Metering question.

Status
Not open for further replies.
Very useful info. Thanks.
 
Stick it in M mode
Select spot metering
Line up your center spot with what you want to meter
Watch the meter reading...
- ---------|--------- +
5 4 3 2 1 1 2 3 4 5
Adjust your aperture, shutter speed accordingly depending upon which has more priority.
The meter reading will be the same no matter what mode your in.
End of.
 
Simon photo said:
Stick it in M mode
Select spot metering
Line up your center spot with what you want to meter
Watch the meter reading...
- ---------|--------- +
5 4 3 2 1 1 2 3 4 5
Adjust your aperture, shutter speed accordingly depending upon which has more priority.
The meter reading will be the same no matter what mode your in.
End of.
Click to expand...

Again: Simon, that's not the question.

No it's about the camera compensating for the meter reading. We have this answer already which is "it doesn't".
 
Phil Young said:
Again: Simon, that's not the question.

No it's about the camera compensating for the meter reading. We have this answer already which is "it doesn't".
Click to expand...

Unless you use auto iso?:thinking:
 
Let me give you a scenario that was presented to me by my brother.

2 images shot in the studio. White background dark skin subject.

1 underexposed by around 2 stops.

Exif read;
Manual.
Iso 200
Shutter: 1/200
Aperture: f9
Metering: spot

1 exposed properly

Exif read;
Manual.
Iso 200
Shutter: 1/200
Aperture: f9
Metering: spot
(all the same).

He claimed that the only thing he changed was the metering to spot even though the evidence suggests otherwise.

I said he must have added or increases his lights and I firmly believe he is either lying or doesn't know his equipment very well.

Anyone else?
 
he either,

Took the first shot, checked his LCD noticed it was under exposed, increased his light by 2 stops and got correct exposure on the sencond shot.

Or he fired the first shot but not all lights fired giving him an under exposed LCD image, fired a second shot without adjusting anything with all lights firing therefore getting a correct exposure.

He moved the lights on the second shot.

othing has changed on the camera, he hasen't changed the metering as the exif says spot on both
 
DannyDMR said:
he either,

Took the first shot, checked his LCD noticed it was under exposed, increased his light by 2 stops and got correct exposure on the sencond shot.

Or he fired the first shot but not all lights fired giving him an under exposed LCD image, fired a second shot without adjusting anything with all lights firing therefore getting a correct exposure.

He moved the lights on the second shot.

othing has changed on the camera, he hasen't changed the metering as the exif says spot on both
Click to expand...

I think you are correct as there is a gap between the file numbers by 1 image. This would suggest he took 3 shots, or 3 attempts to get it right...
 
ah i bet he took first shot and it was under exposed by 2 stops, changed his metering to something else (Matrix) found it made no difference to the image so increased his lights on the third shot
 
Phil Young said:
Let me give you a scenario that was presented to me by my brother.

2 images shot in the studio. White background dark skin subject.

1 underexposed by around 2 stops.

Exif read;
Manual.
Iso 200
Shutter: 1/200
Aperture: f9
Metering: spot

1 exposed properly

Exif read;
Manual.
Iso 200
Shutter: 1/200
Aperture: f9
Metering: spot
(all the same).

He claimed that the only thing he changed was the metering to spot even though the evidence suggests otherwise.

I said he must have added or increases his lights and I firmly believe he is either lying or doesn't know his equipment very well.

Anyone else?
Click to expand...

What is it lit with?:thinking:

I'm asking as others have guessed at flash - due to the word 'studio', but I want to know exactly what kind of lights?
Natural daylight, continuous or flash lighting
If flash, studio or speedlight
If speedlight, manual, auto or ETTL.

Obviously changes to all of the above (apart from ETTL FEC) will be invisible to the exif.

The point I'm making is that this scenario (with the lights) could have nothing to do with camera settings, there's a whole load of other variables. and we've spent 5 pages discussing what could be largely irrelevant on the back of it:cuckoo:

And with the greatest of respect - you claim to understand photography and waited 5 pages to deliver the most important information and then have only hinted at it? And you wonder why people find it frustrating?
 
Last edited:
Phil V said:
What is it lit with?:thinking:

I'm asking as others have guessed at flash - due to the word 'studio', but I want to know exactly what kind of lights?
Natural daylight, continuous or flash lighting
If flash, studio or speedlight
If speedlight, manual, auto or ETTL.

