Metering weddings

[tim]

I'm about done with relying on the in-camera metering for weddings. In evaluative it seems to underexpose because there's often a bright background (such as the sky or a sunbeam). In partial you have to be very very careul what you meter off, which can be tough in such a fast paced event.

I think i'm going to start using my light meter and manual mode, and make any necessary tweaks based on the histogram if the light changes. Anyone tried this and found they prefer it, or have any comments?

[PIXI_666]

i used a light meter in high school because we had too....but i haven't ever since...so i can't really comment sorry

[CyberPet]

Since you'll be getting readings on the "falling light" instead of the reflective light, it might be a good idea, but you might have to watch for stark highlights and shadows anyway. Have a test-run and see if it's comfortable to use.

Do you use fill-flash much? I often expose for the sky (at least in daylight) and use the fill-flash to do the rest. Seem to work for me.

[RobKirkwood]

Find I get more consistent results across shots with (incident) light meter and manual (with ETTL fill flash) - so tending to prefer that for formals (keeping an eye on light changes of course), and then reverting to P and AV (with camera on evaluative) for candids with available light or fill flash.

[tim]

I always use fill flash, at about -1 or -1 1/3, but i'm not getting much consistency. Metering the sky and using the flash to light the people is an interesting idea, i'll have to try that some time. Rob seems like he does what i'm thinking of, so i'll give that a go too :)

[RobKirkwood]

Day had been sunny, but overcast by the time of the formals.

Incident light meter reading taken at subject's face height with meter pointing back to camera position. Shot is manual at 1/60 f6.3 ISO400 on 20D using Canon 28-135mm IS lens @ 85mm, 580EX flash on ETTL with no compensation for fill. (and focus is sharper on the foliage behind with this particular one - doh!)

[tim]

I agree, you have to keep an eye on the histogram to make sure the ambient light hasn't changed too much.

[chab]

Tim, I think your right. I just got finished an affair in a hall that was very dark, however, there were very bright pockets of light due to overhead track lights above each table. I was having the hardest time metering incamera using Av.
A light meter would have been very helpful. Especially with a spot attachment for faces.

[sharpfocus]

Tim, try the preflash and see if that helps. ...Bob

[DaveG]

i used a light meter in high school because we had too....but i haven't ever since...so i can't really comment sorry

A good friend of mine is a cardiologist. A big time cardiologist too. Stanford and that kind of thing. The first thing that she does when her kids are sick is to stick a thermometer in their mouth. Now after about 12 years of post secondary education and almost 20 years of practice you'd think that she should "know" the patients temperature just by feeling their forehead.

Well it's not accurate and she knows this. And not using a meter is just as inaccurate and is just about your ego, nothing more. Do it your way but I'd never let you shoot anything for me that I thought was important.

[Phil V]

A good friend of mine is a cardiologist. A big time cardiologist too. Stanford and that kind of thing. The first thing that she does when her kids are sick is to stick a thermometer in their mouth. Now after about 12 years of post secondary education and almost 20 years of practice you'd think that she should "know" the patients temperature just by feeling their forehead.

Well it's not accurate and she knows this. And not using a meter is just as inaccurate and is just about your ego, nothing more. Do it your way but I'd never let you shoot anything for me that I thought was important.

Hang on a second Dave, I don't think Pixi meant she doesn't use a meter, just that she doesn't use an incident meter (the point of the discussion).

Personally I've decided to carry one as a security blanket, if it makes a difference, then I'll invest in a quality one.

[tim]

Tim, try the preflash and see if that helps. ...Bob

Erm, that statement makes no sense Bob. The preflash is the metering part of the ETTL-II algorithm, I always shoot events with ETTL flash rather than manual. The issue is with the ambient exposure, since I always use flash as fill not the main light.

[DaveG]

Hang on a second Dave, I don't think Pixi meant she doesn't use a meter, just that she doesn't use an incident meter (the point of the discussion).

Personally I've decided to carry one as a security blanket, if it makes a difference, then I'll invest in a quality one.

"i used a light meter in high school because we had too....but i haven't ever since...so i can't really comment sorry"

Well that's not the way I read that.

[tim]

I presume that Del uses the meter in the camera, otherwise it's just guess and check, which doesn't sound likely to me.

[cdifoto]

When someone says "light meter", in my mind it's a given that it's a handheld one, not what's built into the camera. We're past the stage where cameras that have no built-in meters are commonplace.

[MALI]

.....I often expose for the sky (at least in daylight) and use the fill-flash to do the rest.

