HOME | DD

Published: 2007-02-17 16:17:33 +0000 UTC; Views: 3286; Favourites: 28; Downloads: 373
Redirect to original
Description
In the photography forum [link] I've noticed several posts about exposure lately by people who apparently don't understand how the meters in their cameras work. Someone suggested that I write a tutorial and so here it is.Most cameras have SOME kind of meter these days. These can be averaging meters, center-weighted meters, spot meters, or any of several other kinds. Most cameras have averaging meters. One thing they all have in common is that they will all give you an exposure recommendation based on a shade of gray called "18% gray." That is to say that they assume that anything you point the camera at is supposed to be this shade of gray. If it isn't, they will recommend exposures that will MAKE IT so. Actually, it is a LITTLE more complicated than this, since some manufacturers (like Minolta) set their meters for 13% gray (the approximate value of Caucasian human skin). This is close enough though. It will be within your sensor’s or film’s exposure latitude, so you will get a usable exposure, and I will be calling it 18% throughout this tutorial for the sake of simplicity.
For example, and again this is just for the sake of simplicity, let's take a hypothetical situation in which you are shooting two different nudes, identical blonde twins (pretty much the same color value all over), each of which has a different colored backdrop behind her. One nude is standing in front of a white backdrop. The other is standing in front of a black backdrop.
So let's start with the nude with the white backdrop. You take the photo, develop the film and make prints. You will find that you have a photo with a gray background and the model is far too dark. Your film has been underexposed and you can't figure out why. You did what the camera said to do and it still came out too dark. What happened?
Well, when you turned on your camera's light meter what the meter saw was the whole composition. It's just a machine that measures reflected light. It can't recognize objects or what it is looking at. It didn't differentiate between the model and the background, but what it did do -- immediately -- was decide that the composition as a whole did NOT average out to 18% gray. Even though Caucasian human skin is roughly the right value, it also took the background into account. This made the AVERAGE value of the whole composition much lighter. It recommended an exposure setting that would make the background and subject darker, in order that the composition as a whole would average out to that 18% gray it wants. This results in underexposure.
Now let's photograph the model with the black background. Again, you aim the camera, adjust the exposure as the meter tells you to do, and take the photo. You develop the film and make prints. You are perplexed when you find that the background is still gray, but this time the model looks snow-white. Your film was badly overexposed. Again you are left scratching your head, and now you're wondering if the camera is broken.
The camera and the meter are both working fine. What happened is that the meter looked at your composition and found that, once again, it didn't average out to 18% gray. This time it was too dark (because of that black background), and so it recommended an exposure that would make it average out to the "right" shade of gray. It overexposed your film, to make the composition lighter.
As you have probably figured out by now, the camera will only give you an exposure recommendation that is absolutely correct when the composition really is 18% gray. Unfortunately, in real life, this doesn't happen very often. What you have to do is recognize that this is happening and take it into account. You have to make adjustments for it. As you gain experience you will find that you can do this by eye, more or less. Fortunately for the beginners, there are a few relatively easy ways to get around this without relying on their nonexistent experience: spot metering, incident metering, and gray cards.
In spot metering the meter only looks at one small area of the composition. All you have to do is find an area in the composition that is close to 18% gray and meter the light on that. In our hypothetical nude photography scenario, the paler areas of the model's skin are pretty close to 18% gray, so this won't be a problem. You’d just pick an area in medium shadow and meter on that. If you don’t have a spot meter, you can simply walk up to your model, until the area you want to meter fills the viewfinder, set your exposure, and back off. What do you do if there is nothing in the composition that is the right shade of gray though? What if your model is an albino? What if she's black?
Well, there are two more ways of getting the right exposure. One is to use a handheld incident meter. Instead of measuring the light reflected from the model toward the camera, these measure the light that is falling on the model directly. Instead of standing by the camera and metering the model, you stand by the model and point the meter at the light. This way there is no possibility of the meter getting confused by different colored backgrounds.
By far the most common solution though, is to use a gray card. A gray card is simply a piece of pasteboard that is colored 18% gray. They're one of the few things in photography that are cheap. A gray card gives you something that you can hold in front of the camera that actually is the right shade of gray. You set your camera on manual, hold up the gray card (in the light, at the same distance from the light as the model), set your exposure, then set the card aside, focus, and shoot, confident that you will get a good exposure.
Related content
Comments: 39
Abfc [2009-11-24 04:18:02 +0000 UTC]
Now, does your camera still auto-adjust the exposure by its meter's recommendation if you're using Full Manual shooting mode?
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
ael00 [2007-07-08 08:47:16 +0000 UTC]
Thanks for that tut, it helps.