Obviously changes to all of the above (apart from ETTL FEC) will be invisible to the exif.

The point I'm making is that this scenario (with the lights) could have nothing to do with camera settings, there's a whole load of other variables. and we've spent 5 pages discussing what could be largely irrelevant on the back of it:cuckoo:

And with the greatest of respect - you claim to understand photography and waited 5 pages to deliver the most important information and then have only hinted at it? And you wonder why people find it frustrating?
Click to expand...

The BD was lot with flash heads (1 either side) as was the subject key and fill either side.

All triggered remotely from hot shoe trigger and all in slave (apart from the triggered flash) which was manual same as the other 3.

Phil, I didn't think it was relevant me bringing this whole automation into it...I originally started the thread for a simple q&a: does the camera compensate in relation the meter reading in manual mode. Again, I knew the answer but wanted to direct my brother here.

I appreciate that perhaps I could have worded differently etc but what I have never agreed with was the rudeness that was given to me just because I don't use spot metering (by preference).
 
Last edited:
Phil Young said:
The BD was lot with flash heads (1 either side) as was the subject key and fill either side.

All triggered remotely from hot shoe trigger and all in slave (apart from the triggered flash) which was manual same as the other 3.

Phil, I didn't think it was relevant me bringing this whole automation into it...I originally started the thread for a simple q&a: does the camera compensate in relation the meter reading in manual mode. Again, I knew the answer but wanted to direct my brother here.

I appreciate that perhaps I could have worded differently etc but what I have never agreed with was the rudeness that was given to me just because I don't use spot metering (by preference).
Click to expand...

The camera's meter is completely irrelevant if the subject is lit with Manual flash (providing the SS is high enough).

The camera's meter only measures the light it can see pre exposure*. So, all of the discussion re manual, auto, spot metering, wetting a finger for an EV are totally irrelevant.

Using manual flash, the exposure is down to the power and distance of the flash, nothing else has a bearing.

*unless the flash is TTL in which case the camera meters it either with Eval or Average (on Canon, no idea of the Nikon options).

So, yes it could have been worded better, and you've had several goes too! And all missing the only important bit of information.

Let's save the 5 pages of rubbish.

Does the metering mode of the camera have a bearing on exposure when a shot is lit only with Manual flash?

No:thumbs:
 
firstly I think the test shots you showed don't really prove anything. In order to see this talent you would have to be with phil in a situation and watch him do it.

I have done what others describe where you have a genral guess, then adjust accoringly. But Phil claims 9 times out of 10 that he nails it first time, no adjustment needed. This is the part that people are suspicious of because not only does it mean your brain can interpet exactly what shutter and ISO is neded for a scene but you also have a DOF calculator in your mind that can instantly assess the DOF you will need.

If you said that you made a judgement and then adjusted each time I think that would be more fesible, but to nail 9 out of 10 scenes without needing any adjustment is something that you should showcase because you wn't find many people who can do that. You would actually be able to make a lot of money on showing that technique.

In your sample shots why did it take you 22 seconds to assess the scene - earlier you said it took 5 seconds. And what made you choose to go from an aperture of 8 down to 3.2? Surely you wanted a similar DOF since it's a smiliar scene - when you made your calculation why didn't you just up your ISO and lower the shutter but leave the aperture the same?
 
joescrivens said:
firstly I think the test shots you showed don't really prove anything. In order to see this talent you would have to be with phil in a situation and watch him do it.

I have done what others describe where you have a genral guess, then adjust accoringly. But Phil claims 9 times out of 10 that he nails it first time, no adjustment needed. This is the part that people are suspicious of because not only does it mean your brain can interpet exactly what shutter and ISO is neded for a scene but you also have a DOF calculator in your mind that can instantly assess the DOF you will need.

If you said that you made a judgement and then adjusted each time I think that would be more fesible, but to nail 9 out of 10 scenes without needing any adjustment is something that you should showcase because you wn't find many people who can do that. You would actually be able to make a lot of money on showing that technique.

In your sample shots why did it take you 22 seconds to assess the scene - earlier you said it took 5 seconds. And what made you choose to go from an aperture of 8 down to 3.2? Surely you wanted a similar DOF since it's a smiliar scene - when you made your calculation why didn't you just up your ISO and lower the shutter but leave the aperture the same?
Click to expand...

Joe.

