 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
| PhotoKB HomeDiscussion Groups Digital Photography Digital PhotoDSLR CamerasZLR CamerasPoint & Shoot CamerasFilm Photography 35 mmLarge FormatMedium formatDarkroomFilm and LabsOther EquipmentPhoto Technique Nature PhotographyPeople PhotographyTechnique GeneralGeneral Photo Topics General TopicsAustralian PhotographyUK PhotographyDirectoryPhoto Clubs |
Photo Forum / Photo Technique / Nature Photography / November 2004Metering Question on Macro Flower Shots
I hope someone will be able to assist me with a problem I seem to be having with metering. I've been doing photographer for a long while, but have only recently ventured into the realm of macro nature shots; specifically, flowers. Our public rose garden where I live is quite nice, and we're down south, so the flowers look great even this late in the year. I've been trying to photograph these roses using some macro equipment I've put together over the years - a Canon T60 SLR (FD-mount, manual or aperture-priority automatic), a Vivitar Series 1 90mm f2.5 with a Vivitar 2X Macro Focusing Teleconverter. I have the matched macro for the Series 1, but I like this 2X focusing teleconverter very much. I am using Kodak UC 400 color print film and scanning with a Minolta Scan Dual IV at the highest resolution using Vuescan under Linux. I edit my scans with The Gimp 2.0. I've been having reasonable results for a beginner, with the single exception of white roses, which I seem to keep blowing out. I am using both manual metering and the T60's TTL metering - both agree after I take the 2X multiplier into account. I'm shooting at f8 @ 1/125 on a sunny day, which seems pretty reasonable given the 2X multiplier and the 400 speed film. I'm not sure what else I could have done here, except to bracket like crazy. But I'm just learning, I hope not to have to bracket forever, and get a feel for what I should be doing with the exposure here. I used C41, I thought the film's latitude would have saved me, but alas, it did not. I guess slide film would have been even worse! I am enclosing a link to this mistake in jpeg format. I've done nothing to it in The Gimp except to convert it from TIF format and save. I also saved a resized version for anyone who doesn't want to see the original monster file. I would appreciate any advice anyone could give me - not just on this specific shot, but in general - white flowers, how to avoid messing up the metering? Thanks! Best Regards, Bill Mattocks http://www.growlery.com/blown_out_rose_big.jpg http://www.growlery.com/blown_out_rose_small.jpg I really don't think your white rose is blown out. You can still see some detail in the flower ie. the veins. Are you sure your camera is TTL and the flash is dedicated to the camera? If this is so I would take the flash off the camera and use a dedicated cord to go from the flash to the camera. Hold the flash about even with the front of the lens shoot that way. If the white flower still comes out "blown out" fool the camera if it is not DX and set the ISO to 800 This should give you one stop under exposed  Signature---------------------------------------------------- This mailbox protected from junk email by MailFrontier Desktop from MailFrontier, Inc. http://info.mailfrontier.com > I hope someone will be able to assist me with a problem I seem to be > having with metering. I've been doing photographer for a long while, [quoted text clipped - 42 lines] > > http://www.growlery.com/blown_out_rose_small.jpg > I really don't think your white rose is blown out. You can still see some > detail in the flower ie. the veins. Are you sure your camera is TTL and the [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > white flower still comes out "blown out" fool the camera if it is not DX > and set the ISO to 800 This should give you one stop under exposed I think the rose is 'not quite entirely' blown out, the edges do hold some detail, but the rose petals in the center sure seem blown out to me - is it my eyes? (grin) I may not have been entirely clear in my original post - my camera's *metering* is TTL, but the flash is not. In any case, though, I did not use flash, this was taken with available light. I know I'll have to take on using flash with macro at some point, but right now, I'm just struggling to compose and focus - and oh yeah, meter properly! Do you think if I had underexposed one stop that might have saved this one? Was I that close to having it right? I thought I was WAY off. Thanks for the reply! Best Regards, Bill Mattocks It looks like the sun must be right behind your back. Try to take pictures with the flower backlit and you'll probably have more success. It looks to me like there is quite a bit of detail in your pic. I don't think your exposure is way off. Less would be better but maybe your monitor is making it appear worse. -jeff "The Bill Mattocks" <bmattock@earthlink.net> wrote in message > > I think the rose is 'not quite entirely' blown out, the edges do hold > some detail, but the rose petals in the center sure seem blown out to > me - is it my eyes? (grin) > > Do you think if I had underexposed one stop that might have saved this > one? Was I that close to having it right? I thought I was WAY off. Bill Mattocks > It looks like the sun must be right behind your back. Try to take pictures > with the flower backlit and you'll probably have more success. It looks to > me like there is quite a bit of detail in your pic. I don't think your > exposure is way off. Less would be better but maybe your monitor is making > it appear worse. > -jeff Ah, I didn't think of that! It might be my monitor. OK, I'll look into that! And I appreciate the advice about having the flower backlit in the future - I'll try