What's new

Spot metering difficulty

Someone once told me: "engage brain before opening mouth". Very sound advice. Equally applicable to photography, I would think, as in "engage brain before clicking shutter".

We need to slow down, to reflect, to ponder, to sense below the superficial surface to the deeper truths. Like slow cooking, which aims to reunite the act of food-making and eating with the communal teamwork that sustains the spirit while the food sustains the senses and the body, slow photography seeks to "see" beyond the obvious. I deliberately take most of my photos on a tripod (granted, I'm not a sports or event photographer). The process of identifying a scene, of framing it in the viewfinder, of selecting the appropriate lens and exposure, of checking the ambient light, etc., etc., etc., is deliberate in that I follow a sequence of steps with specific intent and with the aim not just of exposing an image, but to try and capture a feeling or an emotion. Those who do other creative arts (writing, making music, constructing wood furniture, painting and so on), often start with an idea, or a fragment of a thought, which they then work on over time to flesh out and to build up into something that has meaning. So why do we feel that we need to hurry the act of making a photograph? The speed of the shutter is not an imperative to us as to the maximum amount of time we should be devoting to something.

Through the photo club that I belong to, I have been fortunate to see the work of, and talk to many very accomplished photographers. They made me re-examine the way I approach photography because it was their preparation prior to the act of pressing the shutter, that revealed their attention to their craft, and to the superb understanding of the technicalities of their chosen medium. One photographer is a street photographer who shattered my illusion that his was a reactive process. No. He researches the location, goes there often until he is part of the local scenery and is accepted by the locals, waits for the right moment (the right light, the right person, the right juxtaposition). He told me that he'd never get the images without the preparation beforehand.

@jwbryson1: I've done photography for many years and have shot thousands of slides, pretty much all were properly exposed and properly focused because I learned to do that very early in the game. At a certain point, it becomes automatic. And as Big Mike noted, you don't need to be doing this on each shot - only when the light conditions change. If the conditions are stable, I work out the exposure range at the beginning, set it up manually, and then shoot until something changes. If conditions are variable, then it's either aperture priority or shutter priority, depending on whether DOF or action-freezing is more important. The point is to focus on the image, not the mechanics of making that image.
 
what made you choose that font Derrel?

I wrote that post in TextEdit, and then pasted it in...that was the font I was in...not really a conscious choice...
 
Thanks all.. wow - totally overwhelmed by all your responces and sometimes pointyles yet interesting chit chat! Im going to sit down and read all the responces carefully - I get it, I think i just have to learn to read my light better, and faster!
 
Try to stop thinking of exposure as something with specific outcomes, and start thinking of exposure as maximizing information where detail is needed, perhaps at the expense of where it is not.

You can place any region into any tonal zone by adjusting exposure. Whenever you dial in null with spot meter, that region will be rendered as middle grey, no matter if we see that region as highlights or shadows. Any region lighter than this metered region will be proportionately lighter. Any region that is darker than the metered region will be proportionately darker.

If the information you want is in the specular highlights, you could meter off this region. You could expose as the meter reads it, but you'd probably loose important detail is the shadows due to under exposure. Increasing exposure would cause the metered region to be lighter, and as a result more detail in the shadows becomes apparent. Stop up beyond the latitude of the camera, and you'll loose the detail you sought after in the hilights, but ample detail exists in the shadows.

By adjusting exposure you balance out how the scene is rendered based on what is most important to you.

Typically, what I do is I meter off the the brightest point in the scene and increase exposure by 4 3/4 EV, which is the outer limits of my camera's latitude, and adjust exposure in RAW processing. By doing this, I know I have captured the full range of the camera's capabilities while maximizing signal. I know that if there are any blocked up shadows (a very rare situation) the camera could not resolve them without blowing out highlights - since I've already metered off the brightest point and increased exposure to the outermost limits of it's abilities.

Being new to spot metering, I know that this concept might seem hard to wrap your head around, but as you get used to spot metering in manual mode it will very quickly make more sense.
 
Typically, what I do is I meter off the the brightest point in the scene and increase exposure by 4 3/4 EV, which is the outer limits of my camera's latitude, and adjust exposure in RAW processing. By doing this, I know I have captured the full range of the camera's capabilities while maximizing signal. I know that if there are any blocked up shadows (a very rare situation) the camera could not resolve them without blowing out highlights - since I've already metered off the brightest point and increased exposure to the outermost limits of it's abilities.

Do I understand you correctly? Are you saying you meter off of the brightest spot in the scene and then increase your exposure compensation by the maximum amount your camera allows, and then dial down the exposure in PP with Photoshop or LR3? Don't all the photos look completely blown OOC?
 
Well, essentially, but I'm not using EC, rather doing it in manual exposure.