Firstly, i'm getting really really bored of this astonishment from folk.

It's not a necessary argument not.com I care for it.

But since you asked and put time into your question allow me to answer it.

I'm assuming you are talking about the 2 images I posted for downloading?

As I said earlier, I was doubting myself based on what people were saying and I took a few seconds to review the shot and see if it was exposed properly. Having been satisfied with it I felt I should have a second attempt so went to the shadow.

In relation to the aperture question: it's a compact with not that great IQ so I would always reduce the aperture first being that it was such a wide angle + distance to the middle of the pavement, I didn't think DOF would suffer as much as the IQ would in a compact in this particular shot. Plus. There was nothing I needed to worry about in terms of DOF - I was purely going on firstly exposure, secondly IQ.

I hope that answer is sufficient.
 
joescrivens said:
firstly I think the test shots you showed don't really prove anything. In order to see this talent you would have to be with phil in a situation and watch him do it.

I have done what others describe where you have a genral guess, then adjust accoringly. But Phil claims 9 times out of 10 that he nails it first time, no adjustment needed. This is the part that people are suspicious of because not only does it mean your brain can interpet exactly what shutter and ISO is neded for a scene but you also have a DOF calculator in your mind that can instantly assess the DOF you will need.

If you said that you made a judgement and then adjusted each time I think that would be more fesible, but to nail 9 out of 10 scenes without needing any adjustment is something that you should showcase because you wn't find many people who can do that. You would actually be able to make a lot of money on showing that technique.

In your sample shots why did it take you 22 seconds to assess the scene - earlier you said it took 5 seconds. And what made you choose to go from an aperture of 8 down to 3.2? Surely you wanted a similar DOF since it's a smiliar scene - when you made your calculation why didn't you just up your ISO and lower the shutter but leave the aperture the same?
Click to expand...

Joe - there's been enough arguing on this thread already! Does it really make a difference if a shot was taken after 5 seconds or 22 seconds...

:thumbs:
 
well the fact that so many people are surprised by your technique should tell you how impressive it is. But I have a challenge for you should you choose to accept it.

Put your camera in movie mode in manual, walk into several different scenes and show us how you can read the scene by calling out loud the settings needed, then dial them in on the video and we'll see how the exposure is. Then move to another scene and do the same.

I'm genuinely suggesting this be something you do, because if you did this successfully and put that in youtube you would get a ton of hits on there and it would be a great way of driving traffic to your sites. People would be really impressed with it guranteed.

Note: there is no sarcasm intended in this post (sometimes it can be hard to convey that in text, so wanted to point that out)
 
Last edited:
Rapscallion said:
Joe - there's been enough arguing on this thread already! Does it really make a difference if a shot was taken after 5 seconds or 22 seconds...

:thumbs:
Click to expand...

it does, yes, but I won't go into why because I don't want to perpetuate anymore ill feeling in the thread. Feel free to pm though :thumbs:
 
joescrivens said:
well the fact that so many people are surprised by your technique should tell you how impressive it is. But I have a challenge for you should you choose to accept it.

Put your camera in movie mode in manual, walk into several different scenes and show us how you can read the scene by calling out loud the settings needed, then dial them in on the video and we'll see how the exposure is. Then move to another scene and do the same.

I'm genuinely suggesting this be something you do, because if you did this successfully and put that in youtube you would get a ton of hits on there and it would be a great way of driving traffic to your sites. People would be really impressed with it guranteed.

Note: there is no sarcasm intended in this post (sometimes it can be hard to convey that in text, so wanted to point that out)
Click to expand...

Joe.

Forgive me for what i'm about to say but...I don't care.

People are surprised by my claims, I have no problem with that. I've provided a couple of shots and even with that it's not good enough.

I don't feel like I've got anything to prove and genuinely feel if I did try to prove what I feel is just practice and experience of reading scenes and lights, nothing would be good enough anyway.

I don't mean that i'm a horrible way but I feel people want me to prove something I really don't care about.

Sorry and I accept any names you want to call me for not accepting your challenge.
 
Phil Young said:
Joe.

Forgive me for what i'm about to say but...I don't care.

People are surprised by my claims, I have no problem with that. I've provided a couple of shots and even with that it's not good enough.

I don't feel like I've got anything to prove and genuinely feel if I did try to prove what I feel is just practice and experience of reading scenes and lights, nothing would be good enough anyway.

