Mental block about metering mode symbols

[Thornton]

I have a Canon dslr and at some point I took some shots using centre weighted metering when I intended to use evaluative. I think it was because I wasn’t wearing my glasses and so I just saw the symbol and misinterpreted it (as opposed to seeing the wording too). The problem is that Canon’s symbol seems counter-intuitive to me. Spot metering is represented by a spot in the middle of a frame, which is fine, but centre-weighted is just an empty frame. The symbol for evaluative looks like I expect centre weighted to look! From what I can see on the net, Nikon’s symbols look more logical. Incidentally, what is the likely effect on exposure of using the centre weighting rather than evaluative mode? When photographing landscapes I would expect the centre of most of my images to be probably darker than the average of the scene including the sky, and so I would have expected centre weighting to probably over expose somewhat, but if anything I think I get the reverse.

Julian

[Manfred M]

Julian - think of centre-weighted metering as being somewhat akin to spot metering, but the spot is much larger. This is a metering mode that has been around for a very long time and is probably still available because it is easy to implement on a modern digital camera and I know a few people that still use it (mostly old film shooters that got used to shooting that way).

Just like spot metering (something else I rarely use) it ensures "proper exposure" for the area that is being metered.

Frankly, even evaluative metering is not always the best way to go, for instance in a back-lit situation, your subject is likely to be badly underexposed. Likewise, it will be fooled if you are shooting at night, shooting into the sky or shooting snow scapes or on a white sand beach.

The best thing you can do is to learn what the advantages and disadvantages of each of the modes is, where they work well and where you need to override them (via exposure compensation or manually setting the exposure).

When I shoot, I always take a test shot and look at the histogram on my camera display to ensure I have a good exposure. If my histogram is not working, I will override what my camera's meter tells me using exposure compensation and a test shot (again relying on my histogram to tell me what the camera is recording).

[xpatUSA]

As to symbols, here are Sigma's for what it's worth:



I don't believe either of the first two - too good to be true, IMO - I always use spot; I poke around in the scene and make my own mind up about the necessary exposure.

But then, I have all the time in the world and my subjects don't move ...

[DanK]

Actually, I think there is a bit of confusion here.

The Canon bodies I have had have 4 metering modes:

-- spot metering, as you said, is represented by a symbol that shows a dot in the middle of square brackets. The area covered by the spot varies from body to body but should be in your manual. For example, on my 5D III, it covers 1.5% of the viewing area; on my old 50 D, it was 3.8%. I'll use the 5D percentage for comparison below.

-- "partial metering" is Canon's term for what Manfred describes. It is represented by parentheses within square brackets. I think the parentheses are supposed to symbolize the larger area that is metered. On my 5D, this meters 6.2% at the center, as opposed to the 1.5% captured by spot metering.

-- Center-weighted averaging is represented, as you noted, by empty square brackets. The averages the entire scene, but it gives more weight to areas in the center in calculating the average. As Canon puts it, "The metering is weighted at the center and then averaged for the entire scene." This would be sensible if the area in the center happens to matter more to you. I almost never use it.

-- Evaluative metering is represented by square brackets, parentheses, and a dot. This relies on an unspecified algorithm to estimate exposure when it isn't straightforward.

In practice, I rely almost entirely on spot and evaluative metering, depending on the circumstances, but like Manfred, I use the histogram to see whether the camera's computer estimated reasonably. I sometimes use spot metering when I am shooting in manual mode; for example, I'll pick an area that I think should be bright but not blown out, meter it, and open up a couple of stops.

There is no substitute for practicing enough to develop an intuition about when each mode will help you most.

[Thornton]

Thank you for your replies and advice. I will try to force myself to recognise the evaluative metering symbol and try to remember that the symbol which has nothing in the centre means “centre weighted”, and will get into the habit of checking the histogram more carefully. The main problem is that I need glasses (on a cord, or I keep misplacing them!) to do this, and get fed up with tangling my glasses cord and camera strap. (I don’t wear glasses other than for reading and close work).

Julian

[Dave Humphries]

Hi Julian,

Spot metering is represented by a spot in the middle of a frame, which is fine, but centre-weighted is just an empty frame. The symbol for evaluative looks like I expect centre weighted to look!

