Dealing With Bright Midday Sun

[AB26]

This conversation is going in circles. Of course the photographer has something to evaluate. Your camera has no idea what you are aiming it at or what exposure you want.

No Dan, it is because you think in circles. I made it clear that I do evaluation of the scene and subject even before I point my camera. I must be very fortunate that my Nikon actually knows what I am pointing it at, especially when using SPOT METERING.

That is why, for example, cameras will almost always underexpose scenes with a lot of snow--the cameras don't know that the large area of snow is supposed to be at least one, often two EV lighter than neutral.

No, it is not the camera underexposing it is the IBM that does not know how to use the metering system, what mode to use and what that AE-L button on the back of the camera is used for.

Why do you think cameras come with exposure compensation?

That feature only makes sense once the IBM has learned how to read and interpret the information supplied by the histogram. Adjusting EC from doing an evaluation of the shot by only looking at the image on that little screen on the back of the camera is like shooting in the dark “mog dit troffe”. You need to know why you are applying EC.

John is right that the most complex metering modes, often called evaluative, do more than calculate a weighted average. Still, they are not always right.

It is not only Centre Evaluative metering mode that is a complex metering system, it is all of the metering systems that are very sophisticated. It is up to you, the photographer, to understand the different modes and how to use it. I can guarantee you, once you have found out how the system works and how to use it, you will not have to use EC to shoot in snow.

If they were, you could just put your camera into evaluative mode and leave it there. Try it for a few weeks.

You should try it. You will learn lots about dynamic range and the Zone System if you do that.

[AB26]

Andre maybe you could explain to me why some pro photographers would use a hand held light meter like the Sekonic L-758DR to take a light reading instead of as you say, "trust those clever Japanese engineers to build a camera making it possible for me to get the best results by using the technology build into the camera I use." We are talking of spot metering using the camera vs spot metering using a hand held meter, if the in camera is so good why would they waste $650.00 CDN on something that the camera can do it's self.

Cheers: Allan

Allan:

You are way off track!

The discussion is not about in camera metering systems compared to hand held light meters.

Have you seen the shot of the Tiger? Do you really think anybody would be stupid enough to enter the Tiger’s enclosure to take a light reading? I am neither that brave nor that stupid! Thank you but I would rather trust my in camera light meter.

I doubt that any Professional Wildlife Photographer ever uses a Sekonic L-758 DR in the field.

Are you suggesting Andrew should have rowed to shore, take a light reading, get back in his boat, row back to the appropriate spot and then take the shot?

What would you prefer to use: the f16 rule or the in camera metering system?

[Polar01]

Andre I take it that you did not watch the link provided, for if you did, you would know that you do not have to enter the tiger's enclosure to take spot metered reading of the brightest area on the animal itself or have to row ashore. This would have been clear to you when they took a spot meter reading with the hand held meter off the lighthouse that was over 150ft for where they were setup and standing.

Cheers: Allan

[DanK]

It is not only Centre Evaluative metering mode that is a complex metering system, it is all of the metering systems that are very sophisticated.

Not on my cameras. The only metering method that is more complicated than a weighted averaging is evaluative. Clearly stated in the manuals. center weighted is not evaluative, btw, at least on my Canon bodies.

You should try it. You will learn lots about dynamic range and the Zone System if you do that.

How would one learn anything about the zone system by using a metering system that uses a complex algorithm to create a composite of the zones? A good way to learn about the zone system is to use spot metering so that one can evaluate the exposure for specific zones. For example: pick the brightest area in which one wants to retain detail. Spot meter off that, and open up two stops.

BTW, I don't have to use EC for snow, because I know that reflective metering will give me the wrong exposure. I spot-meter off the snow and open up two stops. That is usually about what I want.

[Mike Buckley]

Have you seen the shot of the Tiger? Do you really think anybody would be stupid enough to enter the Tiger’s enclosure to take a light reading? I am neither that brave nor that stupid!...Are you suggesting Andrew should have rowed to shore, take a light reading, get back in his boat, row back to the appropriate spot and then take the shot?

For me, you lost all credibility with those comments, Andre. That's because they indicate to me that it's more important for you to feel as if you have "won" your argument with Allan than to learn from him or to learn about the product, the Sekonic L-758DR, that you're discussing and the advantages it might provide you. If it is as important as you have regularly claimed for you to get everything right in the camera, I would think you would be strongly considering whether the product could help you achieve your goals and that you would be bending over backwards to thank Allan for mentioning the meter and others like it.

It would behoove you to look up at least the most basic information about the meter before making such dogmatic comments about it. They show your ignorance about an area of photography in which you're claiming to have a reasonable command of the practicalities.

