 Michelle B. Prince |
People Photography: Light Metering I have heard people say that when photographing people outside you should meter off someone's white or black shirt. I don't understand this. If anyone does I would love to have it make sense. I sometimes try the exposure lock on someone's face but don't know much about metering light at all. I have a Canon 20D.
|
|
|
|
||
|
Christopher A. Vedros |
When people talk about metering off something specific in a scene or portrait, usually what you do is zoom in or move in closer so that one particular thing or color fills the frame, or at least fills most of the frame. Then you push the shutter button halfway to get an exposure, and use exposure lock, recompose and shoot. By the way, if I were photographing someone who was wearing a white or black shirt, I would meter off their face, not the shirt. Large white and black surfaces in pictures are what confuse meters and throw off exposures.
|
|
|
|
||
|
Samuel Smith |
thank you chris,sam that one finally sank in.
|
|
|
|
||
|
Pete H |
Perhaps what you read was to White Balance off a white shirt. That would make more sense. Exposure metering off white would cause the subject's face to be well under-exposed. Pete "When in doubt; BRACKET!" :)
|
|
|
|
||
|
Maria Melnyk |
The rule of thumb for metering off skin is to add one stop exposure to the reading for Caucasian skin. Do you have a light meter? If so, use an incident light reading. This measures the light falling on a subject rather than the light reflected off of it. It's easier and more accurate, and it doesn't matter what color shirt the subject is wearing.
|
|
|
|
||
|
Michelle B. Prince |
No, I don't have a light meter. Maybe I should get one. A photographer I met once said to go up close and focus on the person's face in the AV mode and see what the aperature and shutter were. Then to step back and manually set the camera for those settings and shoot. Isn't that the same as exposure locking on the face and then moving back?
|
|
|
|
||
|
Christopher A. Vedros |
Yes it is.
|
|
|
|
||
|
Roy Blinston |
In all the Photo Tips I have ever read it states "Expose for the Highlights and let the shadows take care of themselves". Weddings with harsh B&W contrasts is always difficult. I would meter off the faces (rather than the dress) as this is more important. If you compose your pic to show the "dress only", then meter for the dress.
|
|
|
|
||
|
Maria Melnyk |
Hi, Michelle, yes, it's always good to have a light/flash meter, especially if you're doing portraits indoors with a manual lighting setup. By the way, your technique to focus close on the face in the AV mode is correct, except then you don't need to "see what the aperture was", because you're setting that yourself in AV mode. You just need to see your shutter speed. Locking exposure on the face and moving back is the same thing, except that you have to do that each time. So it's easier to meter the face once, and then, unless your light or the person's position changes, you don't have to re-meter with each exposure. Roy - exposing for the highlights and letting the shadows take take of themselves is the right thing to do for digital (like Michelle's 20D) or for slide film, but not for print film. For that you expose for the shadows, or in special situations you average the two (such as when you have a pattern across the bride's face, like, let's say, the sun shining through blinds and that pattern falls on her face; that's where you would average the two readings because both shadows and highlights are equally important here.)
|
|
|
|
||
|
Kerry L. Walker |
As Chris said, meter off the face. White and black will throw off you meter as it will read the white (or black) as 18% gray and try to make it fit. Metering off the skin will get you a lot closer.
|
|
|
|
||
|
Roy Blinston |
Hi Maria.... I fully agree. However she is using Digital, and a normal Wedding shot would not have any blinds or cross lighting (hopefully). As with any special circumstances one must modify the rules. I assumed Digital was the "thing" these days. I do not know many people using film any more (even pros).
|
|
|
|
||
|
Kerry L. Walker |
I am beginning to feel like a lone voice crying in the wilderness (still using film).