I'm glad it's not just me!

I've always thought that.

Perhaps as a consequence, I tend to ignore the meter mode and stick with one (average, I think), temper that with experience with regard to scene content and how the camera might average the relative areas of highlights and darks to mid gray, then throw in some EC* to compensate and shoot.

Then (like Manfred), I'll review the histogram and fine tune the EC, or shoot full manual anyway.

One size (mode) 'fits all' for me because the meter mode used to achieve the correct exposure is irrelevant if you can visually assess what the camera is seeing and apply a suitable offset (EC) yourself.

Changing modes can get you closer IF your subject is predictable and consistent, but I just don't bother.

Cheers,
Dave

[DanK]

To some extent, the options must be brand-specific. At least on my 5D III, Canon doesn't offer an unweighted average. The only options for metering from the entire viewfinder are evaluative and a center-weighted average.

There are many paths to the same result...

I sometimes wonder whether my reliance on spot metering is a vestige of my long-past days of shooting with a Canon FTb, which offered only a spot meter. I rely on it under several circumstances. One, which I mentioned, is when I have a particular area from which I want to get a reading. For example, it's a simple tool for getting closer to a correct exposure in a scene with snow (adjusting, of course, for the fact that snow is brighter than neutral), and it is also useful if you have something like a face that is your primary concern. I also use a trick I learned to deal with the lack of anything but a spot meter, which is to meter off the palm of your hand (placing it in the same light as the subject) and adjusting.

[Manfred M]

The interesting part I find reading the various responses is how everyone has their own approach to metering. In many cases, it seems to be little more than a technique we have gotten comfortable with because it works for us.

The only time I tend to get really annoyed is when someone (often in a YouTube video or in a seminar / workshop situation) tries to tell the group that the method that they use is best and everyone else should adopt it. It usually seems to be some variant of spot metering. I remember seeing someone spending 10 minutes exploring a scene with a 1° spot meter before deciding on an exposure and taking the shot. I seem to have taken the same shot in a fraction of the time using my method (usually what Nikon refers to as Matrix metering, which is quite similar to Canon's Evaluative metering). The histograms of both shots looked quite similar...

I will also confess that there are times that I spend a lot of time metering, especially when I am working a complex lighting setup in the studio. The main difference here is that in the studio I am setting up the lighting and not relying on the ambient lighting in the scene, but unless one shoots multiple lights in the studio, that is a skill set most people will never need.

[Manfred M]

The main problem is that I need glasses (on a cord, or I keep misplacing them!) to do this, and get fed up with tangling my glasses cord and camera strap. (I don’t wear glasses other than for reading and close work).

I am jealous, but on the other hand that might have ended up being an advantage to me because I generally always wear my glasses and have adapted well to shooting with them.

[DanK]

Unfortunately, that "my way is the right way" nonsense isn't limited to metering methods.

[Dave Humphries]

Unfortunately, that "my way is the right way" nonsense isn't limited to metering methods.

Agreed, my point was that the critical factors relevant at the moment it clicks are the absolute light levels and dynamic range of the content of the scene presented to the camera. (or separate light meter!)

Photographers are free to use which ever metering mode they prefer, since the metering method need have no effect on exposure.

Granted, in inexperienced hands and/or auto exposure used without thought, it may.
Depending upon what your subject is, one metering mode may be more successful than others at getting it right without needing to apply EC. But if you change the subject/scene, what previously worked may no longer be best, then you either try another metering mode, or add/subtract EC, or just shoot and chimp the histogram, then adjust EC.

If you understand how it works, you can predict how it will behave and amend either your choice of metering mode or just EC.

Personally I have found it simpler to stick with one mode (average) and predict (the meter's behaviour for a given scene) from there. I found if kept changing modes as well as the subjects I was shooting, I just ended up chasing my tail and getting confused.

Do whatever works for you.

If you're having trouble, ask for help here at CiC.

