30D - Do you guys realise how nice SPOT metering is?

powershot said:

Robert Sheldon said:

Have you ever done any serious bird photography? If you get one
good shot off you are lucky 90% of the time. You just do not have
the luxury of checking the histogram and, if you were wrong in the
original setup, shooting again. The bird just is not there
anymore. I want everything stacked in my favor for that first shot
and spot exposure gives me another edge.

--
Bob Sheldon
Photo Gallery at
http://www.bobsheldon.com

Click to expand...

OK, I admit that bird is the last thing I would try for my
photography, so I am ignorant on this. But then, does this justify
the "ignorance" saying in the original post I replied? After all,
how many people shoot birds? How many people shoot other things
where a histogram can be much more useful? Canon doesn't dedicate
their 30D to bird shooters. If so, I would think adding a spot
metering is not a big deal.

Click to expand...

Wow, this is funny. First old powershot here is so certain he is right that he says everyone had better learn about digital and catch up with the world. He was SO SURE! Now he gets caught out on the fact that he really doesn't know anything and backtracks into a ridiculously lame position on Canon and birding. These are the kind of "experts" we have here. This goes on all the time here. People just jumping in with their "certain knowledge", which is often dead wrong.

I was going to ask powershot how spot metering is so different for digital than film but I see now that he really doesn't know anythng, like I first thought, and that it would just add to the general confusion and Ignorance here.

For those of you who are new to this and wondering, Spot metering is a good tool if you know how to use it. Knowing how to work your camera in many ways is a good thing. Being stuck in ignorance and arrogance is a waste of time.
Sincerely,
--
Wendell
http://www.wendellworld.com

'Not everything that counts can be counted, not everything that can be counted counts.'
Albert Einstein

For any camera with a live histogram that is a possible replacement but for any camera without the ability to use a live histogram then it is a poor replacement as I've said!

As for books, I've read and written enough papers on the art to know what I'm talking about so test it out for yourself and you'll see what I'm saying is accurate! The Spot Meter in my old D100 was awesome and provided me with the best results 100% of the time.

powershot said:

Pete Perry said:

Honestly, say you bought a D60 and Canon rated it at 20,000 clicks
for the shutter life... What would you do, waste a few clicks
trying to get it right (effectively cutting your shutter life
anywhere from 33-50%) or get it right the first time with the spot
meter?

Also, the histogram approach assumes you should know where each
segment should be and if you get it wrong then your images are
wrong even if you haven't blown any highlights... The truth is
that a shot taken of a caucasian model with the Sun at his or her
back should never be a perfect histogram if you want the models
face to be properly exposed and yet this is how most people
opperate their histograms... Oh and the camera functions
differently if you have a live histogram but it still isn't perfect.

So here's a real question for you, what should your histogram look
like if you have a caucasian model in the image but the lack of any
tone on the level of true black or true white? When you figure
this answer out then you'll see even more benefits of the spot
meter!

dboreham said:

Curious what's the benefit of spot metering in a digital camera ?
(I've managed to take ok pictures for 35 years without it !).

If I'm uncertain of the exposure for an image I just shoot
some test frames and dial in the exposure using the camera's
histogram. What would a spot meter get me that I can't
achieve with the historgram technique ?

Click to expand...

--
'The probability that we may fall in the struggle ought not to
deter us from the support of a cause we believe to be just; it
shall not deter me.' -- Abraham Lincoln

Click to expand...

Why is it so easy for people to think others are just ignorant?
Please read some books on digital photography or just search on
internet before you say this. The bottom line is for digital
photography, the correct exposure method for getting the best
picture quality is different from that for films. Things have
changed. Use that histogram, that is the most powerful tool, not
the spot metering. Even you want to use the spot metering, better
use it in a different way. I don't want to offend anybody, but the
truth is that if you don't catch up, you won't be a good digital
photographer no matter how good you were with films.

Click to expand...

--

'The probability that we may fall in the struggle ought not to deter us from the support of a cause we believe to be just; it shall not deter me.' -- Abraham Lincoln

wrider said:

Wow, this is funny. First old powershot here is so certain he is
right that he says everyone had better learn about digital and
catch up with the world. He was SO SURE!

Click to expand...

First, before anything else, I don't quite like your attitude. If I said anything wrong, please point that out.