When they are initially imported into the processor, they are very, very "thin" with low contrast and saturation. But no, once they are processed with a curve they are fine with ample shadow detail. All the detail is "there" it's just pushed up against the right end of the histogram. The trick is to ensure that no part of the exposure is clipped.
 
Well, essentially, but I'm not using EC, rather doing it in manual exposure.

When they are initially imported into the processor, they are very, very "thin" with low contrast and saturation. But no, once they are processed with a curve they are fine with ample shadow detail. All the detail is "there" it's just pushed up against the right end of the histogram. The trick is to ensure that no part of the exposure is clipped.

That's very interesting. I've read somewhere that it's better to start out OVERexposed and adjust left than it is to start out underexposed and adjust right. Adjusting right increases noise, at least that's what I have heard.

Does anybody else do this or is Unpopular completely NUTS??? :lmao:
 
When I started really concerning myself with how to expose under digital, I kind of approached it like b/w, metering off the shadows and processing for the highlights. But i quickly learned that without much care, you end up blowing the highlights.

If you meter off the darkest point in the image, where do you place it? You can go infinitely deep into shadows, buy the more exposure you provide for the shadows the closer to the upper end of the camera's latitude you'll end up until you blow out areas, which results in posterization and lost detail.

So, as I said before, if I meter off the highlights I know that the entire camera's latitude is being utilized. If anything in the shadows are clipped, then there isn't anything I could do about it without clipping highlights.

Doing it this way though does make exposure more situational-based, making exposing for available light obsolete. If for example the brightest zone in a scene is rendering at Zone 6, the exposure is going to be much greater than if the lightest object is at Zone 9, even if the light source is similar. If the brightest object is colored, I'll often cut exposure to prevent channel clipping.

And no. I don't think most people do this.
 
Last edited:
And to think, all this time, I've been using the WAG method of exposure determination!!!!!!
 
And to think, all this time, I've been using the WAG method of exposure determination!!!!!!

Similar to the SWAG method, I assume...
 
Try to stop thinking of exposure as something with specific outcomes, and start thinking of exposure as maximizing information where detail is needed, perhaps at the expense of where it is not.

You can place any region into any tonal zone by adjusting exposure. Whenever you dial in null with spot meter, that region will be rendered as middle grey, no matter if we see that region as highlights or shadows. Any region lighter than this metered region will be proportionately lighter. Any region that is darker than the metered region will be proportionately darker.

If the information you want is in the specular highlights, you could meter off this region. You could expose as the meter reads it, but you'd probably loose important detail is the shadows due to under exposure. Increasing exposure would cause the metered region to be lighter, and as a result more detail in the shadows becomes apparent. Stop up beyond the latitude of the camera, and you'll loose the detail you sought after in the hilights, but ample detail exists in the shadows.

By adjusting exposure you balance out how the scene is rendered based on what is most important to you.

Typically, what I do is I meter off the the brightest point in the scene and increase exposure by 4 3/4 EV, which is the outer limits of my camera's latitude, and adjust exposure in RAW processing. By doing this, I know I have captured the full range of the camera's capabilities while maximizing signal. I know that if there are any blocked up shadows (a very rare situation) the camera could not resolve them without blowing out highlights - since I've already metered off the brightest point and increased exposure to the outermost limits of it's abilities.

Being new to spot metering, I know that this concept might seem hard to wrap your head around, but as you get used to spot metering in manual mode it will very quickly make more sense.

That's an intriguing approach. I'm going to have to try it to see how it works for me. Of course, this means that pretty much every image will have to be postprocessed to get the maximum retention of information and image quality. Still, I really like the idea of placing the highlight with the detail at the highest point of the dynamic range. Thank you for the thought - although I will now have to really check the dynamic range on my camera.
 
I'd place specular at the highest point, just below clipping, and not the lightest point with detail, otherwise you'll get posterization when you try to redistribute the information along the curve. It's very important that you push everything up to the very limits without anything going over.

Sometimes you can get away with cases where the specular is very small with no falloff, but generally you'll want to avoid clipping entirely.
 
I suppose this is effectively "exposing to the right". On another forum I read a long thread on how to get proper exposure (in portraiture) by using the highlight (non-specular) on the person's face to fall on the 240 line on the histogram. Time to experiment.
 
I suppose this is effectively "exposing to the right".

Yep! But there really is no need to clip, at least not in camera. So I am not sure what the purpose of exposing for diffuse and placing at 240 instead of exposing for specular at just below 255 (8-bit).

Maybe if the object is very, very reflective? Even then, I'd meter off the specular and if the rest is too dark just minimally increase exposure.
 

Most reactions

New Topics

Back
Top Bottom