Post-Mortem

Did a shoot for friends - announcing their 1st baby - so you can imagine how much the soon-to-be-mom wanted these photos to be good.

Most of my shots either under-exposed (no-flash) or over-exposed (with flash).

Canon 70D, evaluative metering, aperture priority and single spot focus.

Examples:

Heya,

Shooting in full sun is a bear.

In your underexposed photo, it metered that white shirt, very bright, dropped all other exposure to balance the average to 18% grey or whatever it is. But the short and simple is that a bright source in a frame with evaluative metering will generally drop overall exposure.

In your over-exposed shot, however you did that, it looks like the background trees and foliage were exposed correctly and everything else was left to overexpose as the overall exposure was lifted. Did you change metering mode? It's almost as if you spot metered behind them or something.

My understanding is that there is something weird with the 70D and flash exposure, but I don't know it in detail, maybe someone else can chime in on that (maybe it only effected TTL? Bounce TTL? Not sure, but something was weird with it if I recall).

Ideally if you want to nail these, without getting super technical, you should choose the light you shoot in and not shoot in full sun. A white shirt or white clothes in general also are something to consider on how you meter (I would have spot metered their face, got exposure, then shot manual at those settings). Same thing with dark clothes. I use a light meter to measure falling light instead of reflecting light, to avoid these metering issues where the camera meter is fooled by trying to average things when there's too much dynamic range. If you choose overcast light, less direct sun, shade even, you'll get a much better exposure averaging from the camera. Ie, next time, go shoot in the shade of those trees, not in the open field in direct sun.

Very best,

For #1, did you have your single point AF on his shirt? Even though you used evaluative metering it puts more emphasis on the zone containing the FP.

For #2, did you perhaps have +FEC accidentally set?

MalVeauX:

Thank you! Some additional info/responses:

>>Shooting in full sun is a bear.

Yep - They had 20 minutes at noon - I would have greatly preferred late afternoon.


>>In your underexposed photo, it metered that white shirt, very bright, dropped all other exposure to balance the average to 18% grey or whatever it is. But the short and simple is that a bright source in a frame with evaluative metering will generally drop overall exposure.

Yes - I can see that now - thank you.

>>In your over-exposed shot, however you did that, it looks like the background trees and foliage were exposed correctly and everything else was left to overexpose as the overall exposure was lifted. Did you change metering mode? It's almost as if you spot metered behind them or something. My understanding is that there is something weird with the 70D and flash exposure, but I don't know it in detail, maybe someone else can chime in on that (maybe it only effected TTL? Bounce TTL? Not sure, but something was weird with it if I recall).

I didn't change metering mode. I have also heard there is something weird with the 70D flash - but I have produced correctly exposed flash before. I just noted in the EXIF that the ISO is 100 and the 70D automatically sets flash ISO to 400. I don't recall over-riding that and setting at 100, but must have. I produced LOTS of underexposed ones on other night shoots until I figured out I had to manually set ISO higher than 400.


>>Ideally if you want to nail these, without getting super technical, you should choose the light you shoot in and not shoot in full sun. A white shirt or white clothes in general also are something to consider on how you meter

>>(I would have spot metered their face, got exposure, then shot manual at those settings).

THANKS! Great tip.


>>Same thing with dark clothes. I use a light meter to measure falling light instead of reflecting light, to avoid these metering issues where the camera meter is fooled by trying to average things when there's too much dynamic range. If you choose overcast light, less direct sun, shade even, you'll get a much better exposure averaging from the camera. Ie, next time, go shoot in the shade of those trees, not in the open field in direct sun.

Thanks. You use an actual light meter or note exposure through the camera?

THANK YOU for the tips!

Thank you rrblint.
>>For #1, did you have your single point AF on his shirt? Even though you used evaluative metering it puts more emphasis on the zone containing the FP.

Yes I did - I was not aware of the added emphasis - thank you.

>>For #2, did you perhaps have +FEC accidentally set?

Meaning flash exposure compensation? I'll need to check the orig. at home - not that I'm aware of although I see how that would explain it - thanks!

Heya,

Yes, I use a light meter as often as I can for planned shoots because exposure will be precise as I'm measuring incident light (falling light) instead of reflecting light (camera meter does this). I meter the area around the chin or below the chin on the subject with my light meter and that gives me my exposure values that will work precisely and I shoot manual, ignoring the camera meter, and I get proper exposure.