that and see what I get. Thanks very much! Best Regards, Bill Mattocks I haven't looked at the photo- but since you are using print film, what you are getting isn't necessarily exactly what you shot. Try using slide film, which would show you if the mistake is in your exposure or not. Don't forget- someone (or a machine running on automatic) printed that picture- the negative could be perfectly exposed but the printing could still be off. Try taking the negative back to the lab and have them print it a little darker and see if that helps. Dukephoto > I haven't looked at the photo- but since you are using print film, what you are > getting isn't necessarily exactly what you shot. Try using slide film, which [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > > Dukephoto My fault - I should have been more clear in my initial message. I did not print this photo - I scanned the negative, which I had developed without printing to avoid scratching it. Scanned with Minolta Dimage Scan Dual IV, Vuescan, photo changed from TIF to JPG (for posting online) in The Gimp 2.0 under Linux. There is no print, hence no problem with the print. I understand your comment about slide film showing me definitively if the problem is in my exposure - but since it has less latitude than color print film, I suspect that the delta between the green foliage and the white flower petals is going to exceed that range no matter what I do in the way of exposure, and would leave me even more confused about what to do to get a better exposure. I appreciate your response, sorry to have confused you. Best Regards, Bill Mattocks >but since it has less latitude than >color print film, I suspect that the delta between the green foliage [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > >Bill Mattocks I would suggest spot metering the white petals of the flower and opening up a stop to keep them light with detail. Maybe take a second shot at 1 1\2 stops open to lighten it a little more. I wouldn't worry about the green foliage so much, as long as the flower isn't blown out. There's nothing worse than blown out highlights- blocked up shadow areas are much less objectionable. A third approach would be to diffuse the light on the flower- I some times use an umbrella to shade the flower and the background, sometimes a reflector. This will cut down on the difference in exposure between the sunlit white petals and the foliage. You can also use a second reflector to bounce a controlled amount of light back onto the flower- controlled by the distance of the reflector to the subject (closer for more light, further back for less). Dukephoto > I would suggest spot metering the white petals of the flower and opening up a > stop to keep them light with detail. Maybe take a second shot at 1 1\2 stops > open to lighten it a little more. OK, I think I understand here. Spot metering the petals gives me the appropriate exposure for an 18% grey card, and the white petals ain't - so open up a stop. Is that correct? > I wouldn't worry about the green foliage so much, as long as the flower isn't > blown out. There's nothing worse than blown out highlights- blocked up shadow > areas are much less objectionable. Fair enough, I guess since the foliage is not the subject of the photo? > A third approach would be to diffuse the light on the flower- I some times use > an umbrella to shade the flower and the background, sometimes a reflector. This > will cut down on the difference in exposure between the sunlit white petals and > the foliage. You can also use a second reflector to bounce a controlled amount > of light back onto the flower- controlled by the distance of the reflector to > the subject (closer for more light, further back for less). OK, this would be new to me, but I'm guessing that proper lighting techniques are something I am going to have to tackle at some point anyway. I understand your point about reducing the difference between the petals and the foliage. Excellent explanation, thanks! Best Regards, Bill Mattocks > Dukephoto > > I would suggest spot metering the white petals of the flower and opening up a > > stop to keep them light with detail. Maybe take a second shot at 1 1\2 stops [quoted text clipped - 22 lines] > anyway. I understand your point about reducing the difference between > the petals and the foliage. Excellent explanation, thanks! Coming late to this thread, these are exactly the three points I would have made if I hadn't been beaten to it. Just one thing to add: you can diffuse the light when it is contrasty, and or use a reflector to bounce light back into the shadows - but the other option is to use light that isn't contrasty to begin with. Macro flower shots are often particularly nice on days when the sky is cloudy and the whole sky then acts as one big diffuser/reflector. Flower pictures taken during light rain can be very good too. If you never get overcast weather and soft light while the flowers are out where you live, try shooting some at dawn just before the sun breaks the horizon - that can be a lovely light. If the very early morning light makes the flowers too pink in colour, use a pale blue filter from the 82 series - an 82A is usually enough. John Shaw's book called (something like) "Closeups in Nature" gets recommended a lot, with good reason. It's a very good introduction (more than you'll need in some areas). You can probably get it from the library. Peter >>I would suggest spot metering the white petals of the flower and opening up a >>stop to keep them light with detail. Maybe take a second shot at 1 1\2 stops [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > appropriate exposure for an 18% grey card, and the white petals ain't > - so open up a stop. Is that correct? Maybe