DSLRUsers.com

General question: Which metering mode do you use more often?

Spot, Center Weighted or Matrix???

More specifically if you are take a photo of people outside on a sunny day woudl you be better off metering off their skin (so spot) or just use Matrix so that the background etc. was ok as well.

W00DY

I noticed having handled Gary's camera, he uses spot metering. When I tried to use it, I got blown highlights. I use mainly matrix, except when having a CPL filter on, in which case it's centree weighted. I find matrix to be quite good in a broad range of situations with few exceptions (bright but cloudy days, snow, indoors sometimes, etc).

People's skin tones also differ. A shoot I did at David Jones fashion launch, I found spot metering on black skin to be more pleasing without PP. For white people I guess you'd have to dial in positive EV, or fix in processing. For sunny outside, a flash is a good idea. as well as using low contrast tone curve.

I mostly use spot, and in those conditions that you're describing, would recommend it.

depends higly on situation... I rarely use spot..

About 60% matrix 30% CW and 10% spot...

I use 80% Matrix 20% spot.
I will use CW on occasions just to see the meter reading to try & work out the best setting to go on.

Cheers
Ray

Gidday Woody,

I use spot mostly, second choice is centre weighted. For me matrix is just not worth the time.
I have found that matrix really does not work that well outdoors in very bright conditions - I found that I often got blown backgrounds using matrix. Matrix also seems to be more centre weighted than what I would expect. Very bright areas at the extremities of the frame are totally missed. It all has to do with the location and number of sensors.

When using fill flash I usually spot meter (although centre weighted works equally well and allows for a little more error) from the brightest part of the background in manual mode to set background exposure - usually .3 to .7 below what meter indicates to account for flash depending on how deep the background is - a close bright back ground needs a more negative compensation than a far bright background to avoid blown highlights from flash.
EL button is set to FV lock. Focus on subject, lock flash value, refocus and compose holding focus and fire away. The beauty is that usually I do not need to alter background exposure or flash value for subsequent shots unless composition changes substantially. Usually the flash is set to ttl (ttl-bl for centre weighted) and -1/3 EV.
All of the above sounds complicated, but once you have done it a couple of times you will find it simple and works like a charm. Don't forget to check the histogram.

Without fill flash I will use M mode and spot, roam around the frame to check the background exposure then meter of the face of my subject. If my subject is going to underexpose I pull the SB800 out of my bag. If my subject is going to overexpose I will dial in the correct exposure and suffer a slightly darker background (which I prefer anyway). BTW, I usually shoot M mode, sometimes A indoors with flash, never S mode, I do not know what P mode does, and the rest are totally useless to me (never even tried). Matrix metering would be more useful if there were more sensors, but because there is not, I do not bother.

Cheers

Matt

I have and still use all three modes, depending on the shot requirements.

To avoid getting those blown highlights in daylight, especially from bright clouds, simply meter using SPOT on one of the bright bits of the cloud and then recompose your shot and shoot. If you shoot NEF then you can create two layers in PSCS and stop up the shadowy bits on one layer while maintainging the correct exposure on the bright clouds, giving you a better exposed shot all round.

Does that make sense? If not then go here http://luminous-landscape.com/tutorials ... ding.shtml

Have fun now!!!!!
Steve

This looks like a totally broad range of answers. Woody, do feel more or less confused now?

G'day,
I've mainly used matrix thinking it would help against blown highlights in the background, but after this morning's effort I'm not sure...

Gonna have to try spot metering more...

Cheers,
Mudder

gstark wrote:This looks like a totally broad range of answers. Woody, do feel more or less confused now?

Hmmm, I think I regret asking this question

Thanks to all that have answered. I am still trying all three out in different situations to see what works well.

As Onyx said though nearly every time I use spot metering I get a lot of blown highlights in the background. Anyway I think I need to do some more tests and examine my images more after taking them.

W00DY

W00DY wrote:As Onyx said though nearly every time I use spot metering I get a lot of blown highlights in the background.

