Dig' meter readings

[Snapper Baz]

Ok, I'm new at this Dig' game but getting there...tell me chaps, other than setting the camera on to manual, is there anyway when using it on "TV" setting that raedings can stay fixed without things moving to much...a few pics added after this thread to show what I mean...both pictures taken on "TV" without touching anything and about a second or two between the the two...

[Snapper Baz]

1st one...

[Snapper Baz]

2nd one!

[Hugewally]

Nope! Unless you shoot manual, the f/stop will always bounce around. See if you can find out what the settings for both of these shots are. Might also look at the light meter setting too. Could be on spot meter instead of evaluative maybe. But mostly if looks like seeing how the flames moved into the center of the frame (compared to the first pic) the light meter just sensed more light and increased the f/stop to compensate for it.

You'll notice this a lot when shooting all the different colored cars going by and when you review them, the shots with white cars always look a little darker due to the increased light reflected back to the camera.

Only way to get around it is to shoot in manual mode...

Martin

[KC]

I agree with Hugewally. I think the meter got fooled by the more centered flame. Look through your manual and see of you have metering lock.

[Tim Falce]

It looks like you have the meter set to spot metering and the reading has been taken from the flame on the second shot. Try avearge or center weighed or even go a manual setting on this type of shot.
I get similar problems with spot metering especialy if I take a picture of a light coloured car

[Hugewally]

Of course, you might still be able to save the shot in photoshop using the levels function (where you manually pick black, mid and white tones).

Martin

[gi_gav]

I don't think it looks like it being spot metering though.

Even on evaluative with such a dominant light source in the middle of the frame, it'll set quite a small aperture.

Manual would be the way to go i guess. That said, it's not something i do all that often

[Snapper Baz]

Thanks boys-my hunch seems to correct. I also suffered similar problems with cars with headlights on so I have some ideas on how to tackle it now. I did play around with the camera at work yesterday with white aircraft around me and I had no problems.

[gi_gav]

Baz - you shoot with a 10D don't you?

I'd just use AE lock - if you're on evaluative metering it'll set the exposure as for the active autofocus point, which would probably be the car in the first shot.

[kdr]

ever wonder why pros use lightmeters?

[gi_gav]

Kdr, without giving away too many trade secrets, how do you personally use a lightmeter?

Do you tend to take readings on one lap, or for one car and then rely on intuition to correct exposure for other liveries?

[Snapper Baz]

The Canon's light meters have always been fine-its just the nerd behind the camera that isnt so good!

[MolsonBoy]

Gav, using a hand held light meter you are taking a reading of the light falling on the scene not what is being reflected in to the lens. Thus setting your camera using the hand held meter reading will give you the proper exposure for any car that maybe on the track. If the light changes because a cloud passes by then you should take another reading.

[KennyG]

And where do you find time to use a light meter during a busy action filled race when a cloud passes over (very common in the UK)?

Nothing wrong with the Canon's metering, you just need to learn how to drive it. I work every weekend of the season with a 1D and a 10D and my light meter has never seen a race circuit and it never will.

[gi_gav]

KennyG, that's really what i'd been wondering - how can you have time to use a light meter, unless you have time like at Le Mans.

MolsonBoy, what i'd been getting at is that i'd have expected variations in exposure for different coloured cars (from white to dark blue etc).

Bear in mind that i'm entirely ignorant about hand-held meters!

In the p*ssing rain at the Mount Stuart Classic last year, i played about with taking spot readings from around me (hoardings, braking markers and the like) to give me exposure for the brighter cars. It worked well enough, (perhaps only because i had time between cars) but i'm sure there are better ways of doing it.

[MolsonBoy]

MolsonBoy, what i'd been getting at is that i'd have expected variations in exposure for different coloured cars (from white to dark blue etc).

Bear in mind that i'm entirely ignorant about hand-held meters!
[/B]

Gav, you would have to set your camera to manual, set the shutter speed and set the f-stop to the the hand held meter readings. The colors of the cars shouldn't matter at this point since the hand held meter is reading the light falling on the track not the light relfected from the cars. Your camera reads reflected light.

As to KennyG comments there are times when you are unable to take meter readings. I usually use the meter during practise and qualifing and usually in high contrasting conditions. During races I may only use it prior to the start.

I think it comes down to experience. Kenny obviously has a lot and I think over time you will develop your own eye in reading the light conditions. So go play with the light meter to see what kind of results you get.

[kdr]

most pros i've talked to still seem to carry a lightmeter around for times when the light can fool the camera, and maybe pictures in the garages etc. i'm not expert though...my lightmeter is a £15 russian job and so i use it sparingly and fall back on the standard readings of 500 5.6 and half...or just make it up as i go along, like i have no idea what i shot this picture at...i'm the king of experimental exposures!

[Hugewally]

[i]I think it comes down to experience. Kenny obviously has a lot and I think over time you will develop your own eye in reading the light conditions. So go play with the light meter to see what kind of results you get. [/B]

Getting used to your camera is a big part of it. Just like shooting kodachrome slides, it took me a couple of races when I bought the EOS-1D to realize I had to start underexposing most of my shots. Usually 2/3's under. Sometimes 1/3 to a full stop under. Nighttime and dusk I'll shoot even exposure. Rarely will I over expose a shot. What I noticed when i first got the camera, shooting at the races I would see that all the little sponsor decals were washed out and unreadable. So now, judging by the intensity of the sunlight, I drop the f/stop down (to a higher f number). It's always easier (within reason) to correct an underexposed shot than an over-exposed one. Figure you have it right when you can read the smallest decal on the side of the car...

And no, i don't use a light meter. Haven't had one for years now since the last one died a long a painful death....

martin

[djb]

I would offer the opinion that a hand meter still has its place. Yes, using a histogram properly means that I don't use mine as much anymore, there are still some situations that getting a straight up reading can be a help, especially with very contrasty light where even a histogram can look pretty weird and hard to interprete.

And old habits die hard anyway, in the past I have shot with meterless rangefinders, and non-auto Nikons, so to check is still there. And yes, within reason, ttl lightmeters in modern cameras work pretty darn well, and as with chromes, you don't want to blow out highlights, cuz when they're gone, they're gone.

cheers