy out the pram.

It seems we either take you at face value or we are dick measurers.

Why not put this to rest - it's quite easy. Show some pics using your method, with exif data, so people can understand what you're talking about.

If you have this ability I salute you, but forgive me if I need persuading.
 
HoppyUK said:
Exactly. He guesses the exposure approximately by eye and then makes adjustments off the LCD/histogram/blinkies.

I do that a lot too, and it's a good method. But it's effectively metering under a different name.
Click to expand...

I can relate to this approach. The Mamiya 645 1000S I was out shooting with this evening has a metered PD prism finder, but everything's manual as far as adjustments are concerned. I'll dial in my estimate of the exposure on the aperture and shutter controls first (and probably focus too) before I lift the camera to my eye. Then I'll fine tune the exposure once I can see the meter in the viewfinder, which is a 70s electronic version of a match-needle, but with no other shooting information. Certainly quicker to get it in the ball park first and then give the aperture or shutter controls a click or two in the right direction.

I can often get it pretty close to the metered reading, even when switching between different lighting conditions - moving from full sunlight to a shadowed street. I've never bothered with Sunny 16 (I keep forgetting it) so I just go with my gut feel for the conditions.

Can take a little while to re-calibrate your brain every time you switch film - yesterday it was Fuji Superia 200 on a 35mm body, today some 120 Kodak BW 400 CN in the Mamiya and I was thinking a stop slower this evening :)
 
Last edited:
Somebody mentioned perfect pitch earlier in the discussion - I certainly don't have perfect pitch, but I in a similar way I can tune a guitar or bass by ear after changing strings and surprisingly often get it pretty close when I go to check with a tuner. Not 100% and I wouldn't rely on that alone for tuning when playing with a band, but If you can know where you're heading it saves a lot of time with an electronic gizmo.

TBF, there are other cues you get to know aside from just the pitch of the notes, like the feel of the tension in the string, but it is largely a question of doing it often enough.
 
Last edited:
With you there Musicman.

It may be that the OP has the light evaluation equivalent.

The difference is that a guy I know with perfect pitch can demonstrate it. It's impressive and I wish I had it. :'(

I wish Phil would just show us what he can do. I'm intrigued.
 
simon ess said:
OK, I'll risk the wrath of the mods and say this.
You seem to be claiming a talent that is extremely rare, but are confusing the issue with the terminology you use.
Click to expand...

Hold on a second. Simon, I never claimed to have a talent - quite the contrary, I am bemused everything thinks I'm some kind of exposure god! I'm the one that said I think all photographers should be able to do this. Jon was the one (and I belive being very cynical doing so) saying I had a "talent".

simon ess said:
I'm not thick, but having re-read this thread I'm not sure what it is you are claiming your approach is.
Click to expand...

I dial in my speed, aperture and ISO to expose my scene?

simon ess said:
When questioned about this rare talent you throw your dummy out the pram.
Click to expand...
I wasn't questioned I was being doubted, spoken to rudely and had my intelligence insulted without need. When asked, I have provided a description of how I expose my scenes - this is what I do and is none of anyone else's business, I never asked for comments on this but it seems some were just looking for a fight.[/QUOTE]

simon ess said:
It seems we either take you at face value or we are dick measurers.
Click to expand...
The dick measuring was certain folk trying to find fault in what I do. Oh and I particularly enjoyed the doubt that I can actually shoot someone's wedding and do a good job...

simon ess said:
Why not put this to rest - it's quite easy. Show some pics using your method, with exif data, so people can understand what you're talking about.
Click to expand...

So be it. I took these two today when I came out the barbers - angry that people are saying I am doing the almost impossible and even doubted my ability to read the scene. SO I did what Jon suggested (and I have provided details of this in another post).

I shot to expose the street. Then immediately after shot to expose the shadowed area beside. Don't judge my photography here...I do have good photos lol this was merely a test of exposure.

http://www.sendspace.com/file/ard98m

simon ess said:
If you have this ability I salute you, but forgive me if I need persuading.
Click to expand...

Forgive me Simon but I believe if other photographers can't they should stay away from their meters for a bit.

I find it genuinely surprising that people can't understand me and my "talented methods" ...is this not normal in photography, I always assumed everyone did it!?
 
Not getting any pictures from that link Phil - just a rather odd looking website.
 
I guess they're the links you meant to post.

Sorry dude.

If you think I'm going to click download from that website then there is no hope.

I'm outa here - good luck.
 
simon ess said:
I guess they're the links you meant to post.

Sorry dude.

If you think I'm going to click download from that website then there is no hope.

I'm outa here - good luck.
Click to expand...

If I upload here you won't see the exif data. No problems, do or don't, I did what you asked for.
 
I dont use my inbuilt meter unless i need to get exposure correct first time, i prefer to choose my settings take a test shot and adjust using my LCD, i'll look at the LCD and decide if and how to adjust my settings and normally get it right but it takes 2 shots to get correct exposure. I will use the inbuilt meter if i need to get the exposure pretty much on par first time as a second shot would take to long.

