would spot metering

[bribrius]

have corrected this photo? if so where would you meter.

View attachment 71216


im not always using the right metering at the right times. i think i need to nail this down a little better knowing how to judge looking at the frame.

 

[runnah]

All depends on what you want exposed correctly.

 

[bribrius]

View attachment 71218


another. lost all the detail under the bridge. if i wanted to save some of that detail, not all but some, to balance the photo better where would i be metering while not blowing out the water or losing all the shadows..

 

[bribrius]

All depends on what you want exposed correctly.

see that real high lighted area in the middle where the water pooled? its too highlighted the pic doesn't balance and detail in the water is lost. Least how i view it it is.

 

[runnah]

Well a polarizing filter is always good to have for any shots involving water and high sun.

In a wide shot like that the "all over" metering is best. Now if you had a defined subject you'd want to spot meter.

 

[480sparky]

I'm not sure what, exactly, you want to 'save'. What is incorrect in the first photo?

As for the second, you have totally black shadows and totally blown-out highlights. It may not be a metering issue as much as it's a scene with a dynamic range outside the capability of your camera to capture.

 

[pgriz]

When I'm in situations like yours, I spot meter the brightest part where I want detail, the darkest part that I want detail in and figure out the spread between the two. My camera has a practical dynamic range of about 7 although the specs claim 11 or so. Therefore, if the spread is greater than 7, I know I will either have blown highlights, or blocked shadows within the single exposure. Then I decide which is more important, and bias my exposure accordingly. If the range is 7 or less, then I usually place the highlight at 2.5 stops above the "normal" exposure, and this will usually give me brightness values in the 240-245 range (255 being pure color in any channel) in the final image.

If the image is static, then it may also be possible to use HDR techniques to squeeze much more scene dynamic range into the range the image can accommodate. If that doesn't work, then I add to my "need" for a camera with higher dynamic range.

Edit: I also have a handheld incident light meter which tells me what the exposure should be given the primary light source available. So that datum is part of what I use to select the "correct" exposure.

 

[Derrel]

An incident light meter that is calibrated to one's favored color slide film or digital sensor can allow one to meter and get an exposure that will "peg the highlights", and render them as BRIGHT, and then the shadows will "fall where they will fall". Of course, with today's wider sensor dynamic range, there **is** quite a good deal of shadow "recovery" or "shadow lifting" that is possible in post-processing. Today we have both the old tools, like the curves tool in Photoshop and Lightroom, as well as things like "digital fill light" that were developed a few years back, and which are now being replaced by EVEN BETTER,and more capable software tools.

 

[bribrius]

An incident light meter that is calibrated to one's favored color slide film or digital sensor can allow one to meter and get an exposure that will "peg the highlights", and render them as BRIGHT, and then the shadows will "fall where they will fall". Of course, with today's wider sensor dynamic range, there **is** quite a good deal of shadow "recovery" or "shadow lifting" that is possible in post-processing. Today we have both the old tools, like the curves tool in Photoshop and Lightroom, as well as things like "digital fill light" that were developed a few years back, and which are now being replaced by EVEN BETTER,and more capable software tools.

i try dlight. it seems to work better in bw than color but not so great in either. as i slide it up the scale and push it too far the photo deteriorates. in camera seems to have its limitations as well. guess i would prefer to make the highlights a little less bright and the darks a little less dark so i can capture the detail in as much as possible but i might be asking for too much here. in the bridge photo i bring up the dark under the bridge the water blows out. no win. i thought maybe spot metering from the beginning might start me off in a better position.

 

[bribrius]

When I'm in situations like yours, I spot meter the brightest part where I want detail, the darkest part that I want detail in and figure out the spread between the two. My camera has a practical dynamic range of about 7 although the specs claim 11 or so. Therefore, if the spread is greater than 7, I know I will either have blown highlights, or blocked shadows within the single exposure. Then I decide which is more important, and bias my exposure accordingly. If the range is 7 or less, then I usually place the highlight at 2.5 stops above the "normal" exposure, and this will usually give me brightness values in the 240-245 range (255 being pure color in any channel) in the final image.

If the image is static, then it may also be possible to use HDR techniques to squeeze much more scene dynamic range into the range the image can accommodate. If that doesn't work, then I add to my "need" for a camera with higher dynamic range.

Edit: I also have a handheld incident light meter which tells me what the exposure should be given the primary light source available. So that datum is part of what I use to select the "correct" exposure.

this was very helpful. it gives me a bearing to start from. i have spot metered, adjusted exposure, but never quite made that direct connection to dynamic range. i need to figure out my limits there. Thankyou

 

[pgriz]

When I'm in situations like yours, I spot meter the brightest part where I want detail, the darkest part that I want detail in and figure out the spread between the two. My camera has a practical dynamic range of about 7 although the specs claim 11 or so. Therefore, if the spread is greater than 7, I know I will either have blown highlights, or blocked shadows within the single exposure. Then I decide which is more important, and bias my exposure accordingly. If the range is 7 or less, then I usually place the highlight at 2.5 stops above the "normal" exposure, and this will usually give me brightness values in the 240-245 range (255 being pure color in any channel) in the final image.

If the image is static, then it may also be possible to use HDR techniques to squeeze much more scene dynamic range into the range the image can accommodate. If that doesn't work, then I add to my "need" for a camera with higher dynamic range.

Edit: I also have a handheld incident light meter which tells me what the exposure should be given the primary light source available. So that datum is part of what I use to select the "correct" exposure.

this was very helpful. it gives me a bearing to start from. i have spot metered, adjusted exposure, but never quite made that direct connection to dynamic range. i need to figure out my limits there. Thankyou

This is the thread where I experimented with my camera's dynamic range: http://www.thephotoforum.com/forum/...rmine-dynamic-range-camera-my-experiment.html. Hopefully, it will be useful for you.

 

[bribrius]

When I'm in situations like yours, I spot meter the brightest part where I want detail, the darkest part that I want detail in and figure out the spread between the two. My camera has a practical dynamic range of about 7 although the specs claim 11 or so. Therefore, if the spread is greater than 7, I know I will either have blown highlights, or blocked shadows within the single exposure. Then I decide which is more important, and bias my exposure accordingly. If the range is 7 or less, then I usually place the highlight at 2.5 stops above the "normal" exposure, and this will usually give me brightness values in the 240-245 range (255 being pure color in any channel) in the final image.

If the image is static, then it may also be possible to use HDR techniques to squeeze much more scene dynamic range into the range the image can accommodate. If that doesn't work, then I add to my "need" for a camera with higher dynamic range.

Edit: I also have a handheld incident light meter which tells me what the exposure should be given the primary light source available. So that datum is part of what I use to select the "correct" exposure.

this was very helpful. it gives me a bearing to start from. i have spot metered, adjusted exposure, but never quite made that direct connection to dynamic range. i need to figure out my limits there. Thankyou

This is the thread where I experimented with my camera's dynamic range: http://www.thephotoforum.com/forum/...rmine-dynamic-range-camera-my-experiment.html. Hopefully, it will be useful for you.

i think it will thanks. just read it. and im going to have to read it again to understand it all. But yes, it will.