|
|
|
|
||
|
anonymous |
Who ever said meter for the black or white shirt needs to go back and learn the basics! LOL Why would you add one stop for caucasian skin? that doesn't make sense, if you meter the skin, then shouldn't what the camera or the light meter telling you be right, especially considerig caucasian skins is very close to 18% grey? you don't really need a light meter. Just work out what f stop you want, (ie set it in AV mode) go up to the person, do a reading and work out what shutter speed it needs). Then put those details in M mode, you then don't need to change the details unless the conditions change, ie, new poss, sun comes out, clouds cover sun etc. Like Michelle said Maria you don't really need to do any averaging for something like this, "or in special situations you average the two (such as when you have a pattern across the bride's face, like, let's say, the sun shining through blinds and that pattern falls on her face; that's where you would average the two readings because both shadows and highlights are equally important here.)" As the pattern on the face is uniform the light meter in the camera will pick it up and expose correctly for it. It really is only an issue if you have half a face is deep shadow and half a face in highlights, that is when you may need to average it a bit. Same thing with photographing a Zebra, you don't need to over or underexpose for anything, the lines and stripes are so close that the camera see roughly 18% grey and gets a good reading. Now if you had just a white or black horse, then that is a different thing obviously. I think we need to give the inbuilt meters in our cameras a little more credit. Unless it is extreme circumstances, I haven't been let down yet. Even with a Bride and groom senario, as there is more tones in the photo then just the black and white, there is all that lovely skin (18% grey) there is also all the background etc too.
|
|
|
|
||
|
Pete H |
I pretty much agree with Natalie, however; to quote her "Same thing with photographing a Zebra, you don't need to over or underexpose for anything...," I must take some opposition to this. All the best and happy shooting. Pete
|
|
|
|
||
|
Roy Blinston |
I agree. The sandwhich technique is called LAYERS (in Photoshop) where you can place 3 different pics on top of each other (and edit accordingly... holding the exposure on some and swapping for other tones). This is an invaluable feature when handling these problem photos. The bracketing 3fps is the only way to capture the originals before editing. I once did a similar thing using hand-held at 1/4 sec exp (taking two pics and layering for foreground a beautiful sunset glowing skyline to match).
|
|
|
|
||
|
Maria Melnyk |
Wow! Everybody wrote stuff here all at once. (And good stuff it is at that.) Natalie, I had to laugh when I read the part about the zebra. (It was a good laugh.) Perhaps metering is unnecessary, but I meter both the shadows and highlights and go in between with the exposure. That way I get exactly what I intended. For available light I usually use a light meter, although I do skip it often when pressed for time (late brides, etc.) And how often do I do a planned cross-lighting shot? Perhaps once every 10 weddings. Yes, Roy, many pro photographers still use film. I work for 5 different studios, and all use film. (Two of them are both film and digital.) Even the top studio here in Chicago who does about 400-500 weddings a year is all film and only film. I just bought a new film camera, and now that Fuji came out with its terrific new Portrait film that is outstanding in quality, and Nikon's got a great new Pro Film Camera, the F6, I'm even more wired up about it. So, Kerry, you're not alone. I'm with you all the way! Back to Natalie - I add one stop for Caucasian skin because it's a little brighter than 18% grey. I learned that a long time ago in photo seminars, and it appears to be true with my tests. Unless the person has a suntan. But - Pete - I can't agree to err on the side of underexposure (with film, that is). Films can handle 5 stops of overexposure - just try that with digital! I once severely overexposed a picture of a cake I took. (It wasn't at a wedding; it was a cake my mother baked at home.) The negative was practically clear. But my lab made a beautifully perfect print from it (after some trial and error), and it showed ALL the details! Even slight underexposure would have looked muddy and grainy. There are pro photographers who don't even own light meters, and their techniques (similar to the above techniques) are correct. However, I've lost count on the number of photographers who spotted my meter and approached me saying, "Can you check the exposure for me?" Both in ambient light and with manual flash.
|
|
|
|
||
|
Roy Blinston |
I too have a light meter.... and it gets very little use these days. I say Digital is becoming more prominent these days for lots of applications. Unless one is Photographing a "celebrity wedding" where quality, reproduction and enlargement is the utmost, digital is by far taking over for common wedding photography. Some die-hards will use both formats (old habits, peace of mind etc). The proof is in the pudding.... have a chat to the Photographer at your next wedding reception and see what he is using. Any bets?
