Light meter - the mood killer

[mirekti]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I have a question in regards to the light meter in general.

Not sure if this happens with all camera brands or it is the case with the M's meter.

 

Many times when I use the A mode, and trying to take a photo of someone in the room which is a bit dark or has the "mood", the meter is trying to compensate and all photos look as if it is a daylight. I even miss a shot because of too slow shutter speed due to this phenomena.

 

Is there a way Leica could improve this, or this is something all cameras have, and I have to live with it?

 

Here is a quick sample. The photo on the right side is more or less the way it should look like and it is a stop and a half darker.

Welcome, dear visitor! As registered member you'd see an image here…

Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members!

[jaapv]

A lightmeter is not the Oracle of Delphi, it needs user input. There is no way that your camera can know what effect the user is after. So it will give you a guideline which you must adapt to the image you want to take.

[friedeye]

You have to live with it. The meter always wants to pump things up.

 

In low light situations, go to manual. There's a thread elsewhere on this board about the optimal ISO. I'm not sure what it would be for the M. I have an M9, and have started using the suggestion from the discussion -- setting the ISO at 640, and then pushing it a stop or two in LR. It works wonderfully. In certain situations, I've been able to push over 3 stops without noticeable banding (not perfect-but acceptable if I convert to B&W). I feel like I have a new camera.

 

With the M, I'm sure you can go much higher. I think there's another discussion about this and the M.

 

But, in low light, always shoot in manual mode.

[mirekti]

A lightmeter is not the Oracle of Delphi, it needs user input. There is no way that your camera can know what effect the user is after. So it will give you a guideline which you must adapt to the image you want to take.

 

I agree, but in a way I'd expect from a light meter to expose so the picture matched the current light.

 

By matching the current light conditions, I'd always know (if there are no extra light sources that could trick the meter) what my photo would look like, it would look like the way I see it. Then I could do some artistic adjustmen or whatever else.

 

Thanks anyway!!

I've noticed you're really trying to help out people here, and don't hesitate to answer "dumb" questions too. (Y)

 

There's a thread elsewhere on this board about the optimal ISO. I'm not sure what it would be for the M. I have an M9, and have started using the suggestion from the discussion -- setting the ISO at 640, and then pushing it a stop or two in LR. It works wonderfully. In certain situations, I've been able to push over 3 stops without noticeable banding (not perfect-but acceptable if I convert to B&W). I feel like I have a new camera.

 

With the M, I'm sure you can go much higher..

 

My assumption was if the meter doesn't overexpose daylight photos, why it would overexpose those taken in the dim light.

[250swb]

 

Is there a way Leica could improve this, or this is something all cameras have, and I have to live with it?

 

Here is a quick sample. The photo on the right side is more or less the way it should look like and it is a stop and a half darker.

 

As you know from general photography the light meter tries to average the exposure around a mid tone. So on Auto it will base it's decision on finding the average for the area it is reading from, which if a bright wall it will reduce the exposure to that 'theoretical' mid tone, or visa versa if from a dark curtain it will increase the exposure. As the Leica's meter has a small coverage patch, and is not a multi point meter (so averaging many points), it relies on tried and tested traditional methods, relying on the photographer to intervene when it works out wrong. This really is photography 101, and the Leica meter is fine if used as intended

 

Steve

[CaptZoom]

mirekti

Are you using the new M? If so, I think the new M has a spot meter option (which the M9 does not). Use the spot meter and have the camera meter for whatever you want the mid to be- so you'll be doing both focusing and recomposing, and metering and recomposing.

[Gerard]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Just wait until winter hits and dumps a load of snow!

 

:-)

[CalArts 99]

fwiw, many colleges and universities have extension courses available for non-traditional students (i.e., adult night courses) https://www.uclaextension.edu/Pages/BrowseCourses.aspx

 

Unfortunately, one of the results of current 'auto-everything' cameras is that a novice user never gets an opportunity to learn and understand the foundations of photography. And a lot of manual options which can effectively 'explain by doing' have been either removed entirely or hidden away.

 

In addition, there are often art history courses available, too. Putting the medium of photography into an historical context can be informative in respect to being an image maker yourself.

[Paul J]

A camera meter will only see, what is known as "18% grey". You need to compensate for it using the zone system.

 

So if it's dark the camera sees it as lighter and if it's light the camera sees it as darker.

 

Use the exposure compensation (set it to the rear thumb wheel) function to lighten or darken the exposure.

 

All cameras work in the same way.

[albireo_double]

Well, I wouldn't jump to a conclusion so quickly, because I think Mirek has a point here. A normal averaging meter, calibrated for 18% grey, when confronted with a white wall, would render it as grey - i.e. closer to Mirek's picture on the right that he considers "optimally exposed". I would not expect such a "basic" meter to compensate for the fact that the wall/door is white - which however seems to have happened with the image on the left. On the other hand, a more sophisticated meter, such as a multi-segment meter or Nikon's colour-aware meter, would probably compensate automatically and expose something like Mirek's left image. So, I am not sure what is at play here and whether perhaps part of the red curtain in Mirek's image is seen by the averaging meter's patch as dark enough to prompt significantly longer exposure, in the case of this concrete image. Incidentally, I think the image on the left is exposed better - and yes, I agree with all the comments above saying that one needs to adjust exposure manually to achieve the desired effect/creative intent/mood.

