what does "recompose the shot" mean?

<p>I have come across a couple of threads on here and the same in a book I am reading....Can someone explain this to me regarding exposure?<br>

"...chose shutter speed of 1/500....adjusted aperture while taking a meter reading off the distant horizon and sky, got f/4 as a correct exposure then<strong> I recomposed and took the shot</strong>."<br>

"...chose shutter speed of 8 seconds, with camera pointed to sunset sky, adjusted my aperture until camera light meter indicated f/11 as correct exposure then <strong>recomposed the scene</strong>."<br>

Forgive the redundancy, but I do not understand this concept - it sounds pretty step by step, but I don't get it. ?? The author chose a shutter speed on M, pointed camera towards sky, - then manually set the aperture to the corresponding setting until the meter was in the middle, then pushed the autofocus button?? - then moved the camera to the frame he was trying to capture without releasing the af button, and fired? forgive my confusing interpretation...im just confused - obviously! "recompose the scene is throwing me off."</p>

<p>To recompose the shot is to rearrange the subjects in the viewfinder. </p>

<p>Take your sunset example. The photographer put the camera in a position where everything in the viewfinder was in exactly the spots he wanted it. Then he / she realized that the exposure settings weren't quite perfect, so he adjusted them, and then put the camere to his face or on the tripod, and recomposed / recreated the arrangement of the scene in the viewfinder, and took the shot.</p>

<p>Make sense now?</p>

<p>Or to put it another way:<br>

With many in-the-camera meters, it may be necessary to point the camera in some particular place to get the correct exposure (avoiding the sun head on, or whatever) -- then, after the exposure is set and held, then the image is "re-composed" by the photographer to get the composition desired on artistic grounds.</p>

<p>And, as another example, some people will use their camera's best auto-focus area, which is usually clustered around the center of the frame. But what if the shot requires that the thing you want in focus (say, the face of a human subject) will end up being off-center, near the top third of the frame?<br /><br />So, it's not unusual to point that center-frame AF sensor area at your subject's eyes, partially depress the shutter to cause the camera to lock focus (presuming you haven't got some continual focus mode engaged), and then, once the subject's eyes are in focus, point the camera ("recompose the shot") back to where you want it so the subject's face is in the right spot when you take the shot. Just like the metering scenario that JDM describes above, only the issue focus. In some cases, the process is about getting both focus and metering locked in before re-composing and releasing the shutter.</p>

<p>How does this affect the autofocus? The author I quoted above was intentionally setting the exposure based on the sky, for example - then he "recomposed the shot" to take the picture of what he really wanted - a bridge with traffic on it at dusk with the sky in the background. I assume if he had focused on the bridge initially, he would have not gotten the exposure he wanted? But how does autofocus come into play when using this technique? do you push the af button down halfway, get the exposure, recompose without letting the button up, then push it the rest of the way down? Is your final frame still in focus even though you have "recomposed"? I do not exactly understand the entire concept of using another part of a scene to get proper metering then recomposing.....</p>

<p>I'm not Matt, but autofocus usually works on an object in the center of the frame. So letting autofocus lock onto a subject in the center of the frame (by holding shutter button halfway down), and then moving the camera to the right slightly to move the subject to the left, would also be "recomposing the shot."</p>

"Recompose the shot" means to move the camera up, down, left, right or a combination of those movements. If you don't want a picture of blank sky you move the camera down, recompose the shot, to include some land and trees.

