Exposure problem

Hi, well i am kind of embarressed to ask this question but what am i doing wrong?

Exposure is something i am having diffiulty with when using my new 17-40. I have been using my 50mm for the last 5 months so i have become used to the click bang photograph method of shooting- but with the wider aspect of my new lens i am struggling with the light meter. This is one example today- the aumtumn sky at 3:45 gives beautiful back lighting to buildings but i keep ruining the exposure, if i take a reading of the pavement it sometimes works but often this leads to me over exposing.

I read an article that the light metre on the camera is incidental and that a seperate light meter would give a more accurate reading, but how do you tell the camera what to do. I feel it is somethin obvious that i am rushing into this too fast and i feel a little silly asking this question without reading up on the subject enough first, but any help would be great.

Once again sorry and thanks in advance for any help, A.

HTTP response: NOT FOUND | MIME changed to 'image/gif' | Redirected to error image by FLICKR

How about some EXIF info?
Camera mode
Metering mode
Aperture
Shutter speed
ISO
Exposure compensation

Oops sorry.

Camera mode- AV
Metering mode- Partial
Aperture- F8
Shutter- 1/500
ISO- 100
exposure compensation- 2046.3333333333

im guessing that the camera is fighting with me thats why its happening and that i need to set it to manual, but what settings would be a good place to start- should i be a seperate light meter?

Your camera meter is a reflected meter, not an incident meter. An incident meter reads the light falling on the subject, a reflected meter reads the light reflected from the image.

For setting a camera you can always use the Sunny f16 rule as a place to start - in sunny conditions, at f16 set the shutter speed to the reciprocal of the ISO.

The problem is, I think, that you're metering on the sky to keep the nice colors, but that's throwing everything else out of whack. If you metered on the buildings, your sky would be blown out (white). This is simply because the dynamic range of the scene exceeds that of what your sensor can record.

To compensate for this you either need a graduated ND filter to bring the exposure of the sky down within the range of the rest of the scene, or you get a tripod, and take three shots - one for the shadows, one for the mid-tones and one for the sky/highlights and do a merge to High Dynamic Range (HDR) in Photoshop.

BTW, your EC numbers don't seem to make any sense.

Mark

For an image like this I would zoom in to 40mm, and choose Center Weighted metering. This will force the metering calculations on a smaller area. Now aim the area you want to expose correctly, and half-press the shutter button. In the viewfinder display you'll find the aperture and shutter that the camera *thinks* is correct. Zoom back out wide, and fiddle with EV until you get the same reading as when you were zoomed in. Take a shot, and chimp the LCD - it's not a great representation, but it would have shown that this was drastically underexposed.

This is much easier to do in manual mode, but you just have to get used to the way the meter works in that mode.

In any case, bracket! Shots like this will always fool the camera.

Mark i just read that in a magazine that there is no easy fix, grad filters are the slide inones arent they? dont suppose you know what size i need for my new 17-40 by any chance?
Scottes i will ry that trick until i get a filter- thanks guys. i really dont want to use HDR its not a natural look- in my eyes anyway. Thanks again.

Treat me like a tourist wrote in post #2164488
i really dont want to use HDR its not a natural look- in my eyes anyway.

I've seen a LOT of people say this about HDR, and it makes me wonder what those photographers are doing in the process.

Do a search for HDR pics from Duder. Many are stunning (the rest are just great) and you'd never know they were HDR. I've got a few night HDR shots, and I think you'd be hard pressed to tell they're HDR.


"People who do over-saturated, crazy tone-mapping give HDR a bad name." - Me.

Treat me like a tourist wrote in post #2164488
Mark i just read that in a magazine that there is no easy fix, grad filters are the slide inones arent they? dont suppose you know what size i need for my new 17-40 by any chance?
Scottes i will ry that trick until i get a filter- thanks guys. i really dont want to use HDR its not a natural look- in my eyes anyway. Thanks again.

The 17-40 uses a 77mm filter - so if you use Cokin filters, you use a 77mm holder and P-type filters.

HDR can look quite natural if you do it right.

If you can figure out a better way to get the needed dynamic range, more power to you.

Mark

All the advice above is good generally, but I'm afraid none of it explains why the posted image is so dark. Even metering on the sky shouldn't produce underexposure that bad.

Double-check your exposure compensation.
1/500 f/8 ISO 100 is less exposure than you would need for broad daylight.

Camera mode- AV
Metering mode- Partial
Aperture- F8
Shutter- 1/500
ISO- 100
exposure compensation- 2046.3333333333
_______________

That weird EC number is probably the explanation. Unlikely that it's underexposed by two thousand and forty stops, but 2 stops under an 18% sky seems about right. The OP should check the camera to see if EC was accidently pushed way over to the left.

In "iffy" conditions, bracketing is always a good idea. It's not like you have to pay for the film?
So, where do you start to bracket from? One persons (mine) solution to exposure problems: Need an exposure crutch? Don’t have a gray or white card, or hand held meter with you? “Film tricks” can help you out.

More: What’s best for exposure, Gray cards, white paper, expensive attachments for the lens?
Gray Card…White Paper. What’s best?