What to Meter??

Wilt wrote in post #6114557
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.

Yep, you are right. The reflectivity always drives me crazy when i try to do something "exact" with exposure. Even when i "calibrated" my palm i realized that the exposure changes +/- 1 stop just by changing the angle of the hand towards the sun. I guess this is just one of those things that can never be exact science. But i won't be giving up

It's just funny how even in the basic books about exposure it's often said that metering is not that difficult and that you can use these rules and get your exposure always spot on. I find a little harder than that..

maged_mmh wrote in post #6114829
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?

Well the thing is that when you're trying to get the best exposure possible you're often quite close to blowing highlights out of the image and if this happpens even raw won't help you much.
But indeed.. underexposing all images and fixing them in PP is one way to go. But some people don't want to process all of the images, atleast not heavily, and they want the exposure to be spot on at the moment the image is exposed. It saves quite a bit of time if you don't have to adjust every image in PP.

Step by step process. You select what metering mode you want to be using, then you point your camera to your subject, or something near your subject that is in the same light, then you look at your light meter ( EV ) and adjust your aperture/shutter speed/ ISO in a way that you get your EV to tell you that you have the correct exposure = the needle is in the center. That is basic process, but now we are talking about what meter mode should be used and where should the metering take place in the image. It's not always a good thing for you exposure to measure the target of the image.

johnz wrote in post #6115112
It's just funny how even in the basic books about exposure it's often said that metering is not that difficult and that you can use these rules and get your exposure always spot on. I find a little harder than that..

Just like the politicians tell you stories about cutting taxes and increasing benefits, and how the other Party has it all wrong!

Wilt wrote in post #6115159
Just like the politicians tell you stories about cutting taxes and increasing benefits, and how the other Party has it all wrong!

LOL
I guess it helps book sales - and getting a seat in the parlament

johnz wrote in post #6115112
It's just funny how even in the basic books about exposure it's often said that metering is not that difficult and that you can use these rules and get your exposure always spot on. I find a little harder than that..

There is absolutely nothing better than having some good old experience to blend in with new information. Having experience makes experimenting with the new information much easier.

SkipD wrote in post #6115192
There is absolutely nothing better than having some good old experience to blend in with new information. Having experience makes experimenting with the new information much easier.

That is true, i am not experienced SLR shooter, only been shooting with SLR for a year. Anyway, i only recently read some books and then of course went outside and tried some of those tips mentioned in the books. I also think that is the best way to learn things, and really understand them.
But some things just don't open up so easily for me, and metering and all the modes etc. that goes with it is one of those things

johnz wrote in post #6115271
That is true, i am not experienced SLR shooter, only been shooting with SLR for a year. Anyway, i only recently read some books and then of course went outside and tried some of those tips mentioned in the books. I also think that is the best way to learn things, and really understand them.
But some things just don't open up so easily for me, and metering and all the modes etc. that goes with it is one of those things

Keep in mind the immediate feedback you get now with digital, versus trying to learn in the days of film when it might take days or weeks to finish a roll and see the results, and every shot cost you real cash!

Experimentation is the real value of digital, in letting you try out new methods and just being able try out and see 'what happens if...' totally out of nowhere, and instantly see what happens!

izzy35 wrote in post #6112617
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!!

If the sun is falling directly on something I guess the exposure would be similar for the sky as the flower. That's a guess.

johnz wrote in post #6115075
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.

Okay, let’s clear this up a little bit.

You asked a question and I answered it in neutral and impersonal manner.
I gave you the same answer that the author gave in several places in the book.

You have tested it yourself, but still, when I advise you to do the test, you call it ‘hostility’.

You are aware of the variations, but when I tell you exactly how to avoid guestimation, you’re wondering what kind of answer that was.

Later on, other people tell you basically the same thing: experiment and draw your own conclusions.
You don’t seem to have problems with those answers.

It seems that the only problem is that I have said something – when others say the same thing, it is okay.
Well, I am sorry, but the only hostility in this thread was directed against me in your posts #25 and #30.

Please don’t do that anymore..

I applied Peterson's green jeans method when I took a waterfall shot. Being new to photography I was amazed - my greens came out green (instead of underexposed) and no grey water on the blurred waterfall. I'm taking Understanding Exposure overseas with me next month on hols, just so I can refer back to a few things. It's a great book.

Hermeto wrote in post #6115449
Okay, let’s clear this up a little bit.

You asked a question and I answered it in neutral and impersonal manner.
I gave you the same answer that the author gave in several places in the book.

You have tested it yourself, but still, when I advise you to do the test, you call it ‘hostility’.

You are aware of the variations, but when I tell you exactly how to avoid guestimation, you’re wondering what kind of answer that was.

Later on, other people tell you basically the same thing: experiment and draw your own conclusions.
You don’t seem to have problems with those answers.

It seems that the only problem is that I have said something – when others say the same thing, it is okay.
Well, I am sorry, but the only hostility in this thread was directed against me in your posts #25 and #30.

Please don’t do that anymore..

Ok, whatever you say..but I just didn't find this comment very friendly:
"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."

So that felt a little much for me because i do test things and i am just trying to get a better understanding on things by asking you guys. Sorry.

As you now know the camera meter tries to average the scene to 18% gray, if the scene is a typical landscape or street picture where you have light and dark areas then try to meter in your subject and see if that works, then adjust.
If the scene is dark with lots of shadows and dark areas try to meter in a very dark point.
If the scene is light with snow, lots of sky or bright areas try to meter in a bright spot.

Luigi

luigis wrote in post #6118051
As you now know the camera meter tries to average the scene to 18% gray, if the scene is a typical landscape or street picture where you have light and dark areas then try to meter in your subject and see if that works, then adjust.
If the scene is dark with lots of shadows and dark areas try to meter in a very dark point.
If the scene is light with snow, lots of sky or bright areas try to meter in a bright spot.

Luigi

thanks LUIGI! i appreciate this explanation...IN NEWBIE ENGLISH!! LOL!! I guess this is the beauty of digital; you can take a pic, look at it, and adjust..Some times though, what looks good on my display screen USUALLY doesn't look good on the pc...

but what did you mean when u said, "try to meter in your subject and see if that works, then adjust?" Sorry, just really new, so alot of this stuff goes WAAAAAAY over my head....thanks a bunch!

I agree. We used to have to test each emulsion batch. Now our "film" is always the same & we eliminate that variable. 99% of the time this works for me, but you still need to tHiMk?

Need an exposure crutch?

This shows how the subject can affect the exposure & why manual keeps me worry free:
Post #47

lynfen wrote in post #6117496
I applied Peterson's green jeans method when I took a waterfall shot.

I SLEEP with this book and don't remember a "green jeans" method?? Can you explain? thx a bunch!