Spot meter stupidity

[reneethomas]

Okay I am really confused and I am sorry for such a stupid question. Spot meters- are they used when using a flash or can it be used in natural lighting? I am getting frustrated being told my pictures look underexposed when my camera meter is reading correct exposure. However in looking up spot meters I keep ready about flash. Is there a model that is good for reading for just ambient light?

Thanks so much for the help!!

[Mike]

Spot meter - do you mean the one on the camera? That can be used in all lighting types.

Oh - I just re-read, you mean the hand-held meters. Never used one but they are also called incident light meters, I think.

Also, don't let the camera tell you that the exposure is correct. If you have a range of different tones the camera will take an average reading from across the scene. Best bet is to stick it in Manual and chimp until you are happy with your exposure and use the histogram to check that you are not clipping the highlights.

[yogestee]

In built camera meters are very easy to fool.. Usually strong backlighting is the main culprit.. If you meter for a subject which is strongly backlit and rely souly on your meter there is every chance your subject will be underexposed.. Experience will tell you to overexpose to what your meter tells you by 1 to 2 stops.. On the other side of the coin if you meter say an African-American skin tone against a black background your exposure will be overexposed by about 1-2 stops..

All meters are calibrated to read what is call 18% Reflectance Grey,, for all intents and purposes a midtone grey irrespective of what colour the subject is,, usually.. Strong reds can effect the metering..

Thats the advantage of shooting in Manual Mode and being able to guestimate where your meter should lie.. Spot meters are quite accurate where you meter exactly the subect.. Incident meters are even more accurate where you meter the light falling on the subject not the light thats being reflected.. Spot and Incident meters are both available in flash and available light meters.. Many of the topshelf models measure both..

[chtgrubbs]

Spotmeters measure a very small area (usually 1%) of the subject. They all measure continuous light, and newer models will read flash as well. They are the most difficult type of meter use properly. Usually several meter readings are made and careful calculations of correct exposure are made giving consideration to where on the range of light to dark the readings fall on. The classic exposure system which lends itself to the spotmeter is the Zone System.

If you need a handheld meter for general work then I would suggest an incident meter which measures the actual level of illumination rather than subject reflectance. Your biggest skill advancement would probably be to learn to use the histogram to check your exposure.

[pprice]

So, if you have a backlit subject and you use your cameras spot meter to take the light from the front of your subject (the darker area of the frame), this should give you the correct exposer for the whole sceen, or would it blow out the background?

Hope you dont mind me adding a question to your thread :) .

[yogestee]

So, if you have a backlit subject and you use your cameras spot meter to take the light from the front of your subject (the darker area of the frame), this should give you the correct exposer for the whole sceen, or would it blow out the background?

Hope you dont mind me adding a question to your thread :) .

Your background will blow out..

[pprice]

OK, in other words, read and figure it out pprice :) .

[PhotosGuy]

I am getting frustrated being told my pictures look underexposed when my camera meter is reading correct exposure. See post #3
Tips for Xmas Ball Please (http://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthread.php?t=419399)

[Mike]

So, if you have a backlit subject and you use your cameras spot meter to take the light from the front of your subject (the darker area of the frame), this should give you the correct exposer for the whole sceen, or would it blow out the background?

You will overexpose the background and blow the highlights. The thing to understand is that cameras cannot always expose for everything and you will often be sacrificing some element of the photo in order to capture the essential elements. This is especially the case with high contrast scenes, such as your backlit subject.

One way to get around this is to use fill in flash. Meter for the background and then add flash to illuminate your subject. It's not always going to work but it'll help to balance the exposure.

[pprice]

You will overexpose the background and blow the highlights. The thing to understand is that cameras cannot always expose for everything and you will often be sacrificing some element of the photo in order to capture the essential elements. This is especially the case with high contrast scenes, such as your backlit subject.

One way to get around this is to use fill in flash. Meter for the background and then add flash to illuminate your subject. It's not always going to work but it'll help to balance the exposure.

That was a good answer!

Thanks!!

Oh, PhotosGuy, you have some great write-ups!!

[PacAce]

Okay I am really confused and I am sorry for such a stupid question. Spot meters- are they used when using a flash or can it be used in natural lighting? I am getting frustrated being told my pictures look underexposed when my camera meter is reading correct exposure. However in looking up spot meters I keep ready about flash. Is there a model that is good for reading for just ambient light?

Thanks so much for the help!!

Do you have a sample picture of what you are talking about? Getting a spot meter may not necessarily fix your exposure problem. You need to first determine what the problem is and what's causing it before you can decide on how to fix it. :)

[Lonnie]

I've been reading 'Understanding Exposure' - the author recommends to walk or zoom in closer to your subject and take a reading from them, then recompose the shot, and use the settings from your reading. You could also use your exposure lock button.

Highlights will still be blown of course, this is just a way to ensure your meter is not fooled.

[poloman]

If you have the chance to determine the background, you can do a lot to influence the final product. If you are shooting candid, watching your background will still help.

