What is going on with my light meter?

[cgipson1]

Exif Data on #1

Do we need to teach a "PRO" like you how to adjust your EV?

View attachment 6322

 

[cgipson1]

I know you recently went PRO on your website.. and are now charging for your shoots! This is unbelievable!

#2 You have no clue how to use your meter... MOST LIKELY!

This is typically caused by either too much distance.. or by a NOOB bouncing the flash off the SKY... (my call on this one!)

Do we need to teach a "PRO" like you how to adjust your EV?

Hmmm...a string of put downs that would likely cause any person to leave a forum and never come back. TPF really needs to reconsider their definition of a "Supporting Member".

You haven't put up with the same nonsense from this "PROFESSIONAL" for the past six months or so... we have!

I also see that you haven't posted any photos to back up YOUR expertise, except for one in your very first post (which was deleted! ). You appear to only logon with this account to state an occasional opinion (usually related to someone else's opinion that you disagree with). I suspect you are one of the long time regulars.. that uses this account to say things you don't want to say in your regular account.

35 posts in four years..with no photos!

 

[tirediron]

Okay kids, let's stop the name-calling and finger-pointing please. Let's just assume that all of the images were throw-away images as she indicates earlier in the thread and that she's still learning? Mmmmmmkay?

 

[tirediron]

OP: There is nothing wrong with your camera's light meter, you simply aren't yet familiar enough with the intracies of metering and exposure to compensate for some of the more complex situations that arise. I would suggest picking up some books from the library, especially Peterson's "Understanding Exposure" and taking them, your camera manual, kids and gear into the back yard and working through this problem. These are VERY common situations, and someone who is charging for their work needs to be able to deal with them quickly and easily or is likely doomed to failure.

 

[IByte]

Firstly, lets talk about the topic of metering. Did you know that your camera is programmed to get incorrect exposures (in many situations)? That's right, the only time that getting to zero will give you an accurate exposure, is when you are metering on something that is middle grey. How to use a Grey Card ~ Mike Hodson Photography

So if your children have typical Caucasian skin tones (a guess based on your avatar) then for 'proper exposure', you would likely need to be at around +2/3 or +1 on your meter (when spot metering on the skin). So that may be part of your problem. As mentioned, you may also have your exposure compensation set to something negative, causing the images to be darker than you'd want. Nikon has a weird quirk in that you can actually set the EC when in manual mode, which just shifts the meter, which can lead to people being unaware that it's set at all.

But yes, we can't really diagnose the problem unless we can see the problem for ourselves.

If you're truly just using it for fill light, then it's OK to be on-camera with no diffuser. The key will be that you find a nice balance between the ambient light and the flash. If you don't use enough ambient and use too much flash, then that's where you get the deer in the headlights look.

Holy $@#$$% snacks that was very helpful, thanks Big Mike.

 

[cgipson1]

Okay kids, let's stop the name-calling and finger-pointing please. Let's just assume that all of the images were throw-away images as she indicates earlier in the thread and that she's still learning? Mmmmmmkay?

I edited my initial posts to make them a little more polite... Sorry for the harshness..

 

[AMOMENT]

It's all good I have thick skin Actually regarding 1 & 2 were not meant to have flash and it didn't fire because it wasn't set to. I was simply using it to figure out why my photos were so underexposed. I did "chimp it" and below you will see the results of me doing that. I do know that sometimes you do not want it to be at comple "0."

Listen we all have to make a living in this world. When people actually offer to pay me and like the photos that I'm not posting simply for experimental reasons, what fool would not accept? I have done a few shoots and people have been happy. It's that simple. In the photography world I'm sure this is pathetic and I respect that and yet, at the end of the day I have mouths to feed and something that people are willing and happy to pay me to do. When I do it, and my clients are happy. Everyone wins. No further discussion needed.

 

[AMOMENT]

Are you talking to me? Because first off, the only feedback I usually give is positive. Go look......

I don't know who you think I might be pretending to be but that is irrelevant to me at least.

 

[Vtec44]

Are you talking to me? Because first off, the only feedback I usually give is positive. Go look......

I don't know who you think I might be pretending to be but that is irrelevant to me at least.

Who are you talking to?? lol

 

[AMOMENT]

#1-3 were from the same day as the "light meter situation," same area, just a different child. Here I spot metered on the boy's face to expose right for his skin and used some fill flash for the background.


1. i939.photobucket.com/albums/ad236/energizero/5-3.jpg[/IMG]

2.

3.

4.

 

[MTVision]

Are you talking to me? Because first off, the only feedback I usually give is positive. Go look......

I don't know who you think I might be pretending to be but that is irrelevant to me at least.

I don't think that comment was directed at you. Make sure you exposure compensation is at 0. Also, depending on what you use to convert your raw photos, the in camera settings won't affect the raw image so they might look better on the screen vs your computer. Also, if active d-lighting is on and you use photoshop to convert your RAW files - it will actually be underexposed. Active d-lighting brightens the photo up but photoshop doesn't read that so the photo will be underexposed. If the meter was at 0 and it was still underexposed then adjust your settings so it goes above 0 to the positive side.

Using your histograms is much better then just looking at the picture viewed on the LCD.

 

[AMOMENT]

I cropped 1-3 a bit more than they are in the photos I actually used for sizing reasons.....

 

[AMOMENT]

lol I'm not so sure anymore. cgipson was commenting and saying that Graystar was the one who originally said whatever. I don't know.

 

[cgipson1]

Notice any difference in the skin tones?

View attachment 6344

 

[AMOMENT]

Megan, thanks! Yes, I do use active D lighting and shoot in RAW and that is probably why. I have learned to expose slightly to the positive side because of this I was just surprised HOW UNDEREXPOSED the photos were at "0." That was the premise for the original post.