<p>I guess I should have been more clear that my question about "recomposing the shot" revolves more around the concept of using it as a tool to get a desired exposure -<br>

getting an exposure from another part of the scene (sky) purposely and using it to your benefit (purposely) on a different aspect of your frame. In Bryan Peterson's "Understanding Exposure"...he writes,<br>

"Since I knew I wanted to exploit the motion of the traffic flowing across the bridge, I chose a shutter speed of 8 seconds. With my camera pointed to the sunset sky, I adjusted my aperture until the camera's light meter indicated f/11 as a correct exposure and then recomposed the scene. I was pleased with the result...." <br>

Why would he do this? When he recomposed the scene - is it understood that he focused BEFORE he recomposed or after? </p>

 

<p>Going out on a limb here, since I'm only seeing a tiny snippet of the book's text, but in general the sky is about 2 steps brighter than the ground. He may have been using the sky's brightness for his metering, and then subtracted 2-3 steps from that sky exposure, to get proper exposure for the objects on land.</p>

<p>But normally, the term composition means how elements are arranged in the scene. It's mostly independent of exposure. Not entirely, but mostly.</p>

<p>In the days before autofocus and matrix metering, the focus aid (usually a fresnel screen or split image prism) and the circle for center weighted meters (if your camera had a meter at all) were both located in the center of the viewfinder. If you needed to get a meter reading or focus on something that was not in the center of the frame, you first had to point your camera so that the subject was in the center and get your meter reading or achieve focus, then change the angle of the camera until you have the composition that you wanted. It didn't matter which you did first as long as you didn't adjust the focus and screw up your shot.</p>

<p>Today you have cameras with multiple focus spots all over the viewfinder and matrix metering, so recomposing is not as necessary as it once was. In the example that you posted about taking a meter reading off of the sky, it would generally be easier with an auto focus camera to get your meter reading first, set your exposure manually (or hold down the exposure lock button), then do whatever you need to do to get your image focused and take the shot. On the other hand, I typically to all of this the other way around because my D50 has a button that locks both exposure and autofocus at the same time. What I usually do is first achieve proper focus and remove my finger from the shutter button. Then I move the camera so that I can take a meter reading from wherever I want and press the AF-L/AE-L button. At this point, neither the focus nor the exposure will be changed when I hit the shutter button. Then I recompose the shot so that I get the composition I want in the viewfinder and hit the shutter button.</p>

<p>I should add that, if you are doing this while shooting macro, it's always best to focus last since you are typically working with short subject-to-image-plane distances and small movements of the camera can easily throw your subject out of focus.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>How does this affect the autofocus?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Whether autofocus or manual focus, the focus will not be perfect if the view is recomposed after focus, especially if the subject is close or when using a wide angle lens or a shallow depth of field. It is far better to move the autofocus point around to where the subject is in the frame (although it is cumbersome).</p>

<p>The spot meter, on the other hand, is mostly at the center making recomposition necessary in every case when spot metering is used and the object being metered is not at the center. On Nikon DSLRs with a D lens in autofocus mode, the spot meter follows the active autofocus point and no recomposition is necessary (technically). The meter also places maximum weight on the active focus point in matix (or evaluative in canon) metering mode.</p>

<p>Recomposition is required when the camera meter and autofocus point is fixed at the center/middle of the viewing frame (whether due to a camera limitation or choice by the photographer). No recomposition is required on a modern DSLR fitted with a modern lens (unless the subject or area to be metered is at the edges of the frame). That said, pushing around AF points, especially separately for metering and focus, is (still) cumbersome at best; recomposing a scene is much, much faster. (Canon implemented some kind of a eye detection thing once, but it was not accurate enough and didn't catch on.)</p>

<p>Since macro was mentioned, I found it best to use continuous auto focus for macro and push the AF points to the correct place.</p>

<p>Having read the book, I think it is a slightly bit confusing the way Peterson puts it, but it does make sense.<br>

It simply disconnects metering from composing (and focussing). So, he sees a scene, evaluates where to meter, does the metering, and then using those exposure settings, frames his scene, focusses, shoot.<br>

So, the point when the focus is specifically done does not really matter. I think he uses 'recompose' because he first composes to see if the scene works for him, then meters, sets exposure and composes again. Either way, the point of these sentences is to say that in cases, you should meter of a specific part of the scene. Composing and focus is another step, so to speak.</p>

<p>This term seems to have come into usage along with autofocus and autoexposure. It is most often used to mean that you put the object you want in the centre of the viewfinder so the camera can easily focus precisely on what you want, and then, having automatically locked into that focus distance and exposure by half-pressing the shutter button, you then fine tune your composition of the scene in the viewfinder.</p>