Now, where did I say that "everyone had better" thing? Didn't I say that thing to the author of the post I replied? If you don't agree with my opinion, fine, but don't make a rumor. I was so sure about what? About the "everyone had better" thing? I didn't say it! Plus, what's wrong with that, shouldn't everybody try to learn new things? Don't laugh, life is sometimes ironic. All the sudden, the experience you are proud of become a limit. This is happening now in digital photography.

wrider said:

Now he gets caught out on
the fact that he really doesn't know anything and backtracks into a
ridiculously lame position on Canon and birding.

Click to expand...

I got caught on what? I said bird is the last thing I would try for photography. This is just a statement of my personal favorite on photography. How come you have the concludsion that I don't know anything about spot metering? Can you tell me what kind of logic this is?

My logic is clear: spot metering is a good tool and is important in certain situations, but for most people and most cases, it is not that important, especially with digital photography where the histogram offers a more convinient way to achieve the same thing. So, adding a spot metering is no big deal and people with such an opinion should not be said to be ignorant. If one doesn't understand how to get correct exposure for a CMOS sensor (yes, it is different from films), then what is the use of having a spot metering?That's all what I said. If you don't agree, tell me why. If you do agree, why this sardonic attitude?

wrider said:

These are the kind of "experts" we have here.
This goes on all the time here. People
just jumping in with their "certain knowledge", which is often dead
wrong.

Click to expand...

To answer a given question, one does not have to know everything. Certain knowledge is good enough. Do you need to understand quantum mechanics to make your camera work? Sure don't. What you say does happen, but don't generalize it so fast. Please point out what is wrong with what I said. I don't want to make other people think I am an expert, but with that little piece of knowledge, I know something said was wrong and then I point it out.

wrider said:

I was going to ask powershot how spot metering is so different for
digital than film but I see now that he really doesn't know
anythng, like I first thought, and that it would just add to the
general confusion and Ignorance here.

Click to expand...

If you had read my post carefully and understood the logic, you wouldn't even ask this question. Please tell me where I said that spot metering was so different for digital than film. Spot metering itself is the same, but one needs to use it in a different way in digital. Again, why do you think I don't know anything? If you really think so, then please educate me a little bit. Do you really think one should use the spot metering exactly the same way in both digital and film? If so, go read more. If you try to make everybody here believe that, then that's where the confusion and ignorance come from.

wrider said:

For those of you who are new to this and wondering, Spot metering
is a good tool if you know how to use it. Knowing how to work your
camera in many ways is a good thing. Being stuck in ignorance and
arrogance is a waste of time.
Sincerely,

Click to expand...

Again, I didn't say spot metering is not a good tool anywhere. All what I said was it is not as a big deal as some people would think. So you'd think everybody with that opinion is ignorant? As for arrogance, I don't think I was that way. I said some guy should read more and here you say "For those who are new...", no doubt it sounds that you are an expert. But that doesn't matter. As I said, with my certain knowledge, I know using spot metering exactly the same way in both digital and film is wrong, then I point it out and think that will save some people's time.

wrider said:

--
Wendell
http://www.wendellworld.com
'Not everything that counts can be counted, not everything that can
be counted counts.'
Albert Einstein

Click to expand...

Pete Perry said:

Guessing isn't what I do with a spot meter, that is what I do with
an evaluative or partial meter... The Spot Meter is so precise
that I don't have to guess I meter, adjust, lock exposure, refocus
and shoot...

Click to expand...

And here you are wrong... The spot meter would only be correct if your subject happens to have 18% reflectivity. So by pointing and shooting you are betting on this to be true. Unfortunately this is not true for small spots and the results will be wrongly exposed shots by the bucket load. In fact spot metering goes hand in hand with the zone system which tells you how much you have to deviate (correct) the metered reading to get a properly exposed shot.
--
regards
Karl Günter Wünsch
Visit my gallery at
http://www.fotocommunity.com/pc/pc/mypics/461808

I'll shoot anything that gets in my way not just birds...

