Manual vs. Aperture/Shutter Priority Modes

This thread definitely feels like deja-vu.

For me, manual gives me the most control over how I want a photo to look.

I have a good idea of what I want my DOF to be like and whether I want to freeze motion or not (streams/panning)

One (of many) thing(s) I'm not as good at knowing is what ISO is needed right off the bat when doing urbanscapes at night. Ideally I'd like to shoot everything at 100, but can't. Sometimes I need a couple of test shots to dial in the ISO.

I get people preferring exposure compensation when using Av mode, but that isn't nearly as intuitive to me as manual.

Certainly there are starting points and the camera can help me measure that, but rarely does the camera do exactly what I want it to do, and for me, manual is as (more) fast and more reliable then exposure compensation. Plus, those starting points help determine/teach me what the camera wants to do and therefore, what I need to do to overcome it.

Without a doubt, I'll shoot some things, using Av mode. But rarely are those shots that I consider to be stand-outs. They might be a really decent snapshot, but still, only a decent snapshot.

As skiers, many of the examples given are in regards to moving quickly through a backcountry lap or at the resort.

That's a fine place for Av and exactly what it is used for. But "we are moving quickly through the environment", meaning, we are skiing and taking pictures, not photographing skiing. There is a difference.

In many cases we aren't hiking a different ridge for a good vantage point or skiing an aspect based on sunrise or sunset light in those examples. If we have put that much effort into a shot, then I would argue that manual would be the way to go.

True, many wedding photographers shoot in Av for the same reasons given. And it is certainly do-able in the situation. But there are many wedding photographers and if they are worth their salt, they, at the very least, are probably using manual in the formals. And if they've been doing it a while, they are likely using manual in much of the other work. Or only have one camera set to Av. But just because many are using it, doesn't prove much. There are a lot of people doing wedding photography and they aren't all very good.


btw truth, lonnie looooves his sony NEX point n shoot (winkeez lonnie!)

I did get to handle one of those though, and while it's a great little camera and maybe a harbinger of things to come in mirror-less, it is far from my DSLR.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Chainsaw_Willie

Galen Rowell is one of the photogs I admire most and he said "f8 and be there."

---

I always thought that was a Arthur Fellig quote and mainly applied to the photo-journalistic craft? Regardless, it's good advice as a starting point...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by splitter

I did get to handle one of those though, and while it's a great little camera and maybe a harbinger of things to come in mirror-less, it is far from my DSLR.

---

Manual focus glass my friend, manual focus glass (let's throw one more wrinkle into the equation why don't we!) That's all I have to say about that! :)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lonnie

I always thought that was a Arthur Fellig quote and mainly applied to the photo-journalistic craft? Regardless, it's good advice as a starting point...

---

Yeah, that's who I've always heard it attributed to. It made sense in his case because he shot everything with direct flash on a Speed Graphic, so the shutter speed didn't really matter and the aperture was always the same because it was always the same light source.

It also gave him enough DoF so focus wasn't as critical.

Truth - I think Chainsaw's point is even if you shoot Manual you're still relying on a meter to an extent. Of course you are making a conscious decision to ignore what those readings are recommending and can force your camera to do just that.

Honestly if someone is going to go full manual full time and not use a gray card they