METERING "OFF" os something.

[MTVision]

Wow, I have so much more to learn and there is clearly not enough hours in the day! I, LOL, not only read my manual but TOOK NOTES. (yeah, I'm that dork) I understand where me meter is and how to interpret it but the manual doesn't explain how to meter off of something as a basis for taking a specific shot.
So, essentially what you're saying (some of you) is that if your camera is not color blind or is "smart" enough, then there is no reason to use a sample to readjust a shot that you are trying to get?
If I point my camera at something, observe the meter, I "lock" that meter by depressing the shutter button halfway correct? I then simply move my camera while keeping my finger depressing the shutter, and snp at my target. By doing this and using the sample that I metered off of, I can adjust my lighting and color in my photos.

No. You put your focal point on what you want to meter off (like your kids skin) press the shutter halfway - adjust shutter speed and aperture until the meter is around or on 0. Then you let go of the button and put your focal point on your subjects eyes or something press shutter halfway down to get focus and take the picture.

Pressing the shutter down isn't going to lock anything. You need to manually adjust everything to get a correct exposure with the button pressed halfway down. After you do all that let go of the button and focus. If you meter off your kids skin but never release the button your picture won't be in focus.

Seriously, buy the book understanding exposure. It'll be the best thing you do.

 

[MTVision]

It won't really help with the lighting per say but it will help with exposure. If you meter off skin the skin will be properly exposed. The metering modes and the meter go together - so if you understand the metering modes you will understand how it works. Not 100% sure but I don't think matrix metering mode would work that well with metering off something.

Another reason to use your meter - there are at least 6 correct exposures for every picture but only 1 creative exposure. The book Understanding Exposure would explain it all to you as well give you exercises to demonstrate everything. I would buy that book before you buy a speedlight. You may have a rough understanding of what aperture and shutter speed to use for different lighting situations but like I said there are at least 6 combinations you could use.

 

[unpopular]

No. You put your focal point on what you want to meter off (like your kids skin) press the shutter halfway - adjust shutter speed and aperture until the meter is around or on 0. Then you let go of the button and put your focal point on your subjects eyes or something press shutter halfway down to get focus and take the picture.

Is this accurate, really?! Because it seriously goes against what I've been taught, and I am just not really seeing how it would work.

When you meter off of something with a spot meter, you're getting only the light reflected light that bounces back into the camera. The camera doesn't know anything at all about the source or how bright it is, only what is reflected.

Traditionally, you'd meter off a particular feature and "place" it in the tonal range where it belongs, starting at middle grey, which the meter is calibrated: Zone 5, 50% greyscale, level 127, 18% (whatever the hell that means) - whatever you want to call it, and providing more exposure or less exposure depending on how the photographer chooses to 'render' it. For most Caucasian skin, you'd stop up once to Zone 6, 75% greyscale, level 192 - whatever, for the very dark skin colors of some African races, two stops under from what the camera reads.

Fancy pants metering isn't that much different. It just uses a bunch of different meter points and makes a programmed decision.

Certainly, we're all talking about spot metering here, right???

 

[MTVision]

Is this accurate, really?! Because it seriously goes against what I've been taught, and I am just not really seeing how it would work.

When you meter off of something with a spot meter, you're getting only the light reflected light that bounces back into the camera. The camera doesn't know anything at all about the source or how bright it is, only what is reflected.

Traditionally, you'd meter off a particular feature and "place" it in the tonal range where it belongs, starting at middle grey, which the meter is calibrated: Zone 5, 50% greyscale, level 127, 18% (whatever the hell that means) - whatever you want to call it, and providing more exposure or less exposure depending on how the photographer chooses to 'render' it. For most Caucasian skin, you'd stop up once to Zone 6, 75% greyscale, level 192 - whatever, for the very dark skin colors of some African races, two stops under from what the camera reads.

Fancy pants metering isn't that much different. It just uses a bunch of different meter points and makes a programmed decision.

Certainly, we're all talking about spot metering here, right???

What did I write that was so incorrect?

 

[unpopular]

Hey Megan- I didn't mean to imply anything, it's just that previous posts in this thread thoroughly confused me, and what you're saying here confirms those replies. You may very well be correct, I'm not in on the latest technology, and I know NOTHING about Nikon metering. When I wrote that, I didn't mean to be snarky or sarcastic. I really am befuddled.

Specifically it's these comments that you said which confuse me:

You put your focal point on what you want to meter off (like your kids skin) press the shutter halfway - adjust shutter speed and aperture until the meter is around or on 0.

If you meter off skin the skin will be properly exposed.

