Newbie question about metering bright things

[abdoujaparov]

Just want reassurance I've got this right.

Let's pretend I'm metering a white wall. The wall is the thing I care about exposing properly. (If the sun stays out, I'm going to be doing this later this evening).

With a reflective meter - take the reading, and give it a stop or two extra to avoid the white coming out grey, right?

With an incident meter - take the reading, and give it a stop or two less, to account for the fact that the light isn't falling on a grey object but a white one, right?

And if the wall were black, then I can reverse all that, right?

 

[donut]

with a white wall id give it two stops over at least ( reflective )

dont change anything with the incident ,,,what you get is what you set on the camera

 

[Strapps]

dont change anything with the incident ,,,what you get is what you set on the camera

That's what I thought. You're measuring the light hitting the object, not the light bouncing back from it.

 

[abdoujaparov]

with a white wall id give it two stops over at least ( reflective )

dont change anything with the incident ,,,what you get is what you set on the camera

Isn't that the case only if the scene is balanced with shadows/midtones/highlights? If the scene is (mostly) in the higher zones then won't using the incident reading to set the exposure produce over-exposure in the highlights?


(Ignoring whether the film has the range to deal with this for the moment - I'd like to get it as correct as I can)

 

[abdoujaparov]

Ignore me! I'm getting confused with incident metering of backlit subjects, I think.

Thanks both.

 

[DNH]

Might be worth bracketing exposures if the lighting is tricky, especially if you have Poundland Vista loaded lol.

 

[skysh4rk]

Ignore me! I'm getting confused with incident metering of backlit subjects, I think.

Thanks both.

I wouldn't adjust the incident reading, whether it's for white walls or backlit subjects, personally. I also wouldn't get too caught up looking for the 'correct' exposure, especially if you're shooting negative film; I'd work on finding the E.I. that gets you the look that you want.

For instance, I shoot all of my Fuji 400H at least two stops overexposed, which looks great to me, unless I'm really struggling for light, but I'm not sure others would consider it the 'correct' exposure.

For backlit subjects, I meter the subject's face and then let the highlights fall where they may. If it's a really strong backlight, I might only overexpose my Fuji 400H one stop.

Might be worth bracketing exposures if the lighting is tricky, especially if you have Poundland Vista loaded lol.

Is it really necessary to bracket Vista? I'd just err on the side of overexposure after metering the light falling on my subject and call it a day with colour negative. Even Vista should have the latitude to cover most of the situations you throw at it.

 

[Terrywoodenpic]

Providing you point the incident meter at the camera from the subject you will get a correct reading, in almozt any situation.
The tones should come out as seen.

 

[abdoujaparov]

For instance, I shoot all of my Fuji 400H at least two stops overexposed, unless I'm really struggling for light, which looks great to me, but I'm not sure others would consider it the 'correct' exposure.

For backlit subjects, I meter the subject's face and then let the highlights fall where they may. If it's a really strong backlight, I might only overexpose my Fuji 400H one stop.

Interesting, ta! As I've mentioned before, I *love* the "look" you achieve.

 

[DNH]

No criticism of Vista's latitude intended, just saying that at 5p or less a frame, why not bracket to get the best negative possible

 

[skysh4rk]

Interesting, ta! As I've mentioned before, I *love* the "look" you achieve.

Well, it's all about finding what works for you. Don't be afraid to experiment with different EIs and different films to see what works best for you. I shoot Portra closer to box speed, for instance, while I might violently overexpose the Fuji Pro films.

To be honest though, with many negative films, as long as you aren't underexposing, the differences between different exposures of the same scene will likely only feature very subtle differences, maybe even undetectable differences, unless you start to seriously overexpose (I'm talking 6 to 10 stops).

No criticism of Vista's latitude intended, just saying that at 5p or less a frame, why not bracket to get the best negative possible

Ahh, I see what you're getting at now.

 

[Mr Will]

For me a real lightbulb moment was realising that I didn't need to meter the subject; I could meter whatever would give the correct exposure instead.

In your example, I wouldn't point the camera's (reflective) meter at the white wall. I'd point it at the grass nearby, or tarmac, or if all else fails my hand, and take a meter reading off that. Set the camera for that exposure (or hit the exposure lock), recompose and then shoot. This should result in a spot on exposure (assuming that's what you want) without having to mess about with exposure compensation and eyeballing relative brightnesses.

 

[excalibur2]

For me a real lightbulb moment was realising that I didn't need to meter the subject; I could meter whatever would give the correct exposure instead.

In your example, I wouldn't point the camera's (reflective) meter at the white wall. I'd point it at the grass nearby, or tarmac, or if all else fails my hand, and take a meter reading off that. Set the camera for that exposure (or hit the exposure lock), recompose and then shoot. This should result in a spot on exposure (assuming that's what you want) without having to mess about with exposure compensation and eyeballing relative brightnesses.

...that's what I do but just to add:- the white wall has to be in the same light e.g. it wouldn't work if the white wall was in shadow and the green grass or light grey pavement or tarmac was in bright sunshine.