I'm completely missing the point, but wouldn't it be far simpler to just take along a grey card? SignatureAngela M. Cable Paint Shop Pro 9 Private Beta Tester Neocognition, digital scrapbooking source: http://www.neocognition.com/ PSP Tutorial Links: http://www.psplinks.com/ 5th Street Studio, free graphics, websets and more: http://www.fortunecity.com/westwood/alaia/354/ > >>I would suggest spot metering the white petals of the flower and opening up a > >>stop to keep them light with detail. Maybe take a second shot at 1 1\2 stops [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > Maybe I'm completely missing the point, but wouldn't it be far simpler > to just take along a grey card? That's what I said. I don't think you need a spot meter for macro flower shots but each to his own I guess. >That's what I said. I don't think you need a spot meter for macro flower >shots but each to his own I guess. Yes, of course a gray card would work. I do just about all of my metering in spot mode- I just adjust for the tonality of what is in the spot circle and shoot. After 19 years of shooting this way, it's just habit- and you get pretty good at judging tones. As mentioned in another response- even a gray card reading might have to be adjusted for a sunlit white subject. By spot metering the flower and then bringing the reading up to keep the flower white, I don't have to worry about the difference between the subject and the gray card- having to meter both, check the EV difference between the two to make sure it is within the film's latitude, and then adjust if necessary. As you said- to each his (or her) own....... Dukephoto > Yes, of course a gray card would work. I do just about all of my metering in > spot mode- I just adjust for the tonality of what is in the spot circle and > shoot. > After 19 years of shooting this way, it's just habit- and you get pretty > good at judging tones. After 26 years in photography I find that many people have difficulty judging tones. A gray card is a cheap fix for this problem and an invaluable teaching aid for a beginner like the OP. > As mentioned in another response- even a gray card reading might have to be > adjusted for a sunlit white subject. By spot metering the flower and then > bringing the reading up to keep the flower white, I don't have to worry about > the difference between the subject and the gray card- having to meter both, > check the EV difference between the two to make sure it is within the film's > latitude, and then adjust if necessary. Yes a gray card is not always the perfect solution and it does have it's limitations but should be acceptable considering the situation, equipment and experience level of the OP. I'm writing a pamphlet/book on the subject of light measurement right now. Many of the photography books I have read get this subject wrong to some extent. I hope to improve this situation. > As you said- to each his (or her) own....... > > Dukephoto > >>I would suggest spot metering the white petals of the flower and opening up a > >>stop to keep them light with detail. Maybe take a second shot at 1 1\2 stops > >>open to lighten it a little more. > > Maybe I'm completely missing the point, but wouldn't it be far simpler > to just take along a grey card? With many cameras taking a spot meter reading, pushing a button to boost exposure one or more stops is very easy. With an Olympus OM4(for example) if you're familiar with the camera, two button pushes without even taking your eye away from the viewfinder ... can't get much easier. There's little doubt about what is happening and it's very repeatable - very good way to learn to get the results you want. -jeff > > > mdcore@aol.com (MDCORE) wrote in message > news:<20041021113246.22449.00001310@mb-m06.aol.com>... [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > > -jeff Easy yes but pushing a button won't teach the OP about how meters measure light. A gray card can. I was replying to an earlier response of yours on metering grass bushes and pavement (and saying it was impossible to err doing it this way), when my AOL froze and I lost the quotes, so let me try again. Metering bushes can work, but if there is alot of shadowing inbetween the green leaves you are trying to meter as neutral, your reading will be off (over exposed). If the bushes are coniferous, they usually run darker than a neutral green. Again- over exposure. And you will need to be good at judging just what a medium pavement is- there are lots of different shades in paving materials. And just try finding some a mile down the trail in the woods!! I'm just having a little fun and being (somewhat) argumentative- but you have to be careful when you recommend a metering method and claim it's impossible to make a mistake using it (wish I hadn't lost the quotes!). No method is infallible. You need to have the knowledge of how it works and where it can go wrong. dukephoto > I was replying to an earlier response of yours on metering grass bushes and > pavement (and saying it was impossible to err doing it this way), when my AOL [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > are lots of different shades in paving materials. And just try finding some a > mile down the trail in the woods!! I left out clay. But If he has a gray card he'll have everything he needs and he can compare the examples I cited and teach himself what medium gray looks like. > I'm just having a little fun and being (somewhat) argumentative- but you have > to be careful when you recommend a metering method and claim it's impossible to [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > dukephoto I recommended a gray card to the OP so he could teach himself what medium gray looks like. Then he wouldn't have to remember to