metering question

[franco]

How do you meter these kind of shots. I shot a lot a photos of my children outside. I have a lot of shots like this one where the sun is covering some of the face. should I meter the shaded area or the area where the sun is on the face.

In this shot I took a meter measurment on the face, but the image is underexposed.





--
franco
7D 30D, Battery grip, EF 70-200L f4, EF 50 f1.8,
Ef 24-105mm f4 LIS, canon i9950.

 

[akin_t]

This is just me, but for portraits I always use spot metering around the eyes/nose area.

That's what defines a portrait IMO, and as such that area should be properly exposed. That being said, I don't think you have a bad shot, yeah it's a little underexposed but nothing that can't be fixed in ACR.

Keep experimenting, and these things will become second nature to you. I'm by no means a pro or even considered decent, but just giving my 2 cents.

Good luck.

 

[rainbow]

This is where you might want to consider flash fill. Meter for the highlites and let the flash bring up the shadow areas.

 

[balloonchasers]

Agree with the suggestion for a flash.

Metering for the face would have caused the light on the hair to be overexposed. Metering for the light on the hair caused the face to be underexposed. You need to put the light where you need it either with a flash or a reflector.

John
--

Feel free to use any of these additional letters to correct the spelling of words found in the above post: a-e-t-n-d-i-o-s-m-l-u-y-h-c If you find any extra letters, please place them here for future use...

 

[RobertBarnett]

I would shoot raw and I would meter on the brightest area of the child, focus on the face. I would then in raw lighten up the shadow areas a bit. This is a tracky shot. However, I think if you meter on the shadow area you are going to run the risk of over exposure on the sunny areas and I think it is easier to bring out the shadow and then do some noise reduction to handle any noise this brings out than you are recovering the highlight especially if the sunny spots get very over exposed.

I also might try taking a shot with a +1/2 to +1 stop of exposure compensation and see what that does. The shadow areas don't need a whole lot of boost so the +1/2 top of exposure compensation along with raw and some editing might do it.

Robert
--

How long does it take a vegetable to start loosing its freshness? This happens in the amount of time it takes it to go from its victory party to its congressional office!

 

[rohitberi]

agree with rainbow... use the flash...
--
-Beri

 

[akin_t]

If you use the flash aren't you just going to overexpose the area you metered?

 

[balloonchasers]

No you will not overexpose if you put the flash where it is needed and not where it is not needed. The off shoe cord is a great way to do this because you can move the flash to the side and reduce the power of your flash so that it gives just enough light to get a little better exposure on the face. A handheld reflector is also an easy way to do this. It is all about controlling light when it comes to portraits.

Believe it or not but the following pic would have looked very similiar to the OP's if I had not placed a reflector on the subject's right hand side to bounce some light back onto her face. The left hand side of her face would have been properly exposed while her right hand side would have been in the shadows. The reflector allowed me to add light where it was needed.



John
--

Feel free to use any of these additional letters to correct the spelling of words found in the above post: a-e-t-n-d-i-o-s-m-l-u-y-h-c If you find any extra letters, please place them here for future use...

 

[Felipe M]

as mentioned, you can use flash fill or move the subject to where there is an even amount of light (sunlight).

 

[JOCANIR]

I would try what everyone else has mentioned.

However, you could also try bumping up the ISO to 400 to see if it makes it a little better (as long as most of what you want is shaded).

 

[franco]

Sorry, my mistake. I forgot to mention that a flash was used in this shot. I simply triggered the 430 ex II via the onboard. The flash is fitted with the omni-bounce and I used a flash exposure compensation +2.
--
franco
7D 30D, Battery grip, EF 70-200L f4, EF 50 f1.8,
Ef 24-105mm f4 LIS, canon i9950.

 

[balloonchasers]

Then the flash was not pointed in the right place. Since there is no evidence of flash in your photo, then I will assume the omnibounce was not helping the situation. The best way to get the light where you want is with an off shoe cord and use your 430EX II. Increasing the ISO would have allowed you to shoot at a faster shutter speed or with a larger f-stop. It would not have increased the light hitting the shadow side of your subject. Your image is properly exposed since the flower in the girl's hair still has detail and is not overexposed.

Cute girl!

John
--

Feel free to use any of these additional letters to correct the spelling of words found in the above post: a-e-t-n-d-i-o-s-m-l-u-y-h-c If you find any extra letters, please place them here for future use...

 

[Chris R-UK]

According to the EXIF data the camera was in Auto mode - I assume that that means the green square rather than P.

I think that the effect of the flash is rather uncertain in full auto - the camera makes it own decision about what type of flash to use. It would be better to use Av to get fill flash.
--
Chris R

 

[rainbow]

You don't need the omnibounce either. The flash is filling in the shadow areas so it will not create any shadows. All you are doing is using up your batteries faster and making the flash weaker by diffusing the light.

 

[Anonimo]

Hi Franco.