As for the histogram, can you even tell me where the histogram should measure it's peak on the scale if your subject is a caucasian model without any black or white objects in the image... Heck I'll throw a curve ball at you and say that the subject is placed against a sky-blue back drop...

draw that peak for me from beginning to end and then tell me how you would know where that peak would fall if you didn't have a live histogram?

powershot said:

Robert Sheldon said:

Have you ever done any serious bird photography? If you get one
good shot off you are lucky 90% of the time. You just do not have
the luxury of checking the histogram and, if you were wrong in the
original setup, shooting again. The bird just is not there
anymore. I want everything stacked in my favor for that first shot
and spot exposure gives me another edge.

--
Bob Sheldon
Photo Gallery at
http://www.bobsheldon.com

Click to expand...

OK, I admit that bird is the last thing I would try for my
photography, so I am ignorant on this. But then, does this justify
the "ignorance" saying in the original post I replied? After all,
how many people shoot birds? How many people shoot other things
where a histogram can be much more useful? Canon doesn't dedicate
their 30D to bird shooters. If so, I would think adding a spot
metering is not a big deal.

Click to expand...

--

'The probability that we may fall in the struggle ought not to deter us from the support of a cause we believe to be just; it shall not deter me.' -- Abraham Lincoln

Fact, Sensor Technology is now capturing between 6 and 7 stops of light...

Fact, Velvia Slides was typically between 5 and 6 stops of light...

Fact, most of the meters in the DSLR cameras today are the same meters that were in the old film cameras... Nikon's 1005 Pixel CMOS Sensor is presently in the D70, D1h, D1x, D2h and D2x was the exact same meter that was in the F5 Nikon's Flagship Film Camera for years...

The truth is Digital falls right in between standard film and slide film so metering works very much in line with the same methods that were used in film 10 years ago...

Now if you're counting Calibration then that's a different issue but my 10D and D100 lined up very well with my Sekonic L308-B2 but since then the Canon meters have actually been found slightly miscalibrated where ISO 100 is actually ISO 125 so that might be where you're messing up.

powershot said:

I got caught on what? I said bird is the last thing I would try for
photography. This is just a statement of my personal favorite on
photography. How come you have the concludsion that I don't know
anything about spot metering? Can you tell me what kind of logic
this is?
My logic is clear: spot metering is a good tool and is important in
certain situations, but for most people and most cases, it is not
that important, especially with digital photography where the
histogram offers a more convinient way to achieve the same thing.
So, adding a spot metering is no big deal and people with such an
opinion should not be said to be ignorant. If one doesn't
understand how to get correct exposure for a CMOS sensor (yes, it
is different from films), then what is the use of having a spot
metering?That's all what I said. If you don't agree, tell me why.
If you do agree, why this sardonic attitude?

Click to expand...

--

'The probability that we may fall in the struggle ought not to deter us from the support of a cause we believe to be just; it shall not deter me.' -- Abraham Lincoln

Pete Perry said:

I'll shoot anything that gets in my way not just birds...

As for the histogram, can you even tell me where the histogram
should measure it's peak on the scale if your subject is a
caucasian model without any black or white objects in the image...
Heck I'll throw a curve ball at you and say that the subject is
placed against a sky-blue back drop...

draw that peak for me from beginning to end and then tell me how
you would know where that peak would fall if you didn't have a live
histogram?

Click to expand...

We can talk about photography skills elsewhere. But there is one thing I want to make it very clear: I answered your original post because I do not think people with a different opinion should be called ignorant. The fact that you can make a good use of spot metering does not mean others are ignorant. If you do not agree, then tell me why. If you do, then take back your words and we start disussing other things.

I have used spot metering in the past, but I don't see the need for it now that I have the histogram and flashing highlights.

The thing about spot metering that makes it difficult is that it's not very stable... even on a relatively low dynamic range subject like say a granite mountain, you will get different readings on different parts of the subject just due to different parts having more shadows or variations in texture. The measured spot exposure variation can be a stop or more even for a subject that visually looks almost uniform in density. The smaller the spot the worse this problem.

To really get a good reading with spot metering you need to measure a few areas in the subject you want to expose for, mentally average the readings, and then do some exposure compensation to put that subject in the right "zone". E.g. if you want the subject to appear as darker than grey then expose less, and if you want it to appear lighter than grey expose more.

Then to really do it right you also need to take readings of the highlights and shadows and make sure they don't lose detail and/or decide how much detail loss to accept and where. Again because of the stop or so variation in readings this ends up not being as accurate as you might hope.

