exposure question

[Angelo]

From what I see, if you would have gone say 1/60 or maybe 1/100sec keeping the other settings the same you would have gotten better exposed photos and controlled the motion.

[donlfaulkner]

It seems, in this instance my meter lied to me.

So, how do I know when I can trust the camera's meter and when to not trust it?

This thing has a center weighted averaging meter and I'm thinking it read a lot of the black background. I attempted to meter on the flowers in front of the podium.

[donlfaulkner]

Quoted from "The Camera Site"

"Your X-700's center-weighted averaging meter system is designed so that light from all parts of the viewfield (picture area) is measured by the silicon photocell but influence from a broad central area is greatest. Thus the reading should give satisfactory exposure without adjustment as long as the main subject area occupies a major part of the center of the frame. When it does not, you may want to use the AE lock to take a close-up reading or the exposure-adjustment control to increase or decrease exposure by up to two stops
As with most metering systems, strong sources of direct light or other very bright areas may adversely influence the reading if allowed to dominate the frame."

This may hold a clue to my delima. Not sure I fully understand it. Sure wish I weren't so thick headed, maybe I'd understand this better.

[Angelo]

Yes, there's a lot of black in the background.
The only way I would have trusted my camera light meter is had I been able to spot meter the faces and then close down 1/2 to 1 stop (that's -1/2 or -1) off of a white-skin because the meter will average 18% gray. Another way, if at all possible, would have been to get a reading of an 18% gray card on stage with the same lighting.

But why not look at everything that's up there and make the calculations in your mind.
This is an excellent learning experience for you. Now, all you have to do is go to more of these events and it will become second nature.

I forgot, some photographers, when they're not sure, bracket their shot. In other words they take three shots (- (0) +). What this means is they take a reading and then take two additional images exposing one under and one over.

[donlfaulkner]

Actually I'm glad I'm having these problems. It's making me study the pictures and analize what I need to do in the future. I learn more from problems.

Question: The light/flare on the lower left of a couple of frames. Is that lens flare or light leak?

[Angelo]

Yes, we all learn from our mistakes.
Had it been a light leak you would have had the same problem with your other photos.

[donlfaulkner]

Thanks, I just got it back from the shop for an intermittent light leak problem.

[Angelo]

Intermittent light leak? Yikes.
Don, I would not spend too much money on getting that (minolta x700) camera fixed.
I'd run another roll through it and see if that's a recurring problem.
But, I would not spend more money trying to fix it. I'd save the money
and look for a Digital camera. I think you'd really enjoy being able
to see the image at the time you take it.

[donlfaulkner]

When I resurected this camera the foam had deteriated and it had a serious light leak at the door hindge. I attempted to fix it with the soft side of a black piece of sticky back vecro. That resulted in the intermittent leak. Took it to the Camera Shope here in Longview and Bob changed it for the correct stuff. I can see where the shot with the flash would reflect from the tv. I'm hoping the shot of the stage is coming from a chair reflection or some highlight from the stage due to my overexposure. I'll watch these next few rolls and see what happens.

I drool every time think about a Digital SLR, but that's a little farther down the road for me right now. The little digital P&S has me spoiled to the instant feed back. Hopefully being forced to think more about each shot will make me a better photographer by the time I go digital.

Thank y'all for all the help and food for thought. TPF is the greatest!!

[chris00nj]

Originally Posted by donlfaulkner

Ok, Here's what I got. Not good.

Shot at:

f/4.5
Focal length 80 and 200 I went from on extreme to the other.
No Flash
Exposure Compensation "0"
Shutter metered 15 so that's what I used. Evidently too slow for the monopod.

I'm not sure if the fuzziness is all camera movement or it there is a focus problem also.

Seems I should have gone with a shutter of 30 or possibly 60. I've read that the Minolta X700 does not meter well in low light.

Also looks like I still have a light leak (the last pict is the first exposure taken at home playing with the flash I'm assuming this is a light leak.) Only two frames showed this problem.

What is your verdict? I'm here to learn.

Too slow for too long of a focal length. A monopod really gives you 2 stops. The reciprocal rule says 1/200 required for a 200mm focal length... add two stops and you are at 1/60. 1/15 is a bridge too far, especially when someone is walking.

We all make mistakes. Only some of us are pros (not me). I recently took some photos at a cousins wedding. I had some slower speed film and was using a flash, although I rarely use a flash. I was bouncing the flash off the ceiling, but the ceiling was a wee high (about 12-15 feet) and all the photos came out black. I've done it before but with faster film and a lower ceiling and the pictures are normally better. I should have done direct flash. Luckily I was just the guest.