Metering Critque

[gladys_lemus]

I am a photography student, for my wedding photography we staged a wedding, it

was a tough lighting situation,(I know it happens) I didn't use a flash(I do own

one)and I only use a film camera (so I don't edit my photos)I spot metered the

shadow on her face, but to me it looks a little dark. I have asked my

photography teacher, but really doesn't give a good answer "It just depends on

how you meter"

 

My question is.....what could I've done to get a better exposure without a fill

flash

Thanks a bunch

 

 

http://www.photo.net/photodb/folder?folder_id=785467

 

 

Check out more of my student work

http://www.flickr.com/photos/glara/<div></div>

[picturesque]

Metering and getting a better exposure are not necessarily related in the described situation. So is your question about better metering or about getting a better exposure?

 

Without fill flash, use a reflector, or put the subject in a less contrasty situation. Without being able to minimize the contrast, you are forced to expose for one part of the subject at the expense of the other. So metering-wise it looks like your exposure of the face was good. It is the most important part of the image. However, the veil blows out. I, for one, don't mind the veil blowing out sometimes for bridal shots. However, if that's not what you wanted, then you would have to do something so that detail in all parts of the subject is there.

 

With negative film, it is sometimes hard to tell whether the exposure was right, because the lab compensates for it. With negative film, you can also take more chances at letting the highlights go hot a little without losing detail. With digital, you don't have this luxury with the highlights, however, you can underexpose so the highlights have detail, and bring the rest of the exposure (shadows) up in post processing, with some consequences involving noise and other unwanted side effects.

[wvtg]

this is just me thinking aloud, would a "diffusing screen" helped with the blow out of the veil or would it also thow off the metering?

[picturesque]

If you mean a semi-transparent screen held between the sun and the subject, yes, it would help cut the contrast of the scene, hence, the veil might not blow out.

[picturesque]

Also, I don't mind so much the veil blowing out, but the sunlight on the tip of the nose would bother me. So better subject placement would help here.

[wvtg]

for me it was more of the l shoulder or rather lack of left shoulder which was bothersome to me....after much intense scrutiny:)

[wedding-photography-denver]

I think it depends on the look you want. I would find these to be very slightly over exposed for my taste.

 

More what would bother me is the lack of pop in the eyes (fill flash or reflector).

[ned1]

Did you scan the print or the negative? If you're using film and the veil is blowing out it might be a problem with the film scan. If you metered correctly you should have about 2 stops headroom for highlights. If you're doing your own scan you should be able to adjust the scanned density. If you're printing try burning the veil and see of the info is still there.

 

I just looked at your portfolio. I see good things there. I also see a lot of burn-outs that are definitely scan problems.

 

Curious what school you are going to. If they have a C41 color darkroom class you should take it. Even if you never do another chromogenic print after it, you'll have a better understanding of both color and the true tonal capabilities of film.

[gladys_lemus]

Thanks for the comments, being a student they are very helpful. I go to Chaffey Community College in Rancho Cucamonga, CA and it's funny, I am currently taking a color photography class, but we don't have C41 color darkroom, but we do our own printing. Also, I do scan my photos, and my scanner is 4 yrs old, so perhaps that can be a problem.

One more question if I use fill-flash which technique would you use. Meter the background and then fill in the shadows on her face, or meter the shadows of her face and fill flash.

[picturesque]

Typical fill flash methodology is to meter the background (actually a better description would be figure out where you want to "place" the background) and fill the subject or foreground. This is what I mean about metering and exposure being two different things. You can meter the background, but not necessarily use your result as the EV on the camera when you take the picture. You meter to get info that you use to decide how you want to expose the picture, not just to get the camera settings directly off the meter.

[cjogo]

I would say ::: without a flash---novice behind the camera ----I would give you a B+/ A- ...all you can do is expose for the face. Looks great to me. In this situation, all you could do is move the subject or wait for the light to change. Good exposure for the session.

[cjogo]

Looks to me~~ that most of the contrast has been added from your scanner and varied monitor calibrations everyone has > viewing on the net. The original prints were probably much better in the low/high details

[savagesax]

In some cases a blown out veil looks great on a few shots, but not every shot. In your first pic, with the big rock in the background, that area looks pretty shady. So if the bride is totally in the shade often you do not need a fill flash as the lighting is soft and even. So what does this all mean! I always try to shoot in a shaded area, sometimes using a bit of fill flash and often without. In bright sun where the veil is blown out you will always get the raccoon type of eye sockets, therefore a flash is pretty much a must to use.

[mreul]

I wanted to chime in and say - NICE WORK. I think you have a great eye and your composition is nice - keep it up you can make money at this!

[William Michael]

>>> One more question if I use fill-flash which technique would you use. << <

 

 

Just extending the question a bit . . . and using Nadine`s answer as a beginning:

 

 

>>> (actually a better description would be figure out where you want to "place" the background) and fill the subject or foreground. <<<

 

 

 

a) In the reverse profile portrait, I prefer the background chosen NOT to have been the blown out sky, but something darker, so Camera Viewpoint to camera right and slightly higher will address that issue.

 

 

(and whilst I am commenting on a good / better Flash Fill technique: such a CV movement will also address the following issues for me, and points which you might also like to consider: 1. the `spear` through the head; 2. the problematic shoulder mass; 3. and the `up the nose` vantage point.)

 

 

 

b) In the front on portrait, you might consider a combination Flash Fill and Reflector: a Reflector, placed high and to the Rear (behind the subject), Camera Right, will give another Hair Light, but softer than the main sunlight falling from Rear Subject, Camera Left.

 

 

This will accentuate the Camera Right definition of the diadem, and allow the flash fill to do its work on the face without, flattening the depth of the subject through the hair, which often is rendered two dimensional, with flash fill in harsh sunlight.

 

 

WW

[wvtg]

"This will accentuate the Camera Right definition of the diadem"

 

I am not sure what he said. . .but it sure sounds fantastic:)

[William Michael]

>>> I am not sure what he said. . .but it sure sounds fantastic:) <<<

 

[big laugh from me]

 

 

Sorry, the language was unintentional. . . and you made me think on reflection it looks as though it could be a smart arse comment, it was not meant that way.

 

 

 

A Woman`s Hair is Her Diadem, (Glory Crown usually of roses, for Royalty) so say the metaphysical Poets (Donne Arnold et al).

 

 

I was seriously taken with the subject`s hair, it is beautiful.

 

 

It should be specially treated and accentuated.

 

 

WW