<p>It's the automatic focus and exposure method that is most like we old-timers used to use an all-manual 35mm camera... but much faster. It gives the photographer more control over both exposure and autofocus without having to fiddle with anything. When used in conjunction with the AE lock button on most DSLRs, you can easily get exactly the right exposure just by where you centre-meter the scene.</p>

<p>If more people did that, there would be less need for raw files... because you would develop a feel for getting what you want the first time.</p>

Recomposition is necessary only when using a camera with autofocus, an internal light meter, or both. If you were using a simpler

camera that didn't have these features, you could compose once, focus manually, and then make your exposure.

 

Now imagine a slightly most complex camera. It has a spot meter and an autofocus sensor, both of which are located right in the

middle of the frame. If you want to meter and focus on the object that's right in the middle of the frame, point your camera directly at

it, make your exposure settings according to the meter (or let the camera do that automatically), let the camera autofocus on the

subject, and take your shot. No recomposition is necessary since your AF sensor and spot meter were pointed at your primary

subject.

 

But what if you don't want to meter on what's in the middle of the frame. You want to meter on the sky or the grass instead. You'll

have to turn and tip the camera somewhat to point the spot meter on your metering target. Make a note of the meter's reading and

dial that into your camera using manual exposure mode (or lock it in using a focus lock feature if your camera has one). Now you can

turn and tilt the camera back to the point where you can achieve your desired composition. This turning and tilting is the act of

recomposition.

 

The same would be true if you wanted to focus on something or someone that's not in the center of the frame. Imagine taking a

photo of three friends. If you want to focus on the person standing on the left side of the frame rather than the center, you'll have to

turn your camera toward that person, lock the focus, then recompose so that person is once again on the left side and someone else

is in the center.

 

Modern camera, including some phone camera, are usually more complex. They have multiple autofocus points and in some cases

facial recognition technology. They can be set to spot meter on any of the autofocus sensors (not just the one in the center), or then

can be set to evaluate light levels in the entire frame using a variety of patterns, priorities, and algorithms. However, if you want to

override any of these feature, you would still follow a similar strategy to the examples here of the somewhat simpler camera that only

metered and focused on objects in the center.

<blockquote>

<p>Having read the book, I think it is a slightly bit confusing the way Peterson puts it, but it does make sense.<br />It simply disconnects metering from composing (and focussing). So, he sees a scene, evaluates where to meter, does the metering, and then using those exposure settings, frames his scene, focusses, shoot.<br />So, the point when the focus is specifically done does not really matter. I think he uses 'recompose' because he first composes to see if the scene works for him, then meters, sets exposure and composes again.<strong> Either way, the point of these sentences is to say that in cases, you should meter of a specific part of the scene. Composing and focus is another step, so to speak.</strong></p>

</blockquote>

<p>EXACTLY!! Which brings me to my question!!! , which is - When do you do this? What is it about the scene/ light, etc..that makes him decide to METER on a different spot, THEN recompose and shoot? </p>