|
|
|
|
||
|
Michelle B. Prince |
Wow. Thank you all so much. This is all such wonderful information. I LOVE THIS WEBSITE.
|
|
|
|
||
|
Kerry L. Walker |
"Now if you had just a white or black horse, then that is a different thing obviously." That is a horse of a different color. (Sorry for the cliche but I couldn't pass it up.) Unless one is Photographing a "celebrity wedding" where quality, reproduction and enlargement is the utmost, digital is by far taking over for common wedding photography." Sorry, but I consider all my wedding to be celebrity weddings. On that day, the bride IS a celebrity and is beautiful, regardless of how she looks on any other day.
|
|
|
|
||
|
Roy Blinston |
Sorry, I think you have misunderstood me. I was not being derogatory to any Bride. I am involved in the Bridal industry professionally (not photographically). All brides are special on this day... but its horses for courses. My term "celebrity" was aimed at special weddings with very large budgets, often with 5 or 6 photographers covering the day, and often when orders for super large prints are made or the photos may be used in commercial/national magazine publications. This is a far cry from your average wedding of Fred & Jill at number 52 Side Street. Besides, these days, people "expect" to get digital prints or proofs etc etc (whether this be good or bad, right or wrong in their thinking). It is a clients expectation of "today". I know for a fact Bride & Groom would be disappointed if their intended photographer told them they only use "film" not digital (no matter how much lauding of qualtiy and purity by the photographer). If so, me thinks you may lose the Contract.
|
|
|
|
||
|
Kerry L. Walker |
Yes, Roy, I understood you and did not take offense at your post. I understand what you are saying. It's just that to me, quality is always of utmost importance. I am sure I do lose a few contracts because I don't use digital but I also get some for the same reason.
|
|
|
|
||
|
Maria Melnyk |
I've gotten jobs from clients who have specifically asked for film. I actually had one who broke off her contract with a digital photographer and lost the deposit, because she decided she wanted film. And for those clients who want digital, I simply convert my film to digital and give them digital proofs. But I get outstanding reprints because they get printed optically off the negative. Kerry, your response on "celebrity brides" was so beautiful it made me cry. I agree with you. I am now spending $40-$50 more per wedding because of Fuji's new Portrait film. (Prices have been raised for future contracts, at least until the imported version of the film becomes available.) I could still get the old stuff for much less, but I decided that all my brides, regardless of "celebrity" status, deserve the best there is.
|
|
|
|
||
|
Roy Blinston |
I'm going to stick my neck out here... I predict "film" will be 95% replaced by "digital" within the next 5 years. I say this based on advances in technology (across the board) which are and will continue to happen in leaps and bounds. I believe film will be relegated to the "novelty status" by the year 2010 where only the "purists" will be endeavouring to sell its merits. Another drawback with film is that to transfer it to "digital" requires much expense. Desktop scanners (no matter how good) simply cannot compare to "drum scanners" and each drum scan can cost upwards of $30 to $80 per pic. Unless the wedding is for Bill Gates I can see very few people wishing to spend $5,000 or more just on "film to digital transfer"... plus all the other photographic costs. Hence my previous emails and prediction. I have purposely failed to mention the "editing capabilities" with digital (but this is another story). Overall I can see "purists" trying to hang on to what is soon to become an outdated technology. History has proven this happens in every field of new technology, sadly. Forget the romanticism of it all, get into digital now and grow with it.
|
|
|
|
||
|
Kerry L. Walker |
When I was a kid, people predicted that by 1975 we would all be driving "flying cars", moving through cities on moving sidewalks, etc. That was 30 years ago and it hasn't happened yet, even though the technology for a lot of those predictions is now available. Who knows? Maybe those advances by leaps and bounds will create an inexpensive drum scanner. As I have stated before, painters predicted photography would put them out of business. It hasn't. For certain applications, digital has all but replaced film. For others, it has not. My continuing use of film has nothing to do with romanticism. It has to do with quality. Perhaps some day digital will completely replace film, but I don't think it will happen in 5 years. The advances in digital technology will, like the advances in computers, continue but, I believe, at a slower pace.