push a button. Also so he can meter off the card and know what medium gray reads in a given situation. Something he can't do by pushing a button or reading these posts or even a book for that matter. There's nothing like seeing a working example. > >There's little doubt > > about what is happening and it's very repeatable - very good way to learn [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > Easy yes but pushing a button won't teach the OP about how meters measure > light. A gray card can. "I recommended a gray card to the OP so he could teach himself what medium gray looks like. " I'm still not sure what you're getting at. A built in spot meter does a pretty good job of measuring the light from the actual subject that will expose the film. A person needs to learn to adjust for the difference between 18% gray brightness and whatever they are taking a picture of. If the metering is easily repeatable and the same film is used, this can be quickly learned without looking at a grey card You can instantly see what is different between 18% gray and the white flower but that doesn't necessarily teach people to judge what is happening on the film. In *addition* if the angle of the subject is different from the angle of the gray card or if you can't place the gray card in the same light from the gray card, or if the gray card doesn't cover the field of view of the meter, etc, your exposure can be off and won't be repeatable. For sure, a photographer needs to understand that meters correctly expose 18% grey, but judging brightness of different colored objects compared to a grey card isn't the end goal. The photographer wants to be able to visualize how white the white flower can be and still have detail, how bright the yellow flower can be and still have a good yellow with detail, etc. To do that the photographer needs to take repeatable exposures using the same film. -jeff > > >There's little doubt > > > about what is happening and it's very repeatable - very good way to [quoted text clipped - 31 lines] > > -jeff Please pardon me if I offended you, that was not my intent. The OP said his skill level was "beginner" and he wanted "any advice that anyone could give" about metering which is what I am doing as per his request. My recommendations to him were based on his specific level of skill and what I interpreted to be his desire to gain a more in-depth understanding of metering techniques. To accomplish this I have been recommending ways that he can demonstrate to himself how meters work. I believe that anyone who wants to become proficient at photography should become fully familiar with the use of a gray card. I don't say that this is the most accurate way to meter light but it is a necessary step along the path to fully understanding how and why meters work the way they do. Without a firm foundation of knowledge it can be very difficult to understand more exotic methods of light measurement such as spot and incident metering. All of the light measuring methods I have mentioned here are accurate only when used appropriately. None are one hundred percent accurate one hundred percent of the time. Each method has a specific application in which only that type of meter can accomplish accurate measurements. If you're happy with the results you get with your methods then I'm certainly not going to try to change your mind. Any judgement about whether or not a slide, negative or print is properly exposed is purely subjective and only the photographer can decide if he has achieved his goal. Light measurement on the other hand is not subjective and I'm currently writing a pamphlet/book about that subject now. > >>I would suggest spot metering the white petals of the flower and opening up a > >>stop to keep them light with detail. Maybe take a second shot at 1 1\2 stops > >>open to lighten it a little more. > > Maybe I'm completely missing the point, but wouldn't it be far simpler > to just take along a grey card? With many cameras taking a spot meter reading, pushing a button to boost exposure one or more stops is very easy. With an Olympus OM4(for example) if you're familiar with the camera, two button pushes without even taking your eye away from the viewfinder ... can't get much easier. There's little doubt about what is happening and it's very repeatable - very good way to learn to get the results you want. -jeff > >>I would suggest spot metering the white petals of the flower and opening up a > >>stop to keep them light with detail. Maybe take a second shot at 1 1\2 stops > >>open to lighten it a little more. > > Maybe I'm completely missing the point, but wouldn't it be far simpler > to just take along a grey card? With many cameras taking a spot meter reading, pushing a button to boost exposure one or more stops is very easy. With an Olympus OM4(for example) if you're familiar with the camera, two button pushes without even taking your eye away from the viewfinder ... can't get much easier. There's little doubt about what is happening and it's very repeatable - very good way to learn to get the results you want. -jeff >"Angela M. Cable" <cable@sweetwaterhsa.com> wrote > Maybe I'm completely missing the point, but wouldn't it be far simpler > to just take along a grey card? It's sometimes hard to get the gray card in front of the lens when shooting macro due to the tight distance to the subject. You have to meter at the actual magnification factor since the amount of light drops as you increase magnification. > > Maybe I'm completely missing the point, but wouldn't it be far simpler > > to just take along a grey card? [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > actual magnification factor since the amount of light drops as you increase > magnification. Take the camera