About the flash

As others wrote, the flash was not effective in this picture. Maybe it hasn't really fired: in such conditions it might be difficult for the remote to recognize the master (there is a lot of ambient light). To check if the communication is up you can check if the remote fires when you press FEL.

I would better keep it simple and let the flash in the hot-shoe or even use the onboard flash (if the distance allows). You won't need a positive flash exposure compensation when doing so.

Also the omnibounce is a kind of useless here. This modifier is intended to be used with umbrellas or when bouncing to ceiling or walls in a room ( I hope that you are not pointing the flash to the sky when taking these pictures... ). It diffuses light but doesn't make the light source larger. Outdoors it only drains your batteries faster. Watch the video below.

http://www.youtube.com/user/LumiQuest#p/a/u/6/7X9wWkwbQiA

About the metering and your results

I think that the camera metered correctly and that the problem is on the lack of flash light. Depending on the shooting mode the camera might underexpose the ambient light, counting with the flash to lift the subject - if the flash light doesn't come then the subject gets underexposed. The camera made indeed a good job preserving highlights (had it gone for a brighter exposure, hairs and flower would have been blown out).

I've played a bit with your picture in DPP and could get the girl's face brighter while preserving the highlights (I've used the curve tool for that). But to achieve that I had to lower the contrast in the shadow-to-highlight transition, what made her hairs look a bit flat. The overall picture looked bit flat. Yes, you are missing that flash light...

Regards, Anonimo

Sorry, my mistake. I forgot to mention that a flash was used in this shot. I simply triggered the 430 ex II via the onboard. The flash is fitted with the omni-bounce and I used a flash exposure compensation +2.
--
franco
7D 30D, Battery grip, EF 70-200L f4, EF 50 f1.8,
Ef 24-105mm f4 LIS, canon i9950.

 

[Loren Charif]

It's definitely a challenge, but it's not a lost picture by any means; I took the liberty of downloading it and applying the Shadows & Highlights tool...nothing else (although you might want to add a little local contrast to sharpen it up a bit)...I think it looks pretty good for a one-click fix...she's very photogenic!

Loren



--
http://www.pbase.com/lorenbc/
http://www.photosig.com/viewuser.php?id=4994

 

[franco]

Hi Franco.

About the flash

As others wrote, the flash was not effective in this picture. Maybe it hasn't really fired: in such conditions it might be difficult for the remote to recognize the master (there is a lot of ambient light). To check if the communication is up you can check if the remote fires when you press FEL.

The flash actually fired. You can see a small catchlight in the left eye.

Also the omnibounce is a kind of useless here. This modifier is intended to be used with umbrellas or when bouncing to ceiling or walls in a room ( I hope that you are not pointing the flash to the sky when taking these pictures... ). It diffuses light but doesn't make the light source larger. Outdoors it only drains your batteries faster. Watch the video below.

http://www.youtube.com/user/LumiQuest#p/a/u/6/7X9wWkwbQiA

I really thought the omnibounce would soften effect of the harsh direct flash. But after seeing that video, i get the idea that it is useless for outdoor use, or have I misunderstood?.

franco
7D 30D, Battery grip, EF 70-200L f4, EF 50 f1.8,
Ef 24-105mm f4 LIS, canon i9950.

 

[Anonimo]

I really thought the omnibounce would soften effect of the harsh direct flash. But after seeing that video, i get the idea that it is useless for outdoor use, or have I misunderstood?.

No, you haven't misanderstood. More on this link:
http://neilvn.com/tangents/2007/05/11/flash-modifiers/

And here a practical example indoors (direct flash + omnibounce x bouncing)
http://neilvn.com/tangents/2008/01/16/choosing-your-direction/

Regards, Anonimo

 

[Guv]

I'm going to assume no flash use for this answer about metering. With proper flash use, you'd have an entirely different photo and this wouldn't so much be about metering as it would be about proper use of fill flash....

If you'd properly exposed for her face, you would have blown the highlights in her hair and right arm so far out they would be completely unrecoverable. You'd be stuck with very distracting white blazes in those spots that would detract from the overall image quite a bit. Exposing the way you (your camera) did, you have no blown highlights and no lost shadows, from what I can see. The image is, for lack of a better term, "histogram happy," and you camera did what it was supposed to do. You now have leeway to fix it in post production by bumping up the shadows, as another poster did, and leaving the highlights where they are.

Of course, you don't want to get in the habit of intentionally underexposing the image unless you're trying to preserve highlights. In this case, the only solution would be to move your model out of the harsh mixed lighting or do a better job overcoming it with artificial lighting or reflectors. Lighting is tricky, even outside where there's lots of it!

I agree with another post, try playing around with Av or even P outdoors with flash. Av will always make the flash act as fill lighting, while P will let the camera decide whether to make the flash the main light or the fill light while exposing for ambient lighting. In sunlight, it will choose the latter.

--
http://andymcelroy.smugmug.com