Help with Metering

[Angry Dad]

Hi,
I took a few shots of my kid the other day, and I rushed through the "shoot". Later I realised I never looked at the histogram or meter.
All photos I took had a blown out bib in them. This photo is straight from the camera with no PP done. You can see the white chest is blown out.

I used a flash bounced from the ceiling and metered the face.

How should I have metered this? Forgive the 1/30 shutter speed please:cry:
Tv(Shutter Speed)
1/30Sec.
Av(Aperture Value)
F4.0
Metering Modes
Partial metering
Exposure Compensation
0
ISO Speed
1600
Lens
EF-S17-55mm f/2.8 IS USM
Focal Length
18.0 mm
Image Quality
RAW
Flash
On
White Balance
Auto
Picture Style
Standard

[FlyingPhotog]

Doesn't look "blown" here...

The whites look nicely white. I'd say you nailed it for having a small bit of white surrounded by a sea of dark brown leather.

Clone out the white thing sticking up in the upper right hand corner and you've got a winner in my book.

[Angry Dad]

Um, wow. Thanks for the positive feedback.
However, I have about 20 pictures where the shirt is either
a) Exposed correctly, and the face is dark
or
b) Face looks exposed right, but the shirt is too white.
Maybe my screen is the problem in this photo.
This next photo to me is under exposed. Could you see if it looks the same with you?
Again, straight from the camera, no PP.

[Flo]

I t would be so cute if she were propped up on the couch as opposed to laying down.;) Probably easier to meter as well?
Cutie pie.

[Angry Dad]

These photos are the problem photos, not the ones I would normally keep. Please ignore the posture. My question is metering...now possibly my monitor?

[FlyingPhotog]

2 is darker than 1 but without seeing 1as a comparison, I probably would have just called 2 "Low Key" and been fine with that.

IMO, you're dealing with (at most) 2/3 of stop between the two...

[Angry Dad]

Well this is my point.
Pic #1, the face looks good, but the Histogram on camera is showing blown out chest.
Pic #2 the shirt looks ok, but the face is dark.
Am I over analising this? I can fix any of this in Photoshop, but my desire is to get this right in the camera.

[conkeroo]

Well this is my point.
Pic #1, the face looks good, but the Histogram on camera is showing blown out chest.
Pic #2 the shirt looks ok, but the face is dark.
Am I over analising this? I can fix any of this in Photoshop, but my desire is to get this right in the camera.

You won't get this right in camera although you want to for the simple reason that the camera cannot handle the dynamic range of light in the shot. So..

There's 2 ways to tackle you're problem. Firstly, you can expose for the face as this would be the most important aspect of the shot, i.e, the baby, so gettin this right is a must. Now, having done this you could try pulling back the blown highlights but even using a raw file, this probably won't work.

Or secondly, expose for the blown out area (the bib) and then selectively lighten the face/skin to bring everthing to a proper exposure.

Personally, if the blown highlights are not too bad and don't take up a huge part of the shot, I wouldn't even give it a second thought and I would go ahead and just expose for the skin.

Hope this helps.

[Benji]

White should be white. You have a white bib, it isn't blown, it's white.

Benji

[conkeroo]

White should be white. You have a white bib, it isn't blown, it's white.

Benji
White can still be blown i.e, if you lose detail.

[chopper5654]

i lean towards #2, personally. i tend to run 1/3 to 2/3 underexposed anyway. i can fix what i need to in pp. however, if i blow something, i usually cant recover it. but, i also like the richer colors that slight underexposure will bring out.

i think the bib looks a little blown in #1 only because parts of the pink up on the neckline are so light, they almost go white. but, i think that is just how light that pink is. its close, but i dont think its unacceptable. but, i do like the skin tones in 2 better, personally.

[vpnd]

it's ok, cute kid

[Benji]

White can still be blown i.e, if you lose detail.

Then it is overexposed white and not white. If the image was properly exposed to begin with, with proper lighting and the brightest diffused highlight on the skin is 240 "R" value in Info in Photoshop the white will be about 250, five below maximum of 255 and it will not be blown. I have done this hundreds of times but then I use a hand held meter, take accurate meter readings and I use proper and correct lighting. In the image below the whitest area (her left sleeve) measures 250 and the brightest skin on her face (left cheek) measures 240.

Benji

[Angry Dad]

Benji....tell me how you metered that scene please.

[jetcode]

In some cases blown out highlights are perfectly acceptable. Depends on what the subject is. Every image I take requires PP and balancing and corrections.

It's the way it is and always has been.

[Benji]

Benji....tell me how you metered that scene please.

1. I make sure the meter ISO and camera ISO match first of all. :)
2. I hold the meter right beside the face of the subject with the dome pointed straight toward the main light (open sky at camera right in the above image) and press the button.
3. Transfer that reading to the camera, compose, focus and make the capture.

In ACR I open the image, do a white balance from the 18% gray card I shot before the subject arrived then I click the eyedropper on the brightest highlight on her face (left cheek in the above image) then I drag the Exposure slider until the "R" reading measures 240. I then save the image. Exposure is usually about 236 to 240 even before I check it, but it never hurts to be certain.

Benji

[Angry Dad]

Excellent. Thanks for the tip.
Graeat shot by the way.

[Angry Dad]

I can tell you dont want to hear it, but its fine, and not blown out.

Sorry but you are way off. I WANT opinions, thats why I asked in this thread;)