off the tripod (if your tripod has a quick release) and then meter the gray card. You don't need to focus on the card just angle it towards the sun (without reflecting a glare into the lens) and take your reading. Keep the camera at the same angle (in relation to the sun) that you'll have when you return the camera to the tripod. Your in camera meter will be subject to the same magnification that you'll have when you photograph the subject. You don't need to focus on the card just angle it towards the sun (without reflecting a glare into the lens) and take your reading. > It's important that the 'card' is angled to match the subject or the 'grey' will become lighter or darker. If you don't have or choose not to carry an incident light meter then as suggested an average on grass or pavement is not too far away. And as already mentioned, any lens extension needs suitable compensation. 2 stops for double the focal length extension. - otzi > I hope someone will be able to assist me with a problem I seem to be > having with metering. I've been doing photographer for a long while, [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > 1/125 on a sunny day, which seems pretty reasonable given the 2X > multiplier and the 400 speed film. Several things are at work here. First is that on my monitor the photo does not look blown, but it may on yours (as another poster said). Without seeing the negative I can know nothing more about this photo. Since the white area of the flower covers almost all of the frame your in camera meter will indicate an exposure that is 2 stops underexposed (unless you compensated by opening up 2 stops from the indicated reading). When I use an in camera meter I set my camera on manual and then meter off of something that is close to middle gray. I then use that reading for my photo. A gray card held close to the lens and tilted toward the light (but not throwing a glare into the lens) is perfect but if you don't have one then use something nearby that is in the same light as the subject and reflects the same amount of light as middle gray. Examples of this are green grass, green bushes, even medium gray pavement. If you're still worried that you might blow the highlights then take a second exposure at 1 stop less (or 1 speed faster if you need to keep the same DOF). If you're still having problems then your meter may be off. Try to compare it to a known good meter (hand held meter if available). Set the camera to manual, then meter off of a gray card. Then do the same with the other meter. The readings should be very close. If they aren't then your meter may have a problem. Happy shooting! > I'm not sure what else I could > have done here, except to bracket like crazy. But I'm just learning, I [quoted text clipped - 21 lines] > > http://www.growlery.com/blown_out_rose_small.jpg >but if you don't have one >then use something nearby that is in the same light as the subject and >reflects the same amount of light as middle gray. Examples of this are >green grass, green bushes, even medium gray pavement. You can always meter the palm of your hand in the same light as your subject and open up 1 stop. An instant gray card! Dukephoto > >but if you don't have one > >then use something nearby that is in the same light as the subject and [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > You can always meter the palm of your hand in the same light as your subject > and open up 1 stop. Indeed. Provided the OP doesn't forget to open up 1 stop. The examples of middle gray I cited above make such a mistake impossible. > An instant gray card! Pink card? > Dukephoto > I would appreciate any advice anyone could give me - not just on this > specific shot, but in general - white flowers, how to avoid messing up > the metering? Hello Bill, The usual advice is the same as with snow and any other white(-ish) subject - meter off it or a nearby white object, then close down 2 1/2 stops from that. You might want to do some bracketing until you get into a routine that suits your set-up. Regards, Roger >> I would appreciate any advice anyone could give me - not just on this >> specific shot, but in general - white flowers, how to avoid messing up >> the metering? >From: Roger Whitehead rogergwhitehead@ntlworld.com >The usual advice is the same as with snow and any other white(-ish) >subject - meter off it or a nearby white object, then close down 2 1/2 >stops from that. You have it exactly backwards ... you need to OPEN up 1.5 - 2 stops, not "close down" the aperture. The meter "sees" the white as gray and to expose it as white you need to ADD more light. Closing down the aperture 2 1/2 stops will make the white flower almost black. > You have it exactly backwards At least it was exact. 8-) Quite right - I should have checked. Roger >I hope someone will be able to assist me with a problem I seem to be >having with metering. I've been doing photographer for a long while, >but have only recently ventured into the realm of macro nature shots; >specifically, flowers. Our public rose garden where I live is quite >nice, and we're down south, so the flowers look great even this late >in the year. SNIP The shot looks incredibly soft, not sharp at all. And it looks like a really crappy scan. That can't be a straight scan, the tonal range is gone to hell. Likely as a result of you trying to get back highlight detail. You need to work on focusing and get a good tripod. Try exposing about 3 stops over the average reading of something like the green leaves next to it. -- Jim Davis, Nature Photography: http://jimdavis.oberro.com/ Motorcycle Relay Kits: http://www.easternbeaver.com/ |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2008 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.