I'm not mentioning this to beat you up. Instead, as in the case earlier in the thread when you incorrectly claimed that the histogram indicated no clipping, I'm concerned about the beginning photographers following along who would be inclined to believe your statements purely because of the strength in which you make them.

[Mike Buckley]

a hand held light meter like the Sekonic L-758DR

Thanks for mentioning that, Allan. I briefly scanned the manufacturer's information about it and had no idea that the capability of light meters had advanced so far. Even if that's not far by the standard of informed photographers, for someone as ignorant of handheld light meters as I am, it sure does seem like they have come a very long way since the last time (albeit decades ago) that I used one.

[Polar01]

Mike what I really found interesting was not the spot metering of the bright area of the lighthouse, but what they said afterwards about the meter converting it to middle grey, then using the zone system where middle grey is zone 5. That would mean that you could open up the exposure 3 stops and only be in zone 8 leaving room in post of an extra stop. That is what I found most interesting, I knew that but until then did not put it all together in a neat package that my mind could wrap itself around.

Cheers: Allan

[William W]

. . . I'm concerned about the beginning photographers following along who would be inclined to believe your statements purely because of the strength in which you make them.

Me too.

Of course it is a viable possibility that this is indeed the motive: or to convince himself; or both.

WW

[AB26]

Andre I take it that you did not watch the link provided, for if you did, you would know that you do not have to enter the tiger's enclosure to take spot metered reading of the brightest area on the animal itself or have to row ashore. This would have been clear to you when they took a spot meter reading with the hand held meter off the lighthouse that was over 150ft for where they were setup and standing.

Cheers: Allan

Allan,

From the Sekonic website:

"L-758DR DigitalMaster
What moves the L-758DR DigitalMaster to the head of the class? It's the only meter that can be calibrated to read light the way your particular camera system reads light. “

“Reflected Light Spot Metering
The Sekonic L-758DR incorporates a precise 1-degree, reflected light spot meter. Reflected light metering tells you about the subject. Different from incident light metering that produces readings only for the middle of your camera's exposure range, reflected light metering can also show you where the edges are. The key to working with the L-758DR's spot meter is knowing the dynamic range of your camera."

Canon and Nikon engineers are leading, Sekonic engineers are following. Why?
Do I need a Sekonic L-758DR?

[AB26]

For me, you lost all credibility with those comments, Andre. That's because they indicate to me that it's more important for you to feel as if you have "won" your argument with Allan than to learn from him or to learn about the product, the Sekonic L-758DR, that you're discussing and the advantages it might provide you. If it is as important as you have regularly claimed for you to get everything right in the camera, I would think you would be strongly considering whether the product could help you achieve your goals and that you would be bending over backwards to thank Allan for mentioning the meter and others like it.

It is COMMON SENSE that you would need to enter the Tiger’s enclosure to take an incident light reading and any meter that allows you to get a light reading without entering the enclosure has to be a meter reading reflected light.

It would behoove you to look up at least the most basic information about the meter before making such dogmatic comments about it. They show your ignorance about an area of photography in which you're claiming to have a reasonable command of the practicalities..

With regard to my ignorance about light and light readings: I can post a few images to prove to you how ignorant I really am. The Tiger shot is one of them. You insist on using Matrix metering. In Matrix you would only get the silhouette of a Tiger against a blue sky.

I'm not mentioning this to beat you up. Instead, as in the case earlier in the thread when you incorrectly claimed that the histogram indicated no clipping, I'm concerned about the beginning photographers following along who would be inclined to believe your statements purely because of the strength in which you make them.

Have you checked out the histogram of the Tiger shot. I asked William to please tell me what his analysis is but to date he has avoided my questions. WHY? See how the histogram is “clipping” on the left and the right. Is the image under- or over exposed?

Please, for the sake of beginners, like myself, explain the “clipping” in the histogram of the Tiger shot and how to avoid it to get “perfect” exposure. It will also be appreciated if you can explanation to Andrew (the OP), and for the sake of other beginners, why you and William insist that his (Andrew’s) image is UNDER exposed. Would it be because he (the OP) is ignorant with regard to the f16 rule?

[Mike Buckley]

Andre,

Your statements are so riddled with inaccuracies and contradictions that it is truly sad. It's clear to me that there would be no benefit to further take the time to respond to them. Instead, I leave it to others to do their own fact checking and to decide for themselves whether you are to be believed. I am now ending this discussion with you.

[William W]

. . . It will also be appreciated if you can explanation to Andrew (the OP), and for the sake of other beginners, why you and William insist that his (Andrew’s) image is UNDER exposed. . .