Is this how you do it?
 
Bloody hell guys, What does it matter how people use their equipment to get the results they want?

Does it really matter if one guy does it a different way to the next guy?

Didn`t think so.
 
simon ess said:
No you didn't - and you know it - bye :wave:
Click to expand...

Simon. Stop being a weirdo, it's sendspace, how I send all my large files such as videos and RAW files.

I'm not bothered if you download it or not, it's there if you want to see if you don't, don't.

I haven't got anything to prove - I expose correctly and use my eye to do so...many do, many don't...I really don't understand the disbelief.

...It is my opinion that if you are a photographer with experience (and definitely a working photographer) then you should be able to read light this way...but of course that's just my opinion.
 
fracster said:
Bloody hell guys, What does it matter how people use their equipment to get the results they want?

Does it really matter if one guy does it a different way to the next guy?

Didn`t think so.
Click to expand...

I know, it's been frustrating me all day long! I don't even know why i'm having to "defend" myself!
 
I can see where you went wrong Phil. You mentioned the 'wedding' word :)
 
back to the original question Phil:

with the 4 photos you posted in post 14 (2 aperture priority and 2 manual) did the cameras exposure indicator not change with the two different metering modes? I know the exposure itself didn't change (full manual, you'd need to change it not the camera) but surely the camera's interpretation of 'correct exposure' changed?

If it is as a isusect then surely your brother is right that metering is affected by your metering mode, but that the exposure will not be affected as in manual mode the meter is only a guide whereas in the semi auto modes you set aperture or shutter speed and the camera sets the other for you
 
Uneducated_Rick said:
back to the original question Phil:

with the 4 photos you posted in post 14 (2 aperture priority and 2 manual) did the cameras exposure indicator not change with the two different metering modes? I know the exposure itself didn't change (full manual, you'd need to change it not the camera) but surely the camera's interpretation of 'correct exposure' changed?

If it is as a isusect then surely your brother is right that metering is affected by your metering mode, but that the exposure will not be affected as in manual mode the meter is only a guide whereas in the semi auto modes you set aperture or shutter speed and the camera sets the other for you
Click to expand...

Back to the first page - we had that! But that was before we discovered that rather than not understanding exposure, Phil wanted to tell us how he preferred to meter by eye. That's where it gets 'interesting':thinking:

Phil V said:
It depends where you're spot metering from, whether you're compensating for the reflectance of the metered object.... etc. etc.

But in simple terms different metering patterns may give you different readings depending on the scene in front of you. Otherwise what's the point in having different metering patterns:thinking: - some being more suitable to some situations than others, or for different techniques.

But your experiment should be easy enough to do.

The meter shows up in your viewfinder - in M or semi auto modes - you can chose what to do with this information. The semi auto modes do not take any control from the user - they just offer help - that you can chose to accept, override or compensate out of. In the same way Manual doesn't mean that you're in control - if all you're going to do is accept the meter's recommendation.
Click to expand...
 
DemiLion said:
...and whilst you are asking how it's done, who is going to make it up to your clients whose wedding photography you've trashed?


You don't seem to get that this isn't about a personality clash. It's advice from people who know what they are doing- egos have zip all to do with it.

Av doesn'twork that well when you have a massive dynamic range; which is incidentally what you are likely to be getting at a wedding.


Your opinion stands at:



.. but you don't know what you are doing.

You haven't photographed a wedding before and most of your sets are static with constant light.

FFS take some decent advice when it's meant as such, before you cock up someone's big day, not after!!
Click to expand...

Phil Young said:
I made a thread about a month ago asking advice lol
Click to expand...

I have read your whole thread asking advice about wedding shooting and nowhere in there is any mention of not using manual settings or any of the attitude you are displaying here.

You can take your pictures however you choose but don't ask for help and then spit the dummy when the answers don't suit you.

Hope the wedding goes ok.

Heather
 
Last edited:
I really don't want to get accused of willy waggling (but I think it might happen)

But just supposing someone looked at your Facebook page (as suggested by you) and then decided that, rather than proving you had a great eye for light measurement - thought some of your exposures could be described as 'all over the place'.

Would that person be wrong? Jealous of your talent? have a chip on their shoulder? Or could we fall back on 'coorect exposure is a matter of taste', or is it just more willy measuring?

Because I'd prefer an honest debate about suitable metering methods. There's more to light how we measure light than EV's.:)

ie. Couple in a doorway - shooting from inside the building. Do I:
  • Shoot a silhouette.
  • Shoot for the couple and blow the background
  • Add a reflector or flash and try to balance the inside and outside exposure
  • Get low, expose for the sky and use OCF to add dramatic light to the couple.

All of the above are legitimate choices - all set off with the same amount of ambient light. Can we make that decision and get the shot without the aid of a meter. Do we rely on the flash metering (if we're using flash) from the camera, or do we calculate a manual flash exposure too?
 
