Metering a black car

So I figured I'd ask this before heading off to bed. What's the easiest way to meter a black car without the use of an expensive light meter?

If I use the light meter in the camera...what should I meter? Or would it be easier to use a grey card up next to the hood and meter that? Someone asked me to take a few shots of their black S2000 so it got me thinking about this and thanking them that it's not a white car (which I would assume is a PITA to shoot).

rivas8409 wrote in post #15193446
So I figured I'd ask this before heading off to bed. What's the easiest way to meter a black car without the use of an expensive light meter?

If I use the light meter in the camera...what should I meter? Or would it be easier to use a grey card up next to the hood and meter that? Someone asked me to take a few shots of their black S2000 so it got me thinking about this and thanking them that it's not a white car (which I would assume is a PITA to shoot).

Pictures of black cars.

Byte size: ZERO | Content warning: NOT AN IMAGE

Byte size: ZERO | Content warning: NOT AN IMAGE

Byte size: ZERO | Content warning: NOT AN IMAGE

Byte size: ZERO | Content warning: NOT AN IMAGE

I don't meter the car, but meter the highlights instead. Try this: Need an exposure crutch?

Don't fill the frame with the car and it'll meter correctly on the whole anyway. You've got a screen on your camera to check anyway... And raw for if you mess up

GFWilliams wrote in post #15196117
You've got a screen on your camera to check anyway...

Right. Digital film is cheap, take lots of pictures of the same scene with varying exposures; you'll figure it out quick enough.

OMG, that's like that bracketing thing? Wait, do we still bracket exposures in digital? When there was no instant review, that was a method of making sure you didn't miss the correct exposure, still might work today.

rammsteinmatt wrote in post #15216933
Right. Digital film is cheap, take lots of pictures of the same scene with varying exposures; you'll figure it out quick enough.

OMG, that's like that bracketing thing? Wait, do we still bracket exposures in digital? When there was no instant review, that was a method of making sure you didn't miss the correct exposure, still might work today.

https://photography-on-the.net …p?p=15205529&po​stcount=14

https://photography-on-the.net …p?p=15213689&po​stcount=17

Thanks for the tips fellas! That "exposure crutch" was great. I played around with it a few nights ago and it really works!

We still haven't gotten together for the car shoot since apparently it's still in the shop getting some custom work done but hopefully it'll be ready soon.

More advise: spot metering, or center-weighted average?

rivas8409 wrote in post #15227299
More advise: spot metering, or center-weighted average?

As I said, it doesn't matter if you're using the crutch. Pick the one you like best when you can't use that method.

Look at the color photos that DC Fan posted above. (Nice car photos, DC Fan!). The black car is a well-saturated black without loss of detail, but the backgrounds beyond the car are over-exposed -- the highlights are blown. In other words, whether DC Fan pushed the exposure manually, or the camera setting did it automatically, it was necessary to "overexpose" the blackness of the black car to give the black color some depth and detail, but in the process, the more lightly colored objects in the background got blown. Which may be okay, especially if the photo is going to be composed, cropped, or edited in a way to minimize the unimportant background objects.

Try an easy and interesting experiment: Set your camera to shoot in Black & White, rather than color. What "color" is the black car in the resulting photos? Is it so black that there's no depth and detail? Or is it more "neutral grey" rather than "black". Now play with manual exposures until the blackness of the car is more like what you think it should be. Now try pushing the exposures in the same direction, but shoot in color.

An interesting book on the subject of how light meters read "black" subjects, "white" subjects, and those subjects anywhere in between is Fred Picker's "Zone VI Workshop", written decades ago (way before digital photography), but still very relevant (and still available on Amazon.com, and possibly in your public library).

Man, that "exposure crutch" method seems cumbersome.

I will probably be criticized for being one of the unwashed masses, or uneducated digital swine or something, however...

I dont use any metering system, no sunny 16, no sticking my hand in front of the camera or anything else.

My primary method of taking pictures is using a Loupe, Magic Lantern with crosshairs and zebras, and live view obviously.

I dont think I've ever used the mirror since doing it this way, apart from when I'm needing to track a moving target and liveview is too slow between shots compared to the mirror.

Especially with very narrow depth of field, where you can use digital zoom to get the focus bang on, better than your eyes possibly could.

If shooting in black and white, this works great as well even without the zebras if your camera doesnt use ML... Rather than guessing how it will come out in black and white, you can know precisely before you take the shot. As a black and white photo can look radically different if darker or lighter, compared to a colour picture.

I always shoot in 'M', set apeture to suit the depth of field I want, then adjust ISO and exposure up and down (priority to low iso for still subjects, priority to high shutter speed for fast moving objects) until nothing's under or over exposed, with bias towards lighter or darker elements within that range depending on what it is.

I find this is super quick and means minimal chimping (well, by virtue of being permenantly in chimp mode haha) or guess work, and no chance what so ever of overexposed pics.

You just cannot gain the same wealth of information from using the mirror.