When I'm shooting spontaneously without lighting, and without my light meter, something not planned, I use AV mode at my set aperture and whatever ISO I want to maintain a minimum shutter and I use partial metering and I use FEC +2/3rds or so, I try to gently over-expose the average as the subject will generally be in that center zone for the most part when I meter, get my exposure value that way, then expose. I get better results that way even in direct sunlight when I'm chasing my daughter, etc. But I use very old cameras. Newer cameras can do better probably at recovering shadow/highlight than my old sensors, so I gently expose to the right for mine.

+++++++

Examples of using evening soft ambient light and a white dress and getting exposure right by simply using a light meter with an ancient 10+ year old camera:

IMAGE LINK: https://flic.kr/p/GudT​qf

IMAGE LINK: https://flic.kr/p/GurM​Q1

Gotcha - thanks!

In auto-ISO, Canon bodies will set ISO to 400 if a flash is attached/activated. You probably got ISO 100 because the camera will lower ISO (auto/flash) if a '0' exposure cannot be obtained. Just info, mind you. I have no solutions to the issue at hand. I do think Program mode plays with auto-ISO more.

I don't have any technical advice except that shooting at noon on a bright day is going to be difficult to pull off. That's why at least for now I only schedule outdoor sessions in more favorable lighting conditions, and now I also request clients not wear solid white or solid darks.

Here's one I did over the summer, unpaid:

atsilverstein:

Very nice exposure on the very whites vs. the dark background! That's what I was striving for but missed. Do you mind sharing your exif info. on this one?

tspencer1 wrote in post #18188175
atsilverstein:

Very nice exposure on the very whites vs. the dark background! That's what I was striving for but missed. Do you mind sharing your exif info. on this one?

Thanks. Yes I just added the exif info. I believe shot this in manual mode, in the evening with partial cloud cover shaded.

We've established that the first shot is underexposed due to the emphasis placed on the zone containing the gentleman's shirt. The EXIF on this shot shows:

• ISO 100
  
• Time 1/1600
  
• Aperture f4
  

• ISO 100
  
• Speed 1/250 due to the use of flash
  
• Aperture f4
  

rrblint:

Great tips - thanks.

They're an adorable couple! All the best to them!

Congratulations! You did nail the shots on the logs! You were doing what I would have suggested, move them to the shade. Sometimes all you have is the harsh sunlight, but sometimes a short distance away you'll find perfect shade. Use the shade, and you've got nicer, softer light. You can go with available light without the need for flash.

One thing for you to do is to see what the camera sees, not what you think you see. In the first photo, you see a very happy couple, a proud dad-to-be and a demure mom-to-be. What the camera sees is a man lit fairly well with harsh light, which is okay for a man, and a woman whose face is completely in shadow. Her shadow is also falling on him. With selective retouching, you can bring up the light on her face and drop some of the highlights on his to even the light a bit. To get it right in the camera however, assuming you have no shade and must do it in the harsh light, there are multiple ways to do it. One way would be to turn them so they're both similarly lit. Another is having them backlit where you could either expose for the couple and have the background blown out, an artistic choice, or you could use fill flash to help minimize the difference between how they're lit and what you're getting for backlighting.

It sounds as if you're serious about this.

Experiment. If you've got kids, nieces, or nephews, or adult friends who love having their photos taken, experiment with them. Plan a shoot where you work with the worst light and see how to make it work for you. If you're working with kids, a trip to an ice cream shop afterwards works. I know, I've done it with my daughter and one of her friends. If they're adults, pizza and beer or wine works too. I have a life-like mannequin I use for both lighting experimentation and "steady" shooting experimentation. For a couple hundred dollars, I have a 24/7 model who is always available and is never off doing text messages. It's boring taking a hundred photos of a mannequin's face, trying to nail focus on her closer eye. Yet you quickly learn how bad you are at it, and figure out how to do it so much better. Likewise, it can be tedious taking the same lighting shot multiple times but with different settings, trying to get it right, but it's worth the effort if you want to get it right.

Good luck and keep up the good work!

Everyone is getting super technical here but did you realize that if you asked the couple to move back 5 steps into the shade your exposure wouldn't have been so off. The camera also wouldn't have had to deal with such a huge dynamic range in the scene.

Edit... Mathorge said the same thing.