Uneducated_Rick said:
back to the original question Phil:

with the 4 photos you posted in post 14 (2 aperture priority and 2 manual) did the cameras exposure indicator not change with the two different metering modes? I know the exposure itself didn't change (full manual, you'd need to change it not the camera) but surely the camera's interpretation of 'correct exposure' changed?

If it is as a isusect then surely your brother is right that metering is affected by your metering mode, but that the exposure will not be affected as in manual mode the meter is only a guide whereas in the semi auto modes you set aperture or shutter speed and the camera sets the other for you
Click to expand...

That was never the issue. The question was does the metering compensate to expose correctly...which it doesn't. My brother thought it would affect the exposure in manual mode which it doesn't.

Indication of correct exposure if neither here nor there in this thread.
 
Phil V said:
I really don't want to get accused of willy waggling (but I think it might happen)

But just supposing someone looked at your Facebook page (as suggested by you) and then decided that, rather than proving you had a great eye for light measurement - thought some of your exposures could be described as 'all over the place'.

Would that person be wrong? Jealous of your talent? have a chip on their shoulder? Or could we fall back on 'coorect exposure is a matter of taste', or is it just more willy measuring?

Because I'd prefer an honest debate about suitable metering methods. There's more to light how we measure light than EV's.:)

ie. Couple in a doorway - shooting from inside the building. Do I:

[*]Shoot a silhouette.
[*]Shoot for the couple and blow the background
[*]Add a reflector or flash and try to balance the inside and outside exposure
[*]Get low, expose for the sky and use OCF to add dramatic light to the couple.


All of the above are legitimate choices - all set off with the same amount of ambient light. Can we make that decision and get the shot without the aid of a meter. Do we rely on the flash metering (if we're using flash) from the camera, or do we calculate a manual flash exposure too?
Click to expand...

Like I said in an earlier post, I don't know what can be proved from photos that have been heavily edited?

I did provide sample for people to download if they wanted to see how I expose.

I still don't see why it matters if I use metering to tell me how to expose or just set it myself in manual mode.

I don't think I've shown any attitude that's unjust here - it went as follows;

1) I asked the question for clarification and so I can direct my brother here and prove that exposure isn't compensated for in full manual mode.
2) It was discovered that I input my own settings to expose correctly.
3) certain members doubted a persons ability to measure light by eye and from experienced of changing camera settings.
4) I then get angry because of scepticism and sarcasm because it seemed I was being terrorised for inputting my own figures like that's wrong....?
5) I defend myself, all the time staying it's down to preference.
6) When found out that i'm doing a wedding, I get told I can't do it and am going to ruin their images...?
7) i'm asked to "prove" myself.
8) I do.
9) i'm being called a baby.

Am I on a different planet when I read this thread and see that it's all down to personal preference and that how I measure is my own business and although it's fine to ask (genuinely), it's very rude to add sarcasm and rude remarks?

The really annoying thing that I've found (in every profession) is that there are always people ready to be negative, doubt and add their nasty remarks to make someone else feel bad. I don't see that it isn't the case here. I should never have had to.defend my "special ability" as it's been called or as I see it: normal manual mode.

I don't mind frank and honest discussions that will help everyone but I have been put into a corner and I don't see why? What, because I like to input my own figures when in manual mode and compensate exposure myself...? I really don't see why I have to bow down to someone that does use their meter. Who cares as long as the scene is exposed?
 
So the question is, im in Manual mode and have it on spot metering, would my exposure change if i changed to matrix metering?

Depends if you use your inbuilt meter or not.

It won't do it automatically as it is manual mode and everything is manual but if you do use your inbuilt meter then it will effect the metered exposure
 
Tigger.ufo said:
I have read your whole thread asking advice about wedding shooting and nowhere in there is any mention of not using manual settings or any of the attitude you are displaying here.

You can take your pictures however you choose but don't ask for help and then spit the dummy when the answers don't suit you.

Hope the wedding goes ok.

Heather
Click to expand...

Heather.

You wouldn't see animosity from me unless I've been challenged unnecessarily.

I asked for advice, it was taken on board and I don't see why I should be staying what mode I will be using for every scene?

I'll be switching between A/S/M to suit my needs.

Spit the dummy out?

Do me a favour and read the whole of this thread - I have maintained the fact that how you expose is your own preference and weather you compensate yourself or tell the camera to do it makes no difference.

I'm the one that's being accused of claiming to.have special powers and having to prove myself when I just see it as normal practice.
 
Last edited:
DannyDMR said:
So the question is, im in Manual mode and have it on spot metering, would my exposure change if i changed to matrix metering?

Depends if you use your inbuilt meter or not.

It won't do it automatically as it is manual mode and everything is manual but if you do use your inbuilt meter then it will effect the metered exposure
Click to expand...

Cheers Danny I think that's been cleared up now.

I did confuse people a but with my original question, I knew it would "tell me" what to do but wanted to clarify if the camera would automatically change my exposure as my brother thought it would...which it didn't :)
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top