What a great idea. Why didn't I think of it before? :)

MALI

[SR071]

Tim - can I ask what brand/model meters you're looking at? I'm in a similar position to you.

[tim]

I have a Sekonic L-358, which seems to work well. I mainly use it for my studio lights, but i'll start to use it for weddings soon.

[Wedding Shooter]

Tim,

I think I will be doing this for at least some of the day. I have an external light meter which I also use for my studio lights and was thinking of using it for my wedding work.

[SR071]

Damn - that's the one I've been looking at! :) Great minds eh? ;)

I have an old Minolta at present, which perhaps should see more use than it does.

I guess you can throw it round your neck, then before you take the shot, just stick it in front of the bride and compare it with what your camera says.

I've found I am often walking up to a B&G to rearrange flowers, hair, shoulders, feet etc - so it's another one second to take a reading and get back to position...

Trust the meter more, and if in doubt - bracket! :)

[tim]

Hmmm - bracketing's not a bad idea for critial shots... but for busy periods like the kiss I don't want to miss anything because of a full buffer.

Manual is the way to go for me, I think. I have a wedding this Saturday, i'll try it for some of the shots when i'm not under pressure and have time to reshoot, if it's ok i'll keep it for the critical shots too. Of course i'll try it out before the wedding, I don't like to experiment at paid shoots.

The L-358 is the most widely recommended light meter on POTN, just about every time the question comes up it's recommended by more people than any other meter!

[BLINN]

A hand held or in camera meter is all the same. The camera will do the same thing as a hand held. The only problem is that it might be intimadating to have a camera in your face to meter the skin for every shot. Tim what metering mode is you 20D set to. Try setting to the Centre-weighted average metering. Do some test shots you might find this helps. You should always have you hand held with you. Plus have you calibrated you 20D with a gray card. You may find that it always over or under exposes images. Google camera calibration for this procedure.

[cmM]

99% of my wedding work is done in manual mode. I rely on histograms a lot. You just have to be carefull because lighting conditions change a lot.

[BLINN]

rob I find the brides dress on your image found on the first page to blown way out. you should have metered the dress or the lightest part of her skin. Meter pointing towards the skin.

[cdifoto]

rob I find the brides dress on your image found on the first page to blown way out. you should have metered the dress or the lightest part of her skin. Meter pointing towards the skin.

I agree it's a little blown out...but I wouldn't call it "way out". Just the top at and above her bust and the section above her waist. "Way out" to me would mean the whole dress is gone.

[RobKirkwood]

I agree it's a little blown out...but I wouldn't call it "way out". Just the top at and above her bust and the section above her waist. "Way out" to me would mean the whole dress is gone. Maybe time to recalibrate your monitors guys?

Here's the exact same file with the maxxed out pixels highlighted (RGB 255,255,255 remapped to red).

Bear in mind that this resized-for-POTN version was never resharpened before upload, so it's inevitable that some detail will be lost compared to the original full-size file.

...

[jj1987]

get there before the wedding if its indoors, meter everywhere and look on a laptop for detail. When you get it just right, make a mini map of the church with the settings for a cheat sheet.

[cdifoto]

I just got this monitor and calibrated it but not with any software. Thought I did alright. Guess I was wrong. :) Oddly enough my prints are almost an exact match to my monitor. Apparently my brightness was up a wee bit high.

[RobKirkwood]

I just got this monitor and calibrated it but not with any software. Thought I did alright. Guess I was wrong. :) Oddly enough my prints are almost an exact match to my monitor. Apparently my brightness was up a wee bit high.
Most monitors are way too bright by default, and too blue. I can personally recommend the Spyder 2 Pro hardware.

[cdifoto]

Most monitors are way too bright by default, and too blue. I can personally recommend the Spyder 2 Pro hardware.

I have that on my wishlist at B&H. In the meantime I've printed a calibration image as a 4x6 and eyeballed it. Kind of a PITA but I think I got it even closer this time. Your wedding photo with the blown highlights mapped out helped a lot. Thanks for posting that!

I agree on the blue....I had to decrease that AND the reds on this Viewsonic. The default color options (9300, 6500, 5400 I believe) are way off too.

[tim]

A hand held or in camera meter is all the same. The camera will do the same thing as a hand held. The only problem is that it might be intimadating to have a camera in your face to meter the skin for every shot. Tim what metering mode is you 20D set to. Try setting to the Centre-weighted average metering. Do some test shots you might find this helps. You should always have you hand held with you. Plus have you calibrated you 20D with a gray card. You may find that it always over or under exposes images. Google camera calibration for this procedure.