Snap, I have Minolta film SLR so I guess I WILL have to worry about the 13% gray. How do I tell if it has averaging meter, center-weighted meter or spot meter?
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
ael00 In reply to FallisPhoto [2007-07-08 18:21:09 +0000 UTC]
SRT MC-II.
In the meantime I found this: [link]
So now I know its center-weighted combined with spot metering. Still left me clueless I guess. Anyways I'm in love with this thing.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
FallisPhoto In reply to ael00 [2007-07-08 22:24:43 +0000 UTC]
Okay, here's what's going on:
Ordinarlily, with most lenses, you have center weighted metering. It draws info from ALL parts of the composition for metering, but gives more weight to the info from the center of the composition. Because of the way the sensor is mounted, it gets a kind of "tunnel vision," with dark edges. Using the hypothetical example from my tutorial of the two blonde nudes, let's say you have one of the twins in the center of your composition. Well, it is still going to see that background, and will adjust the exposure so that it AVERAGES out to the 13% gray it wants, but it will be getting a lot more info from the nude in the middle. It will still be off a little, but not nearly as much as it would be if it were not center-weighted.
With Auto-Rokkor lenses though, it is going to be different. First it is going to be necessary to explain how this part of an SLR camera works step by step. When you look through the viewfinder of any SLR with a regular type of lens, the aperture is ALWAYS wide open. It doesn't matter if you have it set for f/2 or f/22, it is still going to be at the maximum aperture. The lens doesn't stop down (say from f/2 to f/16, where you have it set) until a split second before you trip the shutter, at the same time that the mirror is swinging up out of the way. It does this so enough light can get through the viewfinder that you can see well enough to focus.
What it is saying is that with the Auto-Rokkor lenses, you can stop it down BEFORE the shutter trips. This means that the meter's sensor is ONLY going to be getting info from a small part of the composition, because the rest of it is going to be blocked by the aperture diaphragm blades. This gives you the effect of a spot meter. Do you understand now?
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
ael00 In reply to FallisPhoto [2007-07-09 08:58:48 +0000 UTC]
Yes I do. Thanks a lot, there are so few people who help out beginners. I guess thats connected to your long term experience.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
FallisPhoto In reply to ael00 [2007-07-09 14:05:24 +0000 UTC]
Well, part of my long-term experience was as a teacher, so I have a bit of an advantage.
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
Redandwhite [2007-06-26 00:07:36 +0000 UTC]
While I already knew how a reflected light meter works, I STILL can't figure out what the hell an incident meter is!
I normally use center-weighted average, more than I use Matrix Metering.
However Matrix Metering is getting better than just averaging now. I'm not sure how they do it, but they compare the scene to an internal database of shots, and give you a pretty good rendition half the time.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
FallisPhoto In reply to Redandwhite [2007-06-26 00:49:05 +0000 UTC]
An incident meter measures the light falling ON an object. All other types measure the light reflected FROM it. Another way of saying this is that an incident meter measures light BEFORE it hits anything and the other types measure light AFTER it has hit something and bounced off.
Averaging never did work very well, simply because hardly anything is really 18% grey but the meters assume that everything is. The matrix meters 20 years ago were worse than no meter at all -- seriously, I'd prefer using sunny 16 to an older matrix meter. They almost NEVER worked right. However, matrix meters are the ones that have come the farthest since then. Go figure. There are several types. There is one type of matrix meter that measures color shifts, and that type is really exceptionally accurate.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Redandwhite In reply to FallisPhoto [2007-06-26 02:40:04 +0000 UTC]
Ah, very interesting indeed! Thanks for your priceless info
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
theFouro [2007-05-31 10:38:25 +0000 UTC]
Excellent tutorial. I've recently read quite a lot about photography and cameras to learn the basics and never actually found anything that explains the basics of camera's metering this clearly. Learned something new here.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
FallisPhoto In reply to theFouro [2007-06-01 00:08:00 +0000 UTC]
You know what? I think the guys who write those books try to make it seem more difficult than it is.
👍: 0 ⏩: 2
then-comes-dudley In reply to FallisPhoto [2011-01-21 05:49:15 +0000 UTC]
"the guys who write those books try to make it seem more difficult than it is."
One exception to that rule: "The Zone VI Workshop" by Fred Picker. I found that book by accident & it explains the basics of exposure (as well as the zone system) in unbelievably clear language. I'd tried other books before that, and they were all, as you said it, way more complicated than they needed to be. This one's a real winner though (for me, at least).
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
FallisPhoto In reply to then-comes-dudley [2011-01-21 16:38:16 +0000 UTC]
Oh, you can explain the basics of exposure in less than two pages (this tutorial and the one I wrote on shutter speed and aperture). The zone system might need three pages though (four, if you give an example).