<p>....although I see now that the focus (lock) does not have anything to do with metering then recomposing. I have caught on that you pack a spot (sky), meter, get correct exposure and redirect your camera to another point (bridge) and focus and shoot. So, now, as previously stated, why would you meter on something else, when would you do that? Like Wouter described above.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>why would you meter on something else ... ?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Because the camera has no idea what's in front of it, and it can't read your mind about what's important in the scene. That said, modern cameras run some pretty amazing software, and can make some surprisingly good exposure guesses based on clues that it receives from the combination of information it gets as you're composing/metering. For example, many metering systems are able to make a good guess that you're shooting a human shape against a bright sky (it sees all of that bright, a dark shape centrally in the scene, and it knows you're focusing on something that's a couple of meters away ... all clues that the photographer is setting up a common touristy landscape-behind-the-pose shot).<br /><br />But what if you're shooting a bridge that's back lit against the sky, with flowers in the foreground? What should the camera make of that scene? Should it evaluate the entire scene, and just try to keep the highlights from blowing out? If it does, the odds are that the shaded areas of the bridge will be thrown completely in to shadow, and show no detail. Or, should the camera try to show you the details in the silhouetted bridge's shadows? If so, it will probably grossly over-expose the sky, and blow out all of the flower details in the foreground.<br /><br />So, when you put the camera in spot metering mode, and point that metering spot at the thing you think is important, the camera will attempt to render that part of the image in middle tones. If you lock the exposure while you're still pointed at your area of interest, you'll still get an exposure like that, even as you re-point the camera to put the flowers back where you wanted them, etc. <br /><br />Cameras don't have infinite dynamic range. In highly contrasty light (bright sky, dark bridge), something has to give. By choosing what to meter, you're sparing the camera from getting it wrong when it guesses. <br /><br />There are other tactics to get around these issues, of course. Shoot when the light is more even (a cloudy day, for example), or add light with strobes or reflectors, and so on. If you control or wait for the right light, you can avoid a lot of trouble. But that may not fit with your circumstances or vision for the final results.<br /><br />You can also use multiple shots, bracketing the exposure so that you get a good exposure for each element of the scene, and then combine those (subtly, carefully, to avoid cartoon-looking results) in post production. That way you're cheating the system, and making up for the lack of dynamic range in the camera. But used too heavy-handedly, HDR techniques like that are really hideous. So, tread lightly there.</p>

<p>Well, when Bryan Peterson does the "meter somewhere, then compose", is described in the book - for example the reddish dawn light, around sunset; basically in tricky light situations where you want to ensure you get the right tone of that specific light, keeping the atmosphere.</p>

<p>Part of that comes with experience; trial and error. Under some circumstances (extreme differences between light and dark in one scene being the most common for me), you learn to recognise that your fully automatic metering is going to be off. In a sunset like <a href="../photo/10456887">this one</a>, for example, I know I cannot fully rely on the camera, and I might switch to spot metering the part I want to expose for (sky somewhat near the sun), or take a first shot, and then adjust exposure for a second one. For an image like <a href="../photo/10933302">this</a>, I know I better can use the spot-meter for the bright parts, to get the effect I want. I'm not very experienced, though, there sure are many here who can explain more and rely on more knowledge too.</p>

Suppose a good outdoor exposure would be 1/100 sec @ f/11. You want to take a photo of a child in a white snow suit building a snowman on a white snow covered lawn. The meter will see all that white and think, "Wow too light; I had better darken down a bit" and give an exposure setting of 1/800 sec @ f/11. That will give you an underexposed photo of a gray snow suit, snowman and lawn. You have to zoom in or spot meter the child's face, open up one stop, lock that exposure (which would now be 1/100 sec @ f/11) and recompose and take the shot.

 

Why open up one stop over the child's face? Caucasian skin is one stop less (Zone 6) than the 18% gray (Zone 5) that the meter averages out to. You can either learn when and how to adjust the indicated meter reading for the result you want or just rely on the meter giving you an adequate exposure for a given scene most of the time.

<p>Since he was setting a long exposure, he didn't want the sky to be overexposed. So by setting an 8 second exposure and then metering off the sky, he could adjust his aperture as necessary to avoid the overexposure. If he had metered the whole scene, the sky would only be part of what the camera's algorithm would use to determine a proper exposure, and thus would be overexposed.</p>

<p>So to answer your question of when to do this, you need to have an understanding of the bright and dark areas in your scene, and how you want them to appear in your picture. An easy example is shooting the moon. It's a very bright object surrounded by a lot of dark. Unless you have a really long telephoto lens, the dark is going to make up a bigger portion of your scene than the moon. When the camera sees all that dark, it wants to make it 18% gray, so you end up with a gray sky and a terribly overexposed moon. So you set your exposure based on the moon, and it will show up fine, and the sky will be black, as it should be.</p>

Because reflective light meters are stupid, CS. As others have described nicely above, the meter can't tell green

grass from white snow or black asphalt. If you meter on those three surfaces in the same light you'll get three very

different readings. Which one is correct? That all depends on what you want. Do you want your snow to be white or

gray? It's your choice. Do you want the grass to be spring green (light), Kelly green (mid toned), emerald green

(slightly dark), or forest green (darker)? Do you want to see color and detail in the sky, or do you want it to be rendered as blown out white? It's your choice, but you have to know how the meter responds to different

tones in order to exercise that kind of control.