Sure, the issue with the in-camera meter is you have to be very careful where you meter from, each area needs different amounts of exposure compensation. I could meter with the camera or my hand held meter then set the camera on manual, that way the in-camera metering won't be activated. I use partial metering, as centre weighted will often underexpose the main subjects, as the sky or sunlight will reduce the shutter speed.

After doing a bit of a google I'm not sure it's worthwhile calibrating my camera. It works pretty well when i'm careful, and I know my light meter is accurate since i've used it a fair bit for strobe metering.

[Wedding Shooter]

The hand held is different to the camera because it is an incident meter - not a reflective meter. Incident is more accurate than reflective.

[tim]

Of course.

[Wedding Shooter]

Tim,

I was replying to Blinn - sorry for the confusion.

Cheers,

Chris

[tim]

NP :)

[RobKirkwood]

The hand held is different to the camera because it is an incident meter - not a reflective meter. Incident is more accurate than reflective.
Exactly - was beginning to think I was on my own here! (actually most modern hand-helds can also do reflective by sliding the white dome across, but it was 'incident' readings I was originally talking about)

And using incident readings you don't even need the subject to be in place to take your readings ...so take a reading just before you start a set of formals, then (as Tim previously said) keep an eye on the histogram and/or keep checking the incident reading from time to time ...better still this is one of the things an assistant could be doing for you!

I believe you can also turn a camera into a sort-of incident reading device by fitting a calibrated semi-transparent cover over the lens - never tried it, and I can't see it being a sensible solution for the pace of a wedding.

[Wedding Shooter]

Rob,

Your posted shot was exposed nicely - looks like the incident meter did a good job.

Cheers,

Chris

[RobKirkwood]

Thank-you Chris.

[BLINN]

Either way Rob My eye is drawn to the the white dress. IMO it is a great shot, but the dress is blown out. I find myself staring at her breast and not her face where the focus should be. My monitor is cal, it just throws me off the subject.

[BLINN]

Chris, if you turn your hand held around to face the subject you now have reflective metering.

Tim, Strobe photography is totaly different then natural lighting photography. You control everything with the strobes. You control no light in nature. I agree a hand held is the best but I don't have time to meter every shot durning a wedding. If you do tell me your seceret. I am sure we would all love to hear it. We would never have exposure problems again. I use my on camera meter 90% or the time during a wedding event and it has never let me down yet. Other factors have but that is another post. As for the calabration issue, all equipment must be calibrated to work together. If it doesn't you must have a bitch of a time with PP and development/printed images. Calabration is no different then setting your camera to a handheld light meter. You are calibrating the camer to the conditions you are shooting in. OK I am done. Sorry for the BLAH....BLAH

[tim]

Tim, Strobe photography is totaly different then natural lighting photography. You control everything with the strobes. You control no light in nature. I agree a hand held is the best but I don't have time to meter every shot durning a wedding. If you do tell me your seceret. I am sure we would all love to hear it. We would never have exposure problems again. I use my on camera meter 90% or the time during a wedding event and it has never let me down yet. Other factors have but that is another post. As for the calabration issue, all equipment must be calibrated to work together. If it doesn't you must have a bitch of a time with PP and development/printed images. Calabration is no different then setting your camera to a handheld light meter. You are calibrating the camer to the conditions you are shooting in. OK I am done. Sorry for the BLAH....BLAH

Yep, strobe and ambient are quite different, my point was that my meter seems quite accurate and matches my camera well. I don't have time to use a light meter often at weddings, though I can occasionally during the ceremony and easily during the formals.

[Wedding Shooter]

Blinn,

When metering with a hand held (as it should be used) you are getting an incident reading - more accurate than the reflective metering you get from your camera.

[BLINN]

Tim, great point. I do the same, if time permits.

Wedding shooter, I could not agree more with you statment. I am not saying that a handheld is not more accurate, in a wedding some times you just have to trust your camera when lighting changes. More for the photojournalistic shots then the formals. A light meter "SHOULD" be use for every shot taken when lighting chages. It is just not always practical to due so.

[tim]

I'm not sure a light meter should be used for every shot, so long as you're careful you can use partial metering and get a good exposure. My problem is i'm usually very rushed and i'm not careful enough with my metering, hence the desire to meter once (or every few minutes) then drop to full manual.

[BLINN]

I can relate to that. I have been there more than once. Thank God for PS. The problem is natural light, and one cloud can FU$@ up every thing.

[Wedding Shooter]

RAW, Histogram and Photoshop - film anyone? :)

[BLINN]

LOL