I have already so explained.
The explanation is contained in Post #4.
Here is the explanation again, for your particular request, (bold for my emphasis):

“One does not need to use the TTL Meter. That "scene" is EV 15, meaning for “the scene” the “correct exposure” is F/16 @ 1/200s @ ISO200. So therefore I calculate that for “the scene” you are about 1 stop UNDERexposed.

(the "scene" refers to the "whole image" and the "correct exposure" for it as a whole, that is to say so you can have all the highlights and all the shadows exposed "optimally" - this is NOT the correct exposure for any single skin tone - because some skin tones are in SHADOW and would, need more exposure for that exposure on the skin tones to be "correct".”


However that might not be an explanation which is suitable to you.

If that is the case, then I categorically state that I am at a loss to explain any further or in a more articulate fashion that explanation, because it occurs to me that it be that either one cannot understand the written language of English or alternatively one does not have a grasp on the basic fundamentals of Photography in respect of the understanding of the EV of a Typical Scene or perhaps one may just be too stubborn to move from one’s position of posting garbage for seemingly the purpose of promoting ignorance and misinformation.

Therefore, after answering for a second time the direct question which I have been accused of ‘not answering’ I also execute my right of choosing to withdraw from this conversation with Andre Burger: as it occurs to me that there is no purpose to continue the conversation with him, except that purpose be wasting my valuable time and, moreover, Burger’s purpose is to do exactly that.

WW

[AB26]

Me too.

Of course it is a viable possibility that this is indeed the motive:
WW

A rather interesting comment.

William, you claim to be a teacher of Photography? You insist that the f16 rule is more accurate than the Spot Metering system in a modern camera. Makes me wonder?

Best thing about Photography is, you can always put your money where your mouth is. But you need to produce the goods to prove your point!

or to convince himself; or both.

No, come on William, I need not do that! I simply go out and convince myself by doing this:
Shot under SA direct sun in midday during mid summer very near to where the SKA is build. Sommer shot in Jpeg! Do you know what that means?



OOPS! Forgot! I did not apply the f16 rule, the in camera light metering system was trusted.

[William W]

JPEG SOOC > > >


***

SLIDESHOW of THREE IMAGES - View the all LARGE by double clicking on each image, image one begins here -


http://photo.net/photodb/photo?photo...199270&size=lg

WW

[AB26]

If that is the case, then I categorically state that I am at a loss to explain any further or in a more articulate fashion that explanation, because it occurs to me that it be that either one cannot understand the written language of English or alternatively one does not have a grasp on the basic fundamentals of Photography in respect of the understanding of the EV of a Typical Scene or perhaps one may just be too stubborn to move from one’s position of posting garbage for seemingly the purpose of promoting ignorance and misinformation.

Therefore, after answering for a second time the direct question which I have been accused of ‘not answering’ I also execute my right of choosing to withdraw from this conversation with Andre Burger: as it occurs to me that there is no purpose to continue the conversation with him, except that purpose be wasting my valuable time and, moreover, Burger’s purpose is to do exactly that.

WW

Thank you William.
That was a nice explanation. Now I understand what you are saying.

The f16 rule will give you OPTIMAL exposure under specific lighting conditions. If for any reason an image is not OPTIMALLY exposed it is either under- or over exposed? But that would lead to another question: what is EC for? It would mean all images where EC was applied are either under- or over exposed.

Maybe, for the sake of all of us beginners, we should get a little more clarity about under- and over exposure. When is an image under exposed and when is it over exposed?

Is the Tiger shot under exposed or is it over exposed?

PS: Remember the ANGER MANAGEMENT William. Watch your blood pressure!

[AB26]

JPEG SOOC > > >


WW

William,

Keep your cool please.

Look at this image. By just looking at it I can tell you that the reflections of the sun in the apples and oranges has “clipped” to the right. The black areas and probably the shadow, has “clipped” to the left.

It is not an OPTIMALLY exposed image, is it? Is it possible to regain any detail in the reflections I am talking about?

Sorry William, Andre Burger is very stupid and stupid people take a long time to understand things. Worst of all is that stupid people keep asking questions. Therefore I ask too many questions.