But is that really such a problem? While yes, they may be blown, they are also in the background. What's the subject of the photo look like? How well exposed is it?

Perhaps it's not important that the background is blown? Perhaps you need to fill the centre of the image more with the subject, and reduce the amount of space that the background takes up?

And of course, it may well be that the background is, in fact, an important element of your composition. In that case, you need to work out how to reduce the overall ontrast ratio within the image that you're creating; how do you think you could achieve that?

Gary, I'm a bokeh freak. So when I take a pic, I almost always deliberately want the background there, with the right degree of blur. Also, you use Reala curve in your camera, I use Provia. That's curve lowers contrast as it's meant for high contrast shooting. It also raises middle grey plus 0.5EV above what the camera says, so I guess that could account for my matrix readings more pleasing than others. I suppose I could try spot with std tone curve and see if it matches the results of low contrast with matrix.

I am aware of the need for me to improve my 'filling of the frame' aspect, as even a layperson friend of mine commented how much better he thought of my pics were, taken with 70-200 and other long lenses giving the impression I got really close to the subjects.

When I shoot a wedding I will only shot with Spot metering.

gstark wrote:
But is that really such a problem? While yes, they may be blown, they are also in the background. What's the subject of the photo look like? How well exposed is it?

Good enough point.

gstark wrote:
Perhaps it's not important that the background is blown? Perhaps you need to fill the centre of the image more with the subject, and reduce the amount of space that the background takes up?

Yep, very good point and mental note taken.

gstark wrote:
And of course, it may well be that the background is, in fact, an important element of your composition. In that case, you need to work out how to reduce the overall ontrast ratio within the image that you're creating; how do you think you could achieve that?

Hmmm, the only non technical solution I can think off is reframing the image so there is not so much contrast. Otherwise I guess braketing may also help?

W00DY

Also if you are not sooting on manual try to avoid having the sky in the background. Look for shad and soft lighting - no harsh shadows. a white balance of cloudy (adjustable if you are shooting raw) will warm up shady shots nicely.

I also find a darker background in portraits alot more pleasing. Although not always possible.

Onyx wrote:Gary, I'm a bokeh freak. So when I take a pic, I almost always deliberately want the background there, with the right degree of blur.

Absolutely, but the question - and only you can answer this - is how much background vs how much subject?

Can you still have a blurred background, along with a good degree of bokeh, and at the same time fill the frame with more of the subject? It varies of course from one image to the next, but I would contend that mostly, yes.

gstark wrote:Absolutely, but the question - and only you can answer this - is how much background vs how much subject?

Can you still have a blurred background, along with a good degree of bokeh, and at the same time fill the frame with more of the subject? It varies of course from one image to the next, but I would contend that mostly, yes.

Yes. Perhaps it's time I focus on subjects more instead of backgrounds. I find myself sometimes taking pics of uninteresting things just because I think the bokeh would be nice: eg.

I had absolutely no interest in the berries (or whatever they were), but I thought the tree branches with soft leaves and specks of sunlight filtering through would make for good bokeh.

Woody,

W00DY wrote:Hmmm, the only non technical solution I can think off is reframing the image so there is not so much contrast. Otherwise I guess braketing may also help?

I'd be looking at - if possible - filling with flash. That will brighten your foreground (which is likely to be where the subject is) and by brightening the foreground, you can effectively reduce the contrast range that the image needs to carry.

Basically, you're trying to move the foreground into a contrast range that's closer to the background, and by modifying your exposure to account for the new, increased levels of light, part of the problem may be addressed.

Onyx,

Onyx wrote:Yes. Perhaps it's time I focus on subjects more instead of backgrounds. I find myself sometimes taking pics of uninteresting things just because I think the bokeh would be nice

Yes, and this is a good example of what you're doing.

Just for giggles, recrop this image just to the top right hand corner (I can't do this myself at the moment) and place the berries aalong the lower third (rule of thirds).

You'll still have your bokeh in the upper rh side, but the berries might become a more important element of this image.