|
|
|
|
||
|
Roy Blinston |
Even the slowest computer today would rings round the fastest computer from 20 years ago. Some predictions are "fanciful" (like flying cars etc), but even these have some truth. Costs are holding those things back (not the technology). The predictions I am talking about are based on technology fact. One only has to look at how far digital has come in the past 3 years (it's almost frightening). Much of this technology is due to processor speeds advanced production techniques and the like. This is almost limitess in its future. Every 12 months the latest desktop computer is almost twice as fast as its predecessor (or software ehancements make it run so). 6mp and 12mp cameras are now so commonplace, they are talking about 20 and 30mp with "super sensors" and heaven knows what after that. "Drum scanners" because of their "mechanics" (not technolgy) will never be cheap and will always be out of the range of common people (even the el cheapo versions). Because "digital" is technology based (not mechanical in the true sense of the word) it has limitless possibilities. And remember... they once laughed at people flying at all (never mind in cars). It's a natural tendancy to hold onto what one has... and disregard or mock at the "new". All I say is "embrace it" for it is the future.
|
|
|
|
||
|
Maria Melnyk |
Kerry, you took ALL the words right out of my mouth! I just love what I get with film. I love the different looks I get with different kinds of film for different applications. I've tried digital, and I don't like it as much. I've shot jobs both with film and digital, and my clients have asked "What's wrong with these pictures" relating to the digital ones. So maybe, Roy, your prediction is true, and even if it is, why should I use something I don't like when I can still use something I do like?
|
|
|
|
||
|
Roy Blinston |
Use whatever you like, or prefer. No problems... just keep your eye on digital developments. Eventually it will take over almost completely. I was a bit puzzled when you said some of your clients have said: "what's wrong with these pictures". The average man in the street couldn't tell the difference. I would love to have a look at some of your problem "digital pics".
|
|
|
|
||
|
Pete H |
Ansel Adams would be rolling in his B&W grave! (Grin) The evidence already supports the fact that film is falling to the wayside. 35mm film sales are way off in the past 2 yrs. Digital camera sales have surpassed film camera sales as well. Companies like Kodak and Fuji have extensive digital labs for the amateur and pro..The photo finishing labs who have not embraced digital have been left in the dust and most are out of business. I am not commenting on the merits of film Vs Digital here, but the reasoning is sound and is justified. Photography clients; in our fast paced world are thrilled to see their images NOW! Large commercial accounts (i.e) Ford Motor Co, IBM..etc, who require product photography are pushy people who demand to see the changes NOW! They want to see how "it" looks if I change the background etc..., NOW! A laptop and Adobe to the rescue. This can not be done with film, period; unless you want to schlep a scanner with you and wait for that 20MP image to scan..then down load, then manipulate etc....What a hassle. Happy shooting. Pete
|
|
|
|
||
|
Maria Melnyk |
Hello again, Roy. Yes, I neglected to mention that I am keeping myself informed of digital developments, because I myself predict that I'll be needing to switch to or at least add digital within a couple of years. (The reason I just bought a film camera is because one of mine was vandalized over the weekend.) The "what's wrong with these pictures" happened twice - for engagement photos and for First Holy Communion photos I did this year. The digital ones really did lack the "pop" and beautiful color and tones that the film photos had. These were both done for a studio, who lent me their digital camera (a Canon 20D). I forgot the exact reason they wanted me to shoot digital as well as film for the engagement photos, but for the First Communion we did it because there were almost 100 children, and I was able to shoot them receiving Communion continuously without having to stop and re-load film. But we did everything else on film. When the clients saw their proofs, that's when we got this response. I don't have these prints on me because they belong to the studio I shot them for. But I agree with you that the average man on the street couldn't tell the difference, but some clients are able to notice, perhaps though, only when they have the film ones right there to compare.