[PhotosGuy]

the author recommends to walk or zoom in closer to your subject and take a reading from them, then recompose the shot, and use the settings from your reading. Or there's this info in the link I posted: Need an exposure crutch? (http://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthread.php?t=89123)

[reneethomas]

Here is one people commented on the exposure.

http://siriusimagery.com/images/IMG_9985orig.jpg

It was a cloudy day after a rain and to me it looks like it did that day but people have commented on the exposure not being correct.

[reneethomas]

I've been reading 'Understanding Exposure' - the author recommends to walk or zoom in closer to your subject and take a reading from them, then recompose the shot, and use the settings from your reading. You could also use your exposure lock button.

Highlights will still be blown of course, this is just a way to ensure your meter is not fooled.

I forgot about that tip, thanks for the reminder. The problem is I love candids so this is a bit hard to do lol.

[reneethomas]

Thanks so much for the links and help. Now I have some more reading to do.

[aram535]

If you love candids, light meter would not help you either. Light meters are for in studio or a setup shot outside. You need to take a reading as the light changes so that you can compensate. It is a lot more accurate than the in camera one and has very specific information about the light at the metered spot.

In another post I read that there is a lot of calculations, this is not true anymore. In the newer generation of light meters its a point and click.

[tzalman]

Here is one people commented on the exposure.

http://siriusimagery.com/images/IMG_9985orig.jpg

It was a cloudy day after a rain and to me it looks like it did that day but people have commented on the exposure not being correct.
Renee, the photo you posted is not underexposed. In fact, it is exactly right. Green grass should be medium toned and the grass in your shot is precisely 50 % luminousity. The problem is that the grass is not the subject of the photo, the boy's face is the center of interest and it is shaded. Moreover, since all the tones in the image are midrange it looks dull and flat.
There are two ways to handle this problem; either in camera or in postprocessing. In camera, you could have Partial metered off the boy's face and to this reading added about +1 EC, because Caucasian skin is one stop brighter than medium. Of course, this would have the effect of brightening everything, boy, grass and all, but would have been better than the so-called "correct" exposure. You could also have chosen a snappier Picture Style, Standard rather than the Neutral or Faithful that I suspect you used. Or you could have increased contrast and perhaps saturation in the parameter setting within the Picture Style.
The second solution is to do it in postprocessing. This gives you the ability to isolate the boy and lighten only him.

[johnz]

In my experience there is some amount of false criticism being thrown at images. Especially exposure seems to be the thing where people just don't always know what "correct exposure" and "creativily correct exposure" means. ( yeah, terms are straight from Understanding exposure".

There is really nothing wrong in the exposure of the sample image, but it looks flat. If the photog would have exposed it +1 stop than there would be some blown highlights and the critique would be on those, although that might be the creativily correct choice under the given circumstances to make the kid pop in the image.

The correct exposure can be a flat one, it doesn't mean that it's technically incorrect it's just not artistically the best choice.

[poloman]

With the tremendous tools available in post processing I think the best idea is to expose properly and then use dodge and burn to "correct" the image if necessary.

[PhotosGuy]

and then use dodge and burn to "correct" the image if necessary. Adjustment Layers which have a mask built in are easily reversible - Post #9:
Airport runway shoot (http://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthread.php?t=117950)

[poloman]

Adjustment Layers which have a mask built in are easily reversible - Post #9:
Airport runway shoot (http://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthread.php?t=117950)

I am just thrilled to have the non destructive tools available. You can step forward and if you don't like it just erase what you have done.

[tonylong]

Here is one people commented on the exposure.

http://siriusimagery.com/images/IMG_9985orig.jpg

It was a cloudy day after a rain and to me it looks like it did that day but people have commented on the exposure not being correct.

For a cloudy rainy scene I don't know that anyone can say the exposure is "incorrect" -- I'd say they're saying it is to them (subjectively) dim or flat, a result of the lighting rather than the exposure.

You could do some PP to bring up the contrast and saturation (but watch the shadow on the face, you may have to lighten), and I bet people would have a more positive response. But, at least IMO, this is not a real "exposure problem" -- if you lightened it up much, the skin on the arms would be too light.

[gooble]

Okay I am really confused and I am sorry for such a stupid question. Spot meters- are they used when using a flash or can it be used in natural lighting? I am getting frustrated being told my pictures look underexposed when my camera meter is reading correct exposure. However in looking up spot meters I keep ready about flash. Is there a model that is good for reading for just ambient light?

Thanks so much for the help!!

The camera doesn't determine correct exposure the photographer does.

[rral22]

The camera doesn't determine correct exposure the photographer does.

At least she should. One of the attitudes that separates many of us old guys from the new ones is the belief that our meters are not ever correct.

In the old days, I took a meter reading and then adjusted the camera based on my understanding of what that meter reading meant. That understanding came from thousands of exposures, many of which didn't turn out like I wanted, until I actually understood how my meter "saw" things, and could make the camera produce what I wanted based on the information the meter gave me. But I never once expected the meter to understand my intentions. It was just a meter.

It seems many photographers today don't understand that meters have not changed. They are still stupid, but obedient; and I believe they are more consistent too. But you still need to understand what it is telling you and how to use that information to get what you want in the exposure.

And what YOU want is the correct exposure. It has nothing to do with what the meter says at any given time.