That whole process is so time consuming that it's really not feasible to do under pressure, and it takes longer to do than just taking a test shot, looking at the histogram, making adjustments, and shooting again.

More importantly, when you use spot metering properly on the subject you risk blowing background highlight values or underexposing background shadows.

I can see that you might some of the time get good results shooting birds doing a quick single spot meter on the subject, if the background is much lighter or much darker and you don't care about it. But I think you would get an even better and more stable exposure if you learned how to visually estimate the degree of exposure compensation needed and then dial that in (perhaps using a few chimps at the LCD to help refine it while shooting). Or even just use evaluative if you don't have time for dialing in compensation.

Again, the reason evaluative or averaging metering works better than spot in my mind is because spot metering produces readings that vary by a stop or so even when you are reading in the same area. That amount of variation is enough to unnecessarily blow a highlight especially in the high dynamic range scenes where spot metering is useful.

With film blowing highlights was less of a problem whereas with digital blown highlights look horrible. This means that exposing for the highlights becomes often more important than metering the subject. As long as you don't blow the highlights or lose important shadow detail you can often let the subject fall at whatever value you want, and the image is fine.

The Ansel adams zone system of using a spot meter to individually meter and expose all the different zones is dead with digital. The new approach for people who do tripod based work is to use the histogram and shot review to make sure you capture as much dynamic range as possible in the important parts of the image, and then to shift exposure in post processing to place the different elements at the appropriate densities.

I said, I Meter and Adjust... The Blue Sky with the sun at your back is the 18%... Black and White Objects represent 2 stops from Nuetral Gray and these are all points that I can meter and Adjust the EV to guarantee me nearly perfect exposure... Of course I can meter caucasian skin and open up one stop from there and again I have a decent exposure...

The bottom line is I can better adjust from a single reading than I can from an evaluative reading.

Karl Günter Wünsch said:

Pete Perry said:

Guessing isn't what I do with a spot meter, that is what I do with
an evaluative or partial meter... The Spot Meter is so precise
that I don't have to guess I meter, adjust, lock exposure, refocus
and shoot...

Click to expand...

And here you are wrong... The spot meter would only be correct if
your subject happens to have 18% reflectivity. So by pointing and
shooting you are betting on this to be true. Unfortunately this is
not true for small spots and the results will be wrongly exposed
shots by the bucket load. In fact spot metering goes hand in hand
with the zone system which tells you how much you have to deviate
(correct) the metered reading to get a properly exposed shot.
--
regards
Karl Günter Wünsch
Visit my gallery at
http://www.fotocommunity.com/pc/pc/mypics/461808

Click to expand...

--

'The probability that we may fall in the struggle ought not to deter us from the support of a cause we believe to be just; it shall not deter me.' -- Abraham Lincoln

You can get exactly the same picture with or without spot metering, I don't really see how posting pictures would really demonstrate anything.

Greg

--



http://www.pbase.com/dadas115/

I said it was ignorant to claim the spot meter is replaced by the histogram when that statement is absolutely inaccurate...

powershot said:

Pete Perry said:

I'll shoot anything that gets in my way not just birds...

As for the histogram, can you even tell me where the histogram
should measure it's peak on the scale if your subject is a
caucasian model without any black or white objects in the image...
Heck I'll throw a curve ball at you and say that the subject is
placed against a sky-blue back drop...

draw that peak for me from beginning to end and then tell me how
you would know where that peak would fall if you didn't have a live
histogram?

Click to expand...

We can talk about photography skills elsewhere. But there is one
thing I want to make it very clear: I answered your original post
because I do not think people with a different opinion should be
called ignorant. The fact that you can make a good use of spot
metering does not mean others are ignorant. If you do not agree,
then tell me why. If you do, then take back your words and we start
disussing other things.

Click to expand...

--

'The probability that we may fall in the struggle ought not to deter us from the support of a cause we believe to be just; it shall not deter me.' -- Abraham Lincoln

It can help but you better have the bird in that center 3.5% of the frame or else your exposure is going to be WAY if you are shooting a dark bird against a bright sky. I have pretty much come to the conclusion that if the bird isn't filling up at least the partial metering section of the image you aren't really going to get a very decent picture anyway so the spot meter just isn't all that important to me.

