Do you trust your digital camera's metering?

[kelleyish]

Hi everyone! I'm back for a second time, this time with a question.

I got a degree in Fine Arts, Photography from a university. We were taught how dangerous it was to rely on your camera to meter for you, which many times is true of course. But since we've started shooting digital and you can see your results right away, sometimes I've put the camera on a program mode (usually shutter priority) and let it do the work. (I'm talking about ambient only here, not flash.) At first it seemed to be doing a wonderful job. We had a daytime reception in a ballroom with lots of windows, so I went without my flash and walked around capturing images, letting the 20D decide for me. Most of the images turned out just fine. Even when a subject was backlit it seemed to recognize it and not underexpose the subject.

The last wedding we did, however, I got bit several times. Below is a picture from the getting ready portion of the coverage. The bride was getting ready in a room that had a large window composed of those decorative glass bricks -- absolutely beautiful soft light. I decided to let the camera do its thing, and I got a lot of overexposed images. Below is an example...it's not wayyy over, but the skin tone isn't pleasant (my images always seem to go orange when they're over) and part of the dress is blown out. I did quite a bit of work on it and I doubt the client will notice anything wrong, but of course I'd rather it had just not happened.

So, how often do you let your camera decide your exposure for you? I seem to read in photo magazines all the time about pros who use in camera metering and they don't seem to have a care in the world.


Image BK (Before Kelley)


Image AK (After Kelley)

[Trevor]

Yes I have a 10D and have been bitten enough times where I can no longer go shooting care free without checking at least every few shots just to make sure it's not mis-read. I've tried different metering modes but still don't get the consistency I can rely on enough without checking. I talked to Canon about it and they said that it's just inherent in metering that the camera just can't know what every situation is and how you personally want the exposure to look. They are right of course, I wish there was a way to depend on the meter for every shot and every situation and perhaps with all the new advances in technology coming out, someday, but for now I'll be checking more frequently just to be sure.

Nice shot by the way. It is slightly over but you did a good job post correcting and cloning out the little distractions.

[ladydiva]

Good Morning Kelley
interestingly, I've been experiencing similar problems with my 20D, I stilll havent determined the reason, but learned that the problem is more prominent with one lens than others. What lens were you using, and did you notice a change after you switched?
Also I noticed that you shot this @ 800 iso, which could be the problem, the photo dosen't look like it needed that much.

[Ray]

congrats on the new camera..!

Originally Posted by ladydiva

I've been experiencing similar problems with my 20D,

[brad]

I trust my 10D's meter about as much as I've trusted any meter I've ever used.

Which is to say, very little.

Most meters will do well with scenes where there is not a large contrast range.. and it meters to what the average "consumer" wants.. that infamous 18% gray.. Professionals and artists are a little more discriminating, so it takes some skill and practice to be able to look at your camera's meter reading, look at the scene, and decide how to adjust the exposure from the camera's suggestion to get the result you want.

In other words, throw out the idea that your camera's meter is going to be correct. Your camera's meter (hell, any meter, even the hand held ones) are just a suggestion. You have to decide picture to picture if you are going to take that suggestion or modify it.

[MyKey]

Originally Posted by kelleyish

...So, how often do you let your camera decide your exposure for you?

Due to similar problems I shoot about 95% with my camera on Manual Mode, I do not like the camera telling me what to do but me telling the camera what to do. I found in shots like you have here, it is safer to under expose the image and correct the exposure in post work than to allow the camera to over expose the image due to the extreme lighting change.

I use the meter in the camera and usually under expose it a little, shoot the image, if I have time to take another I do at a different setting depending on the result of the first image. If I do not have time I know under expose is better than over exposing since you can bring back darks but whites are just negative or no data in the detail world.

I also think ISO 800 might have been a bit much also for this much light. Lower the ISO and you will have better color toning. And if you shot in RAW it would be much easier to correct white balance and exposure messups.

Good question I am glad you posted it!

[mdurisseau]

What I have done is set my 20D to underexpose by 1/3 stop when in any of the automatic modes, including Program. Admittedly, I use Program mode about half the time (I do a lot of editorial), but for sports, I go to manual...

[brad]

What MyKey said is good.. and worth repeating.. you are the photographer, not the camera. The meter is just a computer program .. it has no idea what you want to expose or not expose in the image.. it doesn't even know what should be white or what should be gray.

To say that its always 1/3 or 1/2 or 1 stop over or under is unfair.. It may be a good rule of thumb for the things you shoot most of the time, but its going to bite you if you assume that its always off by the same amount. Every shot is different, every metering situation is different.

You are the photographer, be the photographer. If the camera was correct every time, it wouldn't need us.

[AjP]

Originally Posted by brad

.....
You are the photographer, be the photographer. If the camera was correct every time, it wouldn't need us.

Amen to this!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!