[DanK]

Indeed. Unfortunately, newbies often miss that principle and look for a solution in picking a metering mode, Shutter vs aperture priority, etc.—and don’t understand that these are just tools.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[rpcrowe]

Julian mentioned, "I think it was because I wasn’t wearing my glasses and so I just saw the symbol and misinterpreted it"

One of the facets of my Sony APSC cameras that I particularly enjoy is that I can view the various menu items and various shooting parameters by looking through the eye level viewfinder in addition to viewing them on the LCD. I usually don't wear my glasses while shooting and I have problems reading the small entries on the LCD without glasses. However, I have the eye level viewfinder focused with the diopter so I don't need glasses while viewing the entries. They also appear much larger in the eye level viewfinder. I also enjoy reviewing my images using the eye level viewfinder for the same reason...

[William W]

. . . The problem is that Canon’s symbol seems counter-intuitive to me. . .

Perhaps. Perhaps not.

I'd like to follow on from Dave's post #11, specifically:

Personally I have found it simpler to stick with one mode (average) and predict (the meter's behaviour for a given scene) from there.

I suggest that you consider choosing and then deciding upon a "rest position" for your camera - and always return it to rest when you have finished. And not only for the metering mode

I am reasonably certain that if I pick up an EOS DSLR from my bag it will be set:

M Camera Mode
EVALUATIVE Metering
ONE SHOT AF Mode
SINGLE FRAME Drive
AWB
raw + JPEG L Capture
ISO = 400ISO
POWER "on - crooked bar"
C-Fn - loaded as per my scripts

WW

[Thornton]

Julian mentioned, "I think it was because I wasn’t wearing my glasses and so I just saw the symbol and misinterpreted it"

One of the facets of my Sony APSC cameras that I particularly enjoy is that I can view the various menu items and various shooting parameters by looking through the eye level viewfinder in addition to viewing them on the LCD. I usually don't wear my glasses while shooting and I have problems reading the small entries on the LCD without glasses. However, I have the eye level viewfinder focused with the diopter so I don't need glasses while viewing the entries. They also appear much larger in the eye level viewfinder. I also enjoy reviewing my images using the eye level viewfinder for the same reason...

I have this facility on my old Fuji X100 but on my Canon I tend to use the top LCD which is clearly too small for me. My Canon has an articulated rear screen which I sometimes leave closed to avoid scratching it in certain situations, which is half my problem. Whilst it is nice not to need glasses “full time”, I don’t think it will be much longer before I do, and then at least using the camera might become a bit simpler.

Julian

[katto]

Good

[Thornton]

Perhaps. Perhaps not.

I'd like to follow on from Dave's post #11, specifically:


I suggest that you consider choosing and then deciding upon a "rest position" for your camera - and always return it to rest when you have finished. And not only for the metering mode

I am reasonably certain that if I pick up an EOS DSLR from my bag it will be set:

M Camera Mode
EVALUATIVE Metering
ONE SHOT AF Mode
SINGLE FRAME Drive
AWB
raw + JPEG L Capture
ISO = 400ISO
POWER "on - crooked bar"
C-Fn - loaded as per my scripts

WW

Thanks. I do have a “rest position”, I suppose, quite similar to yours settings, except I most often use aperture priority, and never shoot JPEG. As for the centre-weighted symbol, I just find that a symbol with something in the centre seems to suggest something to do with the centre in a way that a “centreless” symbol does not. (It’s nice to know that Dave seems to agree with me here). I suppose what I need to grasp, as an aide-memoire for the evaluative symbol, is that the square brackets “frame” contains the most symbols and is therefore indicating that the evaluation is from the largest number of measurement points.

Julian

[William W]

. . . I suppose what I need to grasp, as an aide-memoire . . .

Do a drawing(s) and stick it on the back of your camera, until it is remembered by rote.

Works for me. I've had all sorts of memory aids stuck on my Cameras, Flash gear, Lenses, Light Meters, over the years.

WW

[Thornton]

Do a drawing(s) and stick it on the back of your camera, until it is remembered by rote.

Works for me. I've had all sorts of memory aids stuck on my Cameras, Flash gear, Lenses, Light Meters, over the years.

WW

Thanks. This is good advice, especially as I’ve now reached the age when I can tend to forget why I’ve gone into a particular room, or wonder where I’ve put my glasses (answer: I’m wearing them!).

Julian