Greg

--



http://www.pbase.com/dadas115/

Pete Perry said:

Also, the histogram approach assumes you should know where each
segment should be and if you get it wrong then your images are
wrong even if you haven't blown any highlights... The truth is
that a shot taken of a caucasian model with the Sun at his or her
back should never be a perfect histogram if you want the models
face to be properly exposed and yet this is how most people
opperate their histograms...

Click to expand...

If you shoot RAW, the placement of tone segments is a function of the conversion settings and not of the exposure. The sole role of the exposure is maximizing signal to noise ratio consistent with not clipping highlights, not compromising depth of field (by opening aperture excessively) and not blurring the subject (by using too low a shutter speed). That is, the exposure should snug up the histogram against the right edge without clipping as long as this is possible without compromising other settings. If such an exposure might result in an overexposed JPEG, so be it. It's irrelevent and an artifact of the fact that the in-camera processing doesn't permit one to map input tones from the raw data to output tones in the final file in the manner provided by all RAW conversion software.

Once you have the highest quality data captured by the sensor, you can map tones in the output file any way you wish.

Spot mattering doesn't help a whit in this process. It's only useful if you're shooting JPEG, since the input to output tone mapping is fixed in this case and you therefore have to expose for proper output tones. A degree of freedom is lost.

David

Pete Perry said:

Fact, Sensor Technology is now capturing between 6 and 7 stops of
light...

Fact, Velvia Slides was typically between 5 and 6 stops of light...

Fact, most of the meters in the DSLR cameras today are the same
meters that were in the old film cameras... Nikon's 1005 Pixel
CMOS Sensor is presently in the D70, D1h, D1x, D2h and D2x was the
exact same meter that was in the F5 Nikon's Flagship Film Camera
for years...

The truth is Digital falls right in between standard film and slide
film so metering works very much in line with the same methods that
were used in film 10 years ago...

Now if you're counting Calibration then that's a different issue
but my 10D and D100 lined up very well with my Sekonic L308-B2 but
since then the Canon meters have actually been found slightly
miscalibrated where ISO 100 is actually ISO 125 so that might be
where you're messing up.

Click to expand...

First, even you are an expert, could you stop saying the word "ignorance".

Second, did you read my post carefully? Where did I say the spot metering system is now different in digital cameras? All what I said was one should use it in a different way. Even if CMOS has exactly the same dynamic range as films, so long it is still a linear device, one has to deal with it in a different way.

FWIW, I do a LOT of bird photography and there was a time when I used a spot meter all the time, now I pretty much never use it even though it is available on my 5D and 1D2. I find the partial metering to be much more useful.

To each his own.

Greg

--



http://www.pbase.com/dadas115/

Metering properly is never wasted no matter what format you use! RAW has become a tool for the lazy most of the time and if you ask me it's the hack that doesn't at least try to get it right in the camera to begin with...

There's nothing wrong with shooting RAW but at least use some skill when doing it because it isn't a crutch and can have an impact on your tone as well as color if you over do the underexposure...

The truth is capturing the image correctly to begin with is the best approach to getting the shot you want and it provides less post processing work later on.

As for opening the Aperture, who said anything about that? There's a little thing called reciprocity that you should study because it implies that the ISO, Aperture and Shutter Time Value are all related... In other words, I don't have to open the aperture as that will compromise the image quality by reducing the depth of field that I might have carefully calculated so I would open up the Shutter Time Value instead and if that isn't beneficial then I can easily bump the ISO up a stop...

You're not accurate on your claims and you're implying that you have no basis for your metering at all other than to just take an under exposed shot using RAW and then running it through PP... Of course you wax poetic about optimal Signal to Noise Ratio while never really specifying what metering you use to obtain such a setting... Me I've stated nothing but photographic facts well known for years now.

As for me, I'll preset White Balance if needed and make sure my metering is accurate no matter what format I'm shooting with because it will deliver the best image to work with period!

DRG said:

Pete Perry said:

Also, the histogram approach assumes you should know where each
segment should be and if you get it wrong then your images are
wrong even if you haven't blown any highlights... The truth is
that a shot taken of a caucasian model with the Sun at his or her
back should never be a perfect histogram if you want the models
face to be properly exposed and yet this is how most people
opperate their histograms...

Click to expand...