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
theFouro In reply to FallisPhoto [2007-06-01 09:03:12 +0000 UTC]
Or they're just professionals for whom those things are so clear that they don't know how to explain them easily.
I actually haven't before run into anything else explaining the use of 18% grey in light metering. Propably I'll just have to get a greycard myself too
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
FallisPhoto In reply to eduardofrench [2007-04-08 16:56:14 +0000 UTC]
Thanks. I've never understood how those college textbooks can stretch this out and make a whole chapter on it.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
eduardofrench In reply to FallisPhoto [2007-04-08 17:02:42 +0000 UTC]
Because they aren't eloquent like you that is the difference!
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
FallisPhoto In reply to eduardofrench [2007-04-08 17:04:40 +0000 UTC]
Only when writing, when I have time to think about it. Speaking, my mouth tends to get ahead of my brain.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
eduardofrench In reply to FallisPhoto [2007-04-08 17:56:28 +0000 UTC]
hahaha, well but that happens to me also in some situations too
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
aCreature [2007-03-21 00:40:13 +0000 UTC]
"If you don’t have a spot meter, you can simply walk up to your model, until the area you want to meter fills the viewfinder, set your exposure, and back off."
You do have to be careful with this, though. Light/exposure follows the inverse square law, so if you double the distance between two exposure points the amount of light entering the lens falls to a quarter. Thus, if you meter at 2 metres and shoot at 4 metres, you're going to have dropped the amount of light entering by two stops and will thus underexpose your image.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
FallisPhoto In reply to aCreature [2007-03-21 01:59:57 +0000 UTC]
Well, it does require some judgement on which spot to meter.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
aCreature In reply to FallisPhoto [2007-03-21 09:13:28 +0000 UTC]
It's not just that - if you get closer to meter and then walk away, your meter reading will be wrong.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
FallisPhoto In reply to aCreature [2007-03-21 16:40:44 +0000 UTC]
Uh... I don't think so, unless you are carrying the light with you. If YOUR SUBJECT was farther away from the light, then this would be true though, so it would apply if you were using an on-camera flash.
The inverse square law applies when you change the distance between SUBJECT and light source. However, it does not apply if you just take a few steps back. Sure, that will have an effect on the OVERALL composition, because there will be more in the angle of view, and the light won't be the same on all of it, but the exposure of the spot you metered will not have changed unless you have stepped back so far that the intervening air has started having an effect as a filter (miles).
You are not concerned with how much light enters the camera overall, just how much from that spot you metered. The difference will be so negligable that I doubt you could measure it.
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
Zanarky [2007-02-28 21:19:03 +0000 UTC]
and the day comes where I finally understand what the hell a gray card is. Thank you sir.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
FallisPhoto In reply to Zanarky [2007-02-28 23:10:30 +0000 UTC]
No problem. It is literally just a card that is gray.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Zanarky In reply to FallisPhoto [2007-03-01 05:26:39 +0000 UTC]
what do those usually cost? Like you said, they're cheap. How cheap are we talking?
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
7Kindustry [2007-02-19 18:41:38 +0000 UTC]
very nice, thanks. As always a few questions to reinforce this info.
in my mind the situation is a fall afternoon on a walking path. the model would be a passer by, before i had even decided to take a picture. I should have used a grey card to set the exposure of the surrounding area?
that is with the idea in mind that time is frozen, and it is always afternoon light, now i can look and shoot at whatever i want today and get a correct exposed picture?
will this not work, because their was no passer by in the story, and now that she is walking by i take the picture and my surroundings are fine but she is over/under exposed?
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
FallisPhoto In reply to 7Kindustry [2007-02-19 22:50:47 +0000 UTC]
Well, you meter when you have TIME to do so. If you don't, you can either use autoexposure and hope for the best, or (if the composition looks a little on the dark or light side) then you adjust accordingly. At least now you know what the meter is doing and can make some judgements. Maybe you will have time to bracket your exposures. The point is that going by the meter is no guarantee that you will get a good exposure -- or even a usable one.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
7Kindustry In reply to FallisPhoto [2007-02-20 00:25:24 +0000 UTC]
you mean going by what the camera is set at (18%) not what you set it to with a Grey card correct
👍: 0 ⏩: 2
FallisPhoto In reply to 7Kindustry [2007-02-20 18:21:59 +0000 UTC]
Also, if you will recall, I said that human caucasian skin is about 18% gray. You can meter on the palm of your hand.
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
mantrasiva [2007-02-17 16:29:23 +0000 UTC]
great tutorial!
by the way the link does not work
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
FallisPhoto In reply to mantrasiva [2007-02-17 23:27:01 +0000 UTC]
Sorry about that. Now it does. And thanks!
👍: 0 ⏩: 0