[Printmaker]

Magic accessory.

Welcome, dear visitor! As registered member you'd see an image here…

Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members!

[mark_j]

Look on the bright side, it looks like you have ETTR (can't see any blown highlights?) and then pulled it back in post and so you are ahead of the game already.

[Paul J]

Even a handheld meter you are going to have to under expose to replicate the scene in the Original post.

 

It's exposure basics - Read up on the zone system. If you want a scene in that falls into zones II-III then you need to place it there by exposure. A camera or handheld meter is going to put it in zone V, every time because it knows no different.

[plewislambert]

A light meter gives results in differing situations according to its design and setting. It isn't going to be aware of what you think the final result should look like.

Serious cameras in my experience always have ways of changing the metering mode and giving plus or minus adjustments. Automatic exposure bracketing is in the menu on most cameras. If you don't like the results that you see played back in the rear screen you can take the picture again with a different exposure or adjust the levels of the raw image in postprocessing.

Some skill is demanded of the photographer.

It's not by chance that some photographers prefer hand held metering or spot-metering if the situation demands it.

Philip

[pgk]

A lightmeter is not the Oracle of Delphi, it needs user input. There is no way that your camera can know what effect the user is after. So it will give you a guideline which you must adapt to the image you want to take.

I like that jaapv - so the next M series camera from Leica should clearly have an "oracle of Delphi' predictive mode designed to second guess intent when taking a photograph. More buttons to press:D!

[mirekti]

I guess some of you guys missed my point. There's no need for a light meter to know what I think, I never asked for it. I'm aware it can be tricky for the meter in case of extra light sources, but the elements in the samples I took are more or less evenly lit from the light comming through the window to the right.

 

I simply stated the camera should expose properly i.e. the way scene really looks like, the real light amount in the scene.

[pgk]

I guess some of you guys missed my point. There's no need for a light meter to know what I think, I never asked for it. I'm aware it can be tricky for the meter in case of extra light sources, but the elements in the samples I took are more or less evenly lit from the light comming through the window to the right.

 

I simply stated the camera should expose properly i.e. the way scene really looks like, the real light amount in the scene.

You have a white door, on the left a light wall centrally and and a vivid red curtain to the right and illumination from the right. The (centre-weighted) meter is simply measuring the amount of light it sees and is 'fooled' by the lighter areas and brighter lit red curtain which are biasing its reading. It doesn't know that its 'seeing' too much light from the light bias so you need to adjust for his yourself. There are 'matrix' metering systems built into cameras which are termed 'evaluative' which might cope better but they can be fooled in other situations. There is nothing to beat careful consideration of the scene and careful metering as a result and expecting a centre-weighted meter to assess anything other than the amount of light it receives is expecting more that it can deliver I'm afraid.

[Paul J]

It is you missing the point - You are a photographer. Do what other photographs have done for the past 200 years and learn about exposure.

 

Once you learn the basics, it becomes second nature, and you will know what to set the exposure compensation at a quick glance.

[mirekti]

It is you missing the point - You are a photographer. Do what other photographs have done for the past 200 years and learn about exposure.

 

That's a valid statement, but I just complained about the light meter in the camera. I know with the time I'll learn the camera better and be aware in certain situations I'll have to compensate.

 

What I stated at the begining was the light meter was a mood killer, and it was, word.

I simply asked whether this was the case with all build in meters in cameras, and this was where the story should have ended.

 

Sometimes simple yes or no tell much more than trying to convince somebody it's his fault. Sure, there are plenty of workarounds when using a lightmeter to get the exposure right, and I'm glad people mentioned them as they would be of future use and would help me improve getting the exposure right.

 

The point taken here is the current camera's light meter techonlogy is what it is.

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica M

[250swb]

I guess some of you guys missed my point. There's no need for a light meter to know what I think, I never asked for it. I'm aware it can be tricky for the meter in case of extra light sources, but the elements in the samples I took are more or less evenly lit from the light comming through the window to the right.

 

I simply stated the camera should expose properly i.e. the way scene really looks like, the real light amount in the scene.

 

This is nothing to do with extra light sources, or even a scene that looks evenly lit, it is about the intensity of reflected light. If you had the walls and curtains exactly the same colour they will each reflect different amounts of light because they are different materials.

 

If for instance you were outside and wanted to make a photograph of the clouds, you wouldn't meter from the clouds because the meter will try to make them an average mid gray, they wouldn't come out white. Instead you would meter from something that equates to mid-gray and has a similar intensity of light falling on it, and green grass is the age old '18% reflectance mid-gray' that photographers use.

 

So to meter for your room you have two things fooling the camera that reflect light darker than mid-gray in the curtains, and something that will reflect lighter than mid-gray with the wall. You aren't looking for a colour to meter from, just a B&W tone. Then you can begin to get accurate readings by metering from other things. This is precisely why a wedding photographer for instance would carry a 'gray card' for both white balance and in this case to make accurate meter readings, because vast white wedding dresses will fool a camera's light meter into under exposing. So a reading of a mid-gray can be set every now and again as light changes to override what the camera is falsely telling you. And if not grass when outdoors the skin of your palm (if Caucasian) also reflects 18% mid-gray and can give a close reading.

 

Steve