<p>CS 1140 ... you hit on one of the problems of 're-composing' when working to establish focus or exposure by an off centre sensing spot in the viewfinder .... that in getting correct exposure you get an incorrect focus, and vice versa, which is why some cameras have what is known an exposure and/or focus lock ... so you can establish one and then the other.<br />In its simplest form one points the camera, for example to avoid burning out the sky, one includes more of it in frame while taking half trigger for AE to establish exposure, and then when the camera tells you its got that worked out, you lower the camera for the composition you want [ still holding HT ]. Likely this means you will need to selectively lighten the darker lower areas of the picture to suit the sky in editing but that is maybe better than a burnt out sky ... a personal choice. If you had somebody/something standing close to camera it is likely they would be soft or completely out of focus since the AF will have focused on the sky as AE got the exposure.<br />I may be wrong but I see this as a technique to 'fool' the automatics into giving me the exposure/focus I want ... I see no need to do it if working in manual unless one is using say AF or AE to detrmine focus or exposure as one would use a rangefinder or hand held meter in yesteryears.<br />There is another technique which I used in the days of a simple SLR with just a built in meter with a needle to be lined up with a centre marks by adjusting manually shutter and aperture. I would deliberately line the needle above or below centre according to my estimation of the subject matter and one can do this with a digital camera in a similar way. My SLRs had the needle on right hand side whereas digital seem to be across the bottom of viewfinder.</p>

In the examples that the OP quoted, the author was shooting in manual exposure mode. Once he dialed in his

exposure it was not going to change when he recomposed the frame. The exposure is set. Now he can use the

camera's autofocus sensor to focus in any part of the scene he chooses. Finally, he recomposes and takes his shot.

It all works together just fine. The exposure is as he prefers it. The plane of focus is at the distance that he specifies.

And the composition is as he wanted it to be.

<p>I remember reading something similar to that when I was in school, this was before auto focus. Most cameras only had aperture priority or shutter priority. Almost all the cameras that we had in school were manual and quite a few of them did not have a meter in them.</p>

<p>What year was the book published that you are reading??</p>

<p>This is one of those instances that an all manual camera or shooting in manual mode helps immensely.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>"Since I knew I wanted to exploit the motion of the traffic flowing across the bridge, I chose a shutter speed of 8 seconds. With my camera pointed to the sunset sky, I adjusted my aperture until the camera's light meter indicated f/11 as a correct exposure and then recomposed the scene. I was pleased with the result...." <br /> Why would he do this? When he recomposed the scene - is it understood that he focused BEFORE he recomposed or after?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Why, probably because personal experience told him that if he just set his camera up to what the meter was telling him it would not have come out like he wanted it to. Dan South said it brilliantly, "Because reflective light meters are stupid, CS. As others have described nicely above, the meter can't tell green grass from white snow or black asphalt." The author probably looked at the sky and thought "gee that sky is really close to 18% gray, I can use it to set my exposure". He chose 8 seconds so the lights from the cars will streak, he chose ƒ11 by metering the sky. This way the sky will come out close to 18% gray and the rest be what it will be. I imagine that there are lights from the city behind possibly and lights on the bridge, all of these things can fool the light meter or affect to be something other than what you want.<br>

I should also add that in recomposing the scene, focus probably happened when he first composed the scene and refocused when he recomposed the scene, just to make sure everything was right.</p>

<p>The OP has started a new thread, where he discusses a follow-up to this, involving an e-mail exchange with the author he's discussing. That thread is <strong><a href="00ZF5x">here</a></strong>.</p>