|
|
|
|
||
|
Maria Melnyk |
Pete - I definitely agree that for strictly commercial photography one does need to use digital. I would do that myself if that were the case. I'm a wedding photographer. To me that's a "Horse of a Different Color." Here's another example that almost made me go digital, and then I changed my mind. I've been photographing a certain building for a book every 2nd or 3rd day for about 2 weeks now. The committee wanted the clouds to look a certain way, the sun shining brightly, the flags to be waving in the wind; all those things that you usually can't get all at once. I shot 4 separate rolls of film over four days. Each time I had to run to my lab with it, get it processed and scanned, go back home and check them out on the computer, and then show them to the committee. What a hassle! A lot of wasted time. So I tried digital. I shot with a digital camera for three days, and never had to run to the lab. Until the committee said, "How come these don't look as nice as the other ones?" So I explained the new equipment, and they want me to go back to film. So the digital camera has been returned to it's rightful owner where it belongs, and my film camera is happily loaded, awaiting another day of good shooting. Sorry that I keep running into such situations -- and that last example is even a commercial one -- but this is just one of my reasons for staying with film.
|
|
|
|
||
|
Roy Blinston |
(To Maria): All I can say is in my neck of the woods I see very few Photographers using film only. It's only a matter of time before they are totally digital. The end results look beautiful and rich, and any slight special effects or tweaking truly make the Bride & Groom very happy indeed. (To: Pete) You did explain my overall concept in much harsher words than I have used. You were more to the point. I was trying to be much softer and more discreet. Your idea of a Top 10 sounds interesting but (me thinks) it would not deter the "film lovers" from pushing their preferences. If the Photographer themself believe film is better, they can subliminally affect the client's reponse, without realising it. I have seen and experienced this situation many times with graphic design (which is my true profession). If the creator is it not happy, their infer this in a subtle discreet way to the client... hence "what's wrong with these pictures?". Finally, if commercial high paying clients can't see the difference, and are willing to pay heaps for the enhanced services on offer with digital, why would anybody consider film as a option or preference with its limited applications. Surely, in some ways, this is a step backwards to the old days.... something a client does not want to hear (or see). At the moment film has its place, but that place is getting smaller every day.
|
|
|
|
||
|
Roy Blinston |
Sorry Maria.... I couldn't help myself commenting on your problem with the building and flags waving with clouds. In my digital world I would say to the client... "how many clouds do you want, what colour.... and which way do you want the flags waving".... and I would give it to him tomorrow afternoon.
|
|
|
|
||
|
Maria Melnyk |
Roy, you're terrific! Heck; you're all terrific! What else can I say? Sorry that I tend to be old-fashioned. It sometimes works for me and sometimes against me. I guess it's just easier for me to sit and wait for a puff of wind than to sit in front of a computer creating it. To add to my problems for my morning shoot, I just found out that the janitor of that building took those flags down! Now what!?! I know, Roy, instead of hunting him down, I should just transfer the flags from one of my other photos. But back to a little seriousness, I don't own a photo editing program, and don't have the desire to use one if I did; I always have to pay someone else to do any digital manipulation. That's probably my main reason for doing things the way I do. And you're right about the "subliminal" stuff. Right now I've got my whole building committee convinced that film is the only way to go. Everyone out there have a nice day, and thanks for all your input. Maybe someday you'll find me a changed person. Till then, happy shooting!
|
|
|
|
||
|
Roy Blinston |
(Maria) Don't be afraid of the image editing software. It's much friendlier than you think. The possibilities it creates will astound you. It will open doors you never knew existed and re-invigorate your whole approach to photography. You are obviously a perfectionist, and that attitude will work with you as you begin to travel down the road of digital editing. Think of it like this.... you have learned the "hard part" (true photography)... now make the software work for you.... make it attain what "you want". It's all available at your fingertips. The longer you practice the better you will become (as in anything)... and, more importantly, you will never look back.
|
|
|
|
||
|
This old forum is now archived. Use improved Forum here
Report this Thread |
||