I've always thought that the "proper" rendering of an exposure using reflectance metering depends on the amount of light which the subject reflects back into the camera, however, all that a meter can do is tell you if it matches some specific reference: the so-called 18%, "middle" grey. For some skin tones, an uncompensated exposure (dialed in at zero) would be correct. Hispanics with a darker complexion or a Black subject with with a lighter complexion might render 'properly' at Zone 5. But skin tones which are lighter, say a Scandanavian subject, would be at zone 6, or one stop above what the meter says, while very dark skin colors at Zone 3, two stops below. The same can go for, say, concrete and asphalt or the light colored beach with the dark colored ocean...

Darrel seemed to be implying that is not the case any longer - at least not the case with modern Nikon cameras. What Darrel was saying had me skeptical - but now you're making similar assertions, so I just don't know what to think, except for many you guys are not using spot metering and the camera is making more informed decisions?

 

[MTVision]

Hey Megan- I didn't mean to imply anything, it's just that previous posts in this thread thoroughly confused me, and what you're saying here confirms those replies. You may very well be correct, I'm not in on the latest technology, and I know NOTHING about Nikon metering. When I wrote that, I didn't mean to be snarky or sarcastic. I really am befuddled.

Specifically it's these comments that you said which confuse me:

You put your focal point on what you want to meter off (like your kids skin) press the shutter halfway - adjust shutter speed and aperture until the meter is around or on 0.

If you meter off skin the skin will be properly exposed.

I've always thought that the "proper" rendering of an exposure using reflectance metering depends on the amount of light which the subject reflects back into the camera, however, all that a meter can do is tell you if it matches some specific reference: the so-called 18%, "middle" grey. For some skin tones, an uncompensated exposure (dialed in at zero) would be correct. Hispanics with a darker complexion or a Black subject with with a lighter complexion might render 'properly' at Zone 5. But skin tones which are lighter, say a Scandanavian subject, would be at zone 6, or one stop above what the meter says, while very dark skin colors at Zone 3, two stops below. The same can go for, say, concrete and asphalt or the light colored beach with the dark colored ocean...

Darrel seemed to be implying that is not the case any longer - at least not the case with modern Nikon cameras. What Darrel was saying had me skeptical - but now you're making similar assertions, so I just don't know what to think, except for many you guys are not using spot metering and the camera is making more informed decisions?

Ok - I'm tired and confused but.....

That way I've understood everything is that when using spot metering you trying to get a correct exposure for that one area. I guess it wouldn't always be the correct exposure but that would be where experience comes in, right? Like you said - a Scandanavian subject would probably be one stop above what the meter says.

I use spot metering and I am fairly new to all this. I am just going on things I have read in books, online and what I have heard here.

There was a post about metering off the sky and I said pretty much the same exact thing, except replacing skin with sky, and I was told that I was correct by 2 people. I've also heard and read about metering off the grass and your own hand when taking portraits. So, now I am confused!

 

[Krazy]

If she can manually focus accurately I'd guess she is using a very narrow aperture because it's harder than hell to do. In most cases the only time you choose manual focus over auto is for macro photography.

Thats not true, there are lots of people out there that like to manually focus then just use a auto focus. By doing so it lets you play on what part of the image you want to be sharper. Just like I hate using a flash. very seldomly do I ever use a flash unless I'm taking pictures of something that might not be able to stay still long enough(like my kids). I just don't like the way a flash against an object looks at times...(sorry off topic of OP)

 

[kshapero]

Interesting thread.
My meterless camera

 

[MTVision]

If she can manually focus accurately I'd guess she is using a very narrow aperture because it's harder than hell to do. In most cases the only time you choose manual focus over auto is for macro photography.

Thats not true, there are lots of people out there that like to manually focus then just use a auto focus. By doing so it lets you play on what part of the image you want to be sharper. Just like I hate using a flash. very seldomly do I ever use a flash unless I'm taking pictures of something that might not be able to stay still long enough(like my kids). I just don't like the way a flash against an object looks at times...(sorry off topic of OP)

You can choose what part of the image you want to be "sharper" with autofocusing as well. Manual focus is hard - a lot harder than autofocus especially when you have a crappy viewfinder like those in the NIkons d3000, d3100, d5000, d5100.

When you say flash - do you mean your pop-up flash? Is so, yeah that makes the subject look horrid. But, bounced flash and off camera flash can make beautiful photos if used properly. If you put a clear tupperware dish over your pop-up it won't make the image look as harsh or use a piece of toilet paper! Sounds weird but it works.

 

[Krazy]

You can choose what part of the image you want to be "sharper" with autofocusing as well. Manual focus is hard - a lot harder than autofocus especially when you have a crappy viewfinder like those in the NIkons d3000, d3100, d5000, d5100.

When you say flash - do you mean your pop-up flash? Is so, yeah that makes the subject look horrid. But, bounced flash and off camera flash can make beautiful photos if used properly. If you put a clear tupperware dish over your pop-up it won't make the image look as harsh or use a piece of toilet paper! Sounds weird but it works.