[Polar01]

Glad to see that you went to the web site. Now the statement that you highlighted, so those that have not gone to the site means that this light meter is able to accurately profile the characteristics of your camera to determine its true native ISO, dynamic range and clipping points. So if you have say a Nikon D4, Canon 5DmkIII, and a PhaseOne that you use depending on the situation needed you just tell the meter which camera you are using and you are ready to go.
Now a D600 on spot meter reads an area of 1.5% of the frame, up close that can be a nice small spot to read off of, however if some distance off that bright spot can very small and that 1.5% of frame much greater than size of brightest area.
In the link that I suggested to be viewed, I believe that they stated that you would need at least a 200mm lens for the camera to be able to get a close spot meter reading compared to what the meter could do at same distance as they were using much wider angle lens compared to a 200mm.
Now to your second last line, at one time cameras did not have light metering systems, want to guess who did, yea light meters made by companies like Sekonic. People and companies that shot film and slide were those using them, try shooting 10,000 slide in a day for a fashion shoot and not getting the lighting right at least with film you can work with it, slide garbage. So it would appear that the light meter engineers were leading, then the "Canon and Nikon Engineers" said we can put that into the camera, they did, not as good as the meter at that time, now with digital they have greatly improved, as the camera is all electronic. Now are the two methods equal, I do not know but likely very close, however, well the camera tries to do everything, the light meter only one thing (meter light). So back to your statement, I think that you put the cart before the horse on this one.
Now your last line, "Do I need a Sekonic L-758DR", plain answer no, the reason at this time I do not think that is will raise the level of my work for the cost. Now in the future as I hopefully get better as I believe we all want to do, it maybe a tool needed to improve my capturing of the light.
This has been an interesting post, the OP was not happy with the result of their image and wondered if there was something different they could have done by way of metering differently. There were many relies, one thing that seemed to come through is at many of us put blind trust in our gear instead of using experience gained, to take what our gear is telling us and made adjustment to get the best image we can.

Cheers: Allan

P.S. The tiger image is a nice shot, to me personally it is under exposed, I tried to copy it down to my system, however either my system or CIC would not allow me to do so. That maybe the reason other have not been able to comment of it as you have requested.

[William W]

. . . This has been an interesting post, the OP was not happy with the result of their image and wondered if there was something different they could have done by way of metering differently. There were many [replies], one thing that seemed to come through is [that] many of us put blind trust in our gear instead of using experience gained, to take what our gear is telling us and made adjustment to get the best image we can.

+1

I'm hearing you.

WW

[ajohnw]

JPEG SOOC > > >


***

SLIDESHOW of THREE IMAGES - View the all LARGE by double clicking on each image, image one begins here -


http://photo.net/photodb/photo?photo...199270&size=lg

WW

The only problem with arguments around this area Bill is the camera meter will take account of colour. No digital camera can function correctly unless it does that due to the colour channel scaling factors. In other words if red is spot metered it needs to meter to "mid red" accounting for the red channel scaling factor. If blue to mid blue which will have a different scaling factor. Same for green.

As I mentioned earlier the OP's real problem is not specifically metering it's more along the lines of PP. I doubt if he actually spot metered what he thought he had more likely it what ever it was and some other parts of the scene. What ever processing he used the result isn't too bad to take further especially from full sized images.

It's interesting that the sunny 16 rule can work but I'm not so sure about assuming 6000K. Whites for instance can vary a lot and still be white plus unless specifically calibrated camera are not well known for recording colour accurately anyway.

John
-

[AB26]

Glad to see that you went to the web site......................................
Cheers: Allan

P.S. The tiger image is a nice shot, to me personally it is under exposed, I tried to copy it down to my system, however either my system or CIC would not allow me to do so. That maybe the reason other have not been able to comment of it as you have requested.

Allan,

Sure, the Sekonic guys have developed fantastic technology. A precise 1 degree spot. In practice it would mean you will be exposing for a very tiny bright or dark dot and under expose or over expose the rest of the image. Think about it!

Why would they want their meter to read light like your camera system reads light? Are they not following the camera engineers?

I appreciate that in the days of film, light meters were the only way to go and the f16 rule would give an experienced Photographer a very good idea how to set up his/her camera. We are now living in the age of digital and new technology is developed every day to make things easier for us. Less Photographers are using hand held meters and it must affect the profits of a company like Sekonic.

The Sekonic engineers have probably seen what the camera engineers are developing and that hand held light meters were getting obsolete. The mere fact that they are changing to reflected light metering systems is proof of my suspicions. Why this diversion from incident light meters to reflective light meters?

I am not so sure the OP was looking to find another way of metering, he was asking advice as to how to deal with harsh direct sunny conditions. The argument is that he needs not make major changes to whatever he is doing, he is on the right track. Why try leading him astray with suggesting a different method of metering?

Allan, there is a bit of irony in this whole thread. I am the one opposed to “fixing” images in PP and I am also the one whom suggested he simply “fixes” the image in PP. I am really an idiot with PP but I think my rendition is a tad better than that of William (WW), (any case that is what I can see on my screen).

Think I have learned something right here on CiC in the last two years form all these “arguments”.

PS.: Thanks for the compliment but why do you have reason to believe the image is under exposed? It that what your screen tells you?
BTW it was shot in RAW. How far can you go wrong with exposure when shooting in RAW?