If you shoot RAW, the placement of tone segments is a function of
the conversion settings and not of the exposure. The sole role of
the exposure is maximizing signal to noise ratio consistent with
not clipping highlights, not compromising depth of field (by
opening aperture excessively) and not blurring the subject (by
using too low a shutter speed). That is, the exposure should snug
up the histogram against the right edge without clipping as long as
this is possible without compromising other settings. If such an
exposure might result in an overexposed JPEG, so be it. It's
irrelevent and an artifact of the fact that the in-camera
processing doesn't permit one to map input tones from the raw data
to output tones in the final file in the manner provided by all RAW
conversion software.

Once you have the highest quality data captured by the sensor, you
can map tones in the output file any way you wish.

Spot mattering doesn't help a whit in this process. It's only
useful if you're shooting JPEG, since the input to output tone
mapping is fixed in this case and you therefore have to expose for
proper output tones. A degree of freedom is lost.

David

Click to expand...

--

'The probability that we may fall in the struggle ought not to deter us from the support of a cause we believe to be just; it shall not deter me.' -- Abraham Lincoln

If I'm shooting animals I like Center Weighted Metering which explains why you use Partial because Partial is often very close to the diameter of the center weighted circle...

There's nothing wrong with Partial or Center Weighted Metering either but I prefer spot because it is simply put the most accurate reading you can get from the camera.

PeaceFrog said:

FWIW, I do a LOT of bird photography and there was a time when I
used a spot meter all the time, now I pretty much never use it even
though it is available on my 5D and 1D2. I find the partial
metering to be much more useful.

To each his own.

Greg

--



http://www.pbase.com/dadas115/

Click to expand...

--

'The probability that we may fall in the struggle ought not to deter us from the support of a cause we believe to be just; it shall not deter me.' -- Abraham Lincoln

Metering for CMOS is different than Film and that isn't exacly true as the stop value falls right in the middle of those for different types of film with Slide being the least forgiving.

powershot said:

Pete Perry said:

Fact, Sensor Technology is now capturing between 6 and 7 stops of
light...

Fact, Velvia Slides was typically between 5 and 6 stops of light...

Fact, most of the meters in the DSLR cameras today are the same
meters that were in the old film cameras... Nikon's 1005 Pixel
CMOS Sensor is presently in the D70, D1h, D1x, D2h and D2x was the
exact same meter that was in the F5 Nikon's Flagship Film Camera
for years...

The truth is Digital falls right in between standard film and slide
film so metering works very much in line with the same methods that
were used in film 10 years ago...

Now if you're counting Calibration then that's a different issue
but my 10D and D100 lined up very well with my Sekonic L308-B2 but
since then the Canon meters have actually been found slightly
miscalibrated where ISO 100 is actually ISO 125 so that might be
where you're messing up.

Click to expand...

First, even you are an expert, could you stop saying the word
"ignorance".

Second, did you read my post carefully? Where did I say the spot
metering system is now different in digital cameras? All what I
said was one should use it in a different way. Even if CMOS has
exactly the same dynamic range as films, so long it is still a
linear device, one has to deal with it in a different way.

Click to expand...

--

'The probability that we may fall in the struggle ought not to deter us from the support of a cause we believe to be just; it shall not deter me.' -- Abraham Lincoln

At least there's somebody on this post that agrees with me!

KS Chew said:

... do not know how to meter, so they never appreciate the
usefulness of spot metering.

Many people seem to think that if the histogram has no clipping on
both ends, then the image has perfect exposure.

Well, exposure is more than that...

====
KS

Click to expand...

--

'The probability that we may fall in the struggle ought not to deter us from the support of a cause we believe to be just; it shall not deter me.' -- Abraham Lincoln

Have you checked Fred Miranda's site? That tends to be more Photography less Gear talk...

midwestshutterbug said:

A lot of chafe ti filter thru, to find the occasional nugget of
information. Not like the Minolta Forum, over on yahoo. Now that is
a terrific place of free flowing ideas and knowledge!

That said, I have yet to find a canon forum which is anywhere as
good as the one here.

Just wish that everyone would be less enthusiastic about proving
their point, "Against All-Comers" and more responsive to
constructive discussion.

--
Dave Patterson
---------------------
Midwestshutterbug.com

Click to expand...

--

'The probability that we may fall in the struggle ought not to deter us from the support of a cause we believe to be just; it shall not deter me.' -- Abraham Lincoln