Funny you mention the D300 since that is what i am using..LOL
I think it makes it more fun to manually focus. I also am using a telephoto that I have for my Nikon D70 that does not auto focus on the D3000.

Yes the popup flash, but I also have a flash that can be mounted and or set anywhere in the room set off via remote. I for some strange reason just dont like it... I will give the tupperware a try for giggle to see what it does.. thanks

 

[MTVision]

You can choose what part of the image you want to be "sharper" with autofocusing as well. Manual focus is hard - a lot harder than autofocus especially when you have a crappy viewfinder like those in the NIkons d3000, d3100, d5000, d5100.

When you say flash - do you mean your pop-up flash? Is so, yeah that makes the subject look horrid. But, bounced flash and off camera flash can make beautiful photos if used properly. If you put a clear tupperware dish over your pop-up it won't make the image look as harsh or use a piece of toilet paper! Sounds weird but it works.

Funny you mention the D300 since that is what i am using..LOL
I think it makes it more fun to manually focus. I also am using a telephoto that I have for my Nikon D70 that does not auto focus on the D3000.

Yes the popup flash, but I also have a flash that can be mounted and or set anywhere in the room set off via remote. I for some strange reason just dont like it... I will give the tupperware a try for giggle to see what it does.. thanks

I have the d5100 thats why I said it - plus I knew what you camera you used from your profile. It like manually focusing too but not with children. I'm not that good at it. Use the toilet paper instead of the tupperware first. It actually works. I'll post an example if you want (i'll start a new thread though)! I've never done the tupperware thing. Have you played with your other flash alot? I like it because if you don't have the prettiest background you can make it dark - even during the day! I have 2 flashes but don't use them that often because I'm just learning but I've seen some AMAZING photos taken with mounted speedlights and OCF!

 

[unpopular]

Manual focus is hard - a lot harder than autofocus especially when you have a crappy viewfinder like those in the NIkons d3000, d3100, d5000, d5100.

WHY THE EFF DON'T THEY PUT A MICROPRISM ON THE FOCUS SCREEN FOR BLOODY HELL SAKE?!!?!! Dim, crappy, small viewfinder: lets omit the microprism. Great effin' idea. Would it REALLY cost that much more??? GRRR!!!!

But my A350 does provide AF Confirmation in MF mode that works pretty well. My Contax RX had an awesome focus confirm, kind of worked like the light meter, when it was more out of focus in one direction or another these little dots would light up. I loved that camera, all six pounds of it. With my Canon 35/2 concave, I'm finally feeling like my wimpy plastic a350 has enough weight

Megan - I wrote you a novel in PM. I'll summarize here tomorrow.

 

[vtf]

Each person will give you a different view point, no more valid than the other. Read your manual, practice whats in it from front to back, and you will pick up your likes and dislikes. Read "Understanding Exposure". Some like auto focus some don't, etc. ect. ect.
Your other post shows you are starting to move forward but there is a lot ahead of you. Chin up, smile and practice what you read..Lastly, don't be afraid of flash, it can make life easier.

 

[KmH]

WHY THE EFF DON'T THEY PUT A MICROPRISM ON THE FOCUS SCREEN FOR BLOODY HELL SAKE?!!?!! Dim, crappy, small viewfinder: lets omit the microprism. Great effin' idea. Would it REALLY cost that much more??? GRRR!!!!

.

It's not about cost. It's about the fact that it's not often needed.

KatzEye™ Optics - Custom Focusing Screens Oops. They make microprism focus screens for just about every brand of camera, except Sony.

 

[AMOMENT]

Everyone has been SOOOO helpful! (LOVE TO YOU ALL!) lol.
vtf: always so positive and encouraging. Thanks!
I'm getting it. So you would basically want to meter off of something if you want that SPECIFIC something to be properly exposed for....correct? If I meter off of someone's skin then I am adjusting the proper exposure for that. I then recompose and focus on "whatever" and shoot! If I want the sky exposed a certain way than I would meter off of the sky. etc., etc. because although proper exposure can be obtained by just focusing on your subject and metering off of that, if you want ideal exposure of something, than you more than often will need to meter off of a color or contrast that might get 'lost in the sauce" lol, so to speak.
Adding to that, is it possible or just as effective to use a histogram. I have come to like using them. I take a sample pic, interpret the histogram and then adjust accordingly. The histogram only represents the exposure. If the climax is in the center, then you are properly exposed. To the left; underexposed and visa versa.
If for some reason my photo is looking to bluish than I may want to move the RGB curser towards the warmer side right? Colopr and exposure are indirectly related.
P.S.: GETTING THE BOOK TOMORROW!