TomDart opened this issue on Jan 16, 2006 ยท 13 posts
TomDart posted Mon, 16 January 2006 at 7:37 PM
tvernuccio posted Tue, 17 January 2006 at 1:33 AM
thanks, Tom! :) i also use spot metering most of the time now. Yes, there IS significant differences in the images depending on where you meter. i guess where we meter depends on how we want our image to look. when i said i just kinda feel my way around blindly i guess what i meant was i just meter based on what looks right to my eye. is that what you do too? my cam also has exposure lock but i forget to use it most of the time. i wish i didn't forget stuff. when you're shooting landscape shots do you still spot meter? i am. my understanding (which may be wrong) is that with zone metering we do want to spot meter. am i understanding that correctly? basically if we're shooting snow we overexpose by a stop or two. if we're shooting black, we underexpose by a stop or two? what else am i missing Tom? anyway...that's all i can articulate right now. i'm exhausted...worked tons of hours the past couple of days and gotten too little sleep. night, Tom...and thanks so much again! :)
LostPatrol posted Tue, 17 January 2006 at 5:10 AM
A difficult scene to meter anyway. I have a question though. Is that spot meter realty spot meter? Sorry I am not nor trying to be pedantic, on my camera Canon 20D spot metering is not available the closest is has is partial, which is 9% at center of frame, as opposed to my 1V film body which has a 1% spot metering mode. With canon only the 1D series and 5D have true spot as far as I know.
TomDart posted Tue, 17 January 2006 at 7:22 AM
Lostpatrol, According to the Nikon manual, the spot is approximately 1% of the frame. "Center weighted" metering is different, however, with three choices of diameter and I assume still "averages" the full frame while giving precedence to the area selected as "center weighted". If 1% fits the definition of spot, then the Nikon does spot meter. My handheld Sekonic meter has available reflected light adaptors for 1, 5 and 10, while the one that comes with the meter is 54. If I have done the math correctly, 1 degree is close to 1/2% while 5 degrees is close to 3%. What would you consider needed to define a spot function as "true" spot metering? In a large landscape, for instance, 1 % of frame can be a considerable area of physical landscape while still only 1% of the picture frame being shot. I would think 1% would be adequate and not too large in most scenes I encounter. Sheila, I can tell you how I "generally" meter a scene but not more on the Zone system. Will be back...work calls now. Tom.
TomDart posted Tue, 17 January 2006 at 7:37 AM
Sheila, I know you didn't need the example images I posted but thought that might be useful to any readers who for some reason or the other have not used "spot" metering. I have learned a bunch here but know my bucket is only a few spoonfuls full so far! LOL. Tom.
LostPatrol posted Tue, 17 January 2006 at 8:02 AM
Hi Tom Thanks for answering my question. The Canon has: Partial 9% (so a large spot) not averaged. Center weighted average and Evaluate (same sort of thing as Nikons matrix I think) I had heard that the Nikon had spot metering option, (something that Canon IMO should offer on their prosumer bodies) It really depends on the entire scene what I use but usually partial 9% (best in camera option I have as far as spot metering goes) other than that I take an incident reading with a hand held meter and usually shoot in manual. Of course for studio work I meter each light individually and shoot manually, so not having a spot doesnt matter. As I understand it spot is 1-3% at least that how it is on the high end Canon bodies, like you say even 1% of a landscape is quite a large area.
Message edited on: 01/17/2006 08:09
TwoPynts posted Tue, 17 January 2006 at 8:02 AM
Great example not only for Sheila, but for all of us. Thanks Tom.
Kort Kramer - Kramer Kreations
tvernuccio posted Tue, 17 January 2006 at 8:55 AM
tom, your images showing those examples were VERY helpful! Did i say they weren't???? oh gosh, if i did then i owe u a HUGE apology!!! reinforces just how important it is to meter in the right place. i never really know where to meter. i just kinda go by what i see. anyway...again...your examples Did help me. i'm so sorry if what i said made you think otherwise. i was so sleepy when i wrote that last night. and i just found out that Tedz was given the BOOT from RR and i was steaming mad. i guess my post didn't convey my gratitude to you, and i'm so sorry for that. :( Please forgive!!!!! pretty please!!! :)
LostPatrol posted Tue, 17 January 2006 at 11:02 AM
Shelia it is always best where possible to meter from a mid tone (or gray card if you have one) as I think pic 1 illustrates.
TomDart posted Tue, 17 January 2006 at 7:50 PM
tvernuccio posted Tue, 17 January 2006 at 11:31 PM
Tom, phew i thought maybe i had upset you or that my tone didn't come across the way i intended. Nah...don't be silly, Tom...your post didn't sound like you were talking down to me. :) you are a very nice person and a gentleman, and you were just trying to help me 'cause i said i feel like i'm groping in the dark when it comes to spot metering. anyway, no...we don't have a hand meter yet. i use spot metering on my digital cam, and kemal meters the same way. i ran into some problems over the summer when i was metering differently. when i went back to spot metering, my images started looking more the way i wanted. tom, i believe with my cam it meters a rectangular area. Simon/Tom...i'm not sure what the percentage is with my cam either. it doesn't say in my manual. i might have to dig a bit on the web to find that info. Simon, i don't have a gray card. i probably need to do that. thanks for the advice. :) now if i could only get composition down...sigh. dunno why that's so damn hard for me! oh well. thanks so much again, Tom, for taking the time to help me by posting those pictures and sharing your expertise. and thank you, too, Simon! :)
TomDart posted Wed, 18 January 2006 at 7:22 AM
I do have and sometimes use a gray card. Around here, the only kind I found was the cardboard versions, a pack of 3 for about $8. The salesman ask if I only wanted one pack! Apparently, these cardboard ones are seen as something certain to wear out or be damaged. A while back someone posted about a more costly but durable plastic material card. I do not recall the brand name but it was not available anywhere in my area.
tvernuccio posted Wed, 18 January 2006 at 10:19 AM
i can imagine the cardboard ones would wear out, especially if you are shooting in conditions which are anything less than dry. i might have to try using a gray card. might really help. i'm sure the camera shop we go to has them. thanks, tom! :)