I don't mean that i'm a horrible way but I feel people want me to prove something I really don't care about.

Sorry and I accept any names you want to call me for not accepting your challenge.
Click to expand...

nobody has to prove anything.

I was just suggesting it as i think you would find there are so few people that can do it you could use it to your advantage and get lots of traffic coming your way. It wouldn't be a big thing to do, would only take a few minutes of time and could have some great results. What do you have to lose?
 
joescrivens said:
nobody has to prove anything.

I was just suggesting it as i think you would find there are so few people that can do it you could use it to your advantage and get lots of traffic coming your way. It wouldn't be a big thing to do, would only take a few minutes of time and could have some great results. What do you have to lose?
Click to expand...

To be honest.

I really couldn't be bothered and I'd feel like a bit of a penis doing it, it's not the type of thing I get up to in my spare time.

Thanks all the same.
 
ah well, fair enough!

Imagine if John Holmes had kept his special talent from the world!!! :lol::lol:
 
Phil Young said:
Let me give you a scenario that was presented to me by my brother...
Click to expand...

Phil,

if you'd mentioned that scenario at the beginning, there would have been no question about you being right.

As a few others have said, the difference is a change in light source; whether that's a change in lighting output, shooting faster than the recycling time or even (an extreme case) something as simple as the overhead lights being turned off.


It's absolutely not unheard of for someone to be able to judge the exposure accurately in a studio, because there's generally only the aperture to consider. Rob Knight (Arkady) frequently referred to the ability.

What I think a few people were surprised about, was the ability to judge the entire exposure triangle by eye within 1/3 to 1 stop each time without adjustment. That last part is why the questions have been asked.

If you are doing the same as several of the rest of us, which is to take a SWAG and then adjust according to the look of the LCD; that's actually very common practice, although in my case I'll probably take a general evaluative reading first to get a starting point.

I think that because of our previous ruck you may have read my post in the wrong tone. I'm not having a pop at you, just pointing out that the style of shooting differs vastly between a studio and a fluid situation. Hence it's probably worth considering a slightly different style at the wedding.

At the end of the day its entirely down to your personal shooting style and you are probably safer doing it in the way that you know best- just take some of the comments that have been made as constructive advice rather than personal criticism! :)
 
DemiLion said:
It's absolutely not unheard of for someone to be able to judge the exposure accurately in a studio, because there's generally only the aperture to consider. Rob Knight (Arkady) frequently referred to the ability.

What I think a few people were surprised about, was the ability to judge the entire exposure triangle by eye within 1/3 to 1 stop each time without adjustment. That last part is why the questions have been asked.
Click to expand...

FWIW, Henri Cartier-Bresson was [in]famous for disdaining the use of light meters and judging his exposures by eye. While he usually carried a small meter in his pocket, he would use it very rarely.
 
DemiLion said:
Phil,

if you'd mentioned that scenario at the beginning, there would have been no question about you being right.

As a few others have said, the difference is a change in light source; whether that's a change in lighting output, shooting faster than the recycling time or even (an extreme case) something as simple as the overhead lights being turned off.

It's absolutely not unheard of for someone to be able to judge the exposure accurately in a studio, because there's generally only the aperture to consider. Rob Knight (Arkady) frequently referred to the ability.

What I think a few people were surprised about, was the ability to judge the entire exposure triangle by eye within 1/3 to 1 stop each time without adjustment. That last part is why the questions have been asked.

If you are doing the same as several of the rest of us, which is to take a SWAG and then adjust according to the look of the LCD; that's actually very common practice, although in my case I'll probably take a general evaluative reading first to get a starting point.

I think that because of our previous ruck you may have read my post in the wrong tone. I'm not having a pop at you, just pointing out that the style of shooting differs vastly between a studio and a fluid situation. Hence it's probably worth considering a slightly different style at the wedding.

At the end of the day its entirely down to your personal shooting style and you are probably safer doing it in the way that you know best- just take some of the comments that have been made as constructive advice rather than personal criticism! :)
Click to expand...

Is that my apology or what? Lol

Advice...hmmm...i'm not sure this thread has unrolled anything where advice was needed from anyone about anything...

I have said and have always maintained: I prefer to meter by eye (effectively) when I can but will use whatever tools needed to get the job done as and when needed, such as meters modes etc...

And I don't mean to sound rude about that at all it's just what I think...?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top