What to Meter??

mike, try metering from the grass next time ur out ..

If you have meter high grass you have better things to worry about than your exposure. Yikes, get a lawn mower, a scythe, or a sherpa to lead you home!

prowling tigers?

Bobster wrote in post #6111447
if i'm outside, don't have time to get my hand meter out, i take a reading through the camera from a bit of grass thats near by

This is exactly what i'm asking about..are u metering grass bc it's lighter than what ure subject is???

michaelgreen78 wrote in post #6111541
My experience tells me what I should meter from.

For example, I shoot a lot of cricket and in that sport the players all wear white. If I take a meter reading from the whole scene I often get over-exposed whites so (shooting in M) I will try to meter from the whites and then chimp and adjust the shutter speed until the whites look good. The histogram helps tremendously.

But the histo can't be seen until after the shot, correct? U're "chimping and adjusting" is AFTER the shot, correct??

tim wrote in post #6110525
There are two reasons to meter the sky:
- You often expose for the brightest part of the image, and bring up the darker regions in post. Once something's blown it can't come back, but if it's just dark it's easy to make brighter.
- If you're photographing people you expose for the sky and flash to light the people, this prevents the sky blowing out.

WOO HOO!!! Something i finally understand...GOT IT!! thanks!! But like in Peterson's book, there was a beatiful yellow flowered farm-like shot and a nice sunny day...He metered the blue sky then recomposed the shot....is it so the "blue" would be properly exposed?? i would've just shot the landscape...but once again, i would have been wrong. LOL!!

tim wrote in post #6111646
If you have meter high grass you have better things to worry about than your exposure. Yikes, get a lawn mower, a scythe, or a sherpa to lead you home!

LOLOLOLOL!!! haahaha!!

izzy35 wrote in post #6109430
After reading and reading and reading, I feel like i still need clarity on, how do you know what to meter??? I've read, meter your hand, card, sky, etc....but in what situations and why, do you "meter" something other than what you're actually shooting???

As others have stated:

1. Meter averages everything in the scene which it sees and tries to make the average into 18% grey density.
   
2. Lots of individual things that might be in the scene can fool the meter into suggesting too much or too little exposure
   

I have always liked the term Kodak used to describe a situation where the meter is fooled. They called it "subject failure", the meter is doing it's job, the subject just doesn't fit. Learning to recognize when the subject will fail is the key to using metering on our cameras.

breal101 wrote in post #6113445
I have always liked the term Kodak used to describe a situation where the meter is fooled. They called it "subject failure", the meter is doing it's job, the subject just doesn't fit. Learning to recognize when the subject will fail is the key to using metering on our cameras.

Maybe I'll adopt that as a reply to the many newbies on POTN who post the "my camera gives poor exposures" threads!

Lot of people are saying to meter from green grass, that it is close to 18% gray. But in Peterson's book he states that green must be metered -2/3 stops.

I am a bit lost...

Why don’t you try yourself?
Take one shot of green grass and take another of a gray card in the same light.
Compare exposure parameters for these two shots and you’ll know the right answer.

I have tested it myself, i my conclusion was that by metering the grass in sunlight by underexposing it -2/3 stops gives quite a nice exposure, but it wasn't very conclusive compared to +/-0 EC.

And what kind of answer is that, "try it yourself" ? Based on that advice people shouldn't read books or manuals, they should just try everything themselves and learn by trial and error. - Very nice.

This summer I've been shooting outdoor water sports a lot, almost always in bright afternoon sun, which plays havoc with bright highlights, such as white clothes/gear, and dark, stark shadows.

I've settled for a simple approach -- I'm in Manual, choose my preferred shutter speed and aperture, meter the blue sky and adjust my ISO for +1 EV. This setting gives me a satisfactory balanced exposure. I shoot RAW, so that in PP I can do some highlight recovery and shadow recovery, and add some contrast. I'm pretty happy with the results.

If I went fully automatic for exposure, I know from experience that my results would be unreliable as well as inconsistent, and there would be shots with blown highlights and others with lost shadows.

As far as why pick an object such as the sky rather than the scene as a whole, that is a judgement call, but for me when the sky is clear blue and I'm shooting a sun-lit scene with the sun somewhere behind me, that gives me an opportunity to pick a known value (blue sky) that will properly expose the foreground.

I take different approaches to overcast skies and changing light as well as shaded foregrounds. If you are shooting into the shade with no important background highlights, using an Auto exposure mode would probably be fine (you will be lightening the shadows up a little). The same could go for an overcast day, but still you want to use your intelligence and experience to use good judgement, rather than just turn off your thinking and blindly trusting the camera.

johnz wrote in post #6114146
Lot of people are saying to meter from green grass, that it is close to 18% gray. But in Peterson's book he states that green must be metered -2/3 stops.

I am a bit lost...

In actuality, green grass is an approximation simply because you have variables such as surface reflectivity of the blades of grass, whether or not the grass is damp and the wet surface reflectles even more light, etc.!

But metering green grass is far far better than filling your viewfinder full of black-jerseyed football players vs. full of white-jerseyed football players!!!

Even the widely flaunted 18% gray card is often flawed by use, where the user has the surface reflectivity of the card causing the meter to see more light from the sheen, than if the card was at a slightly different angle and showing the meter only diffuse reading.

johnz wrote in post #6114290
I have tested it myself, i my conclusion was that by metering the grass in sunlight by underexposing it -2/3 stops gives quite a nice exposure, but it wasn't very conclusive compared to +/-0 EC.

And what kind of answer is that, "try it yourself" ? Based on that advice people shouldn't read books or manuals, they should just try everything themselves and learn by trial and error. - Very nice.

All cameras are not the same, all lenses are not made equal; metering variations are often and expected.

If you’ve read Understanding Exposure carefully you should have realized that the author’s intention is not to give exact values, direct numbers.
Instead, he tries to teach the general approach to light metering.
Actually, in many occasions, throughout the book, he suggests the same that I did in my previous post: measure it yourself and note the values.

But, who am I to tell you what to do!
Don’t try it yourself and keep being dependant on other people’s opinions.
It’s perfectly fine with me, I don't mind.

why not to shoot RAW?? you can adjust later.
honestly, i'm not that experienced photographer, just a hobbyist, but i use PS & elements pretty good.
how is the metering process (step-by-step?), anyway if i may ask?

Hermeto wrote in post #6114666
All cameras are not the same, all lenses are not made equal; metering variations are often and expected.

If you’ve read Understanding Exposure carefully you should have realized that the author’s intention is not to give exact values, direct numbers.
Instead, he tries to teach the general approach to light metering.
Actually, in many occasions, throughout the book, he suggests the same that I did in my previous post: measure it yourself and note the values.

But, who am I to tell you what to do!
Don’t try it yourself and keep being dependant on other people’s opinions.
It’s perfectly fine with me, I don't mind.

Well, i have read it. And he does give very detailed information about metering in the end of the book. And i told you already that i tested it myself, and yes there are always variations involved but i don't see a problem in trying to figure out all the variations and perfecting my metering skills out of "guestimation methods" and chimping the histogram all the time.

I don't get your hostility for my quite simple request for clarification for the variations in these generalisations that are said here. Few people said that green is almost the same as 18% gray that it can metered +/- 0. All i asked was if it's really so, because i have read othervise. Sorry if i am not doing enough testing in your opinion. I am just trying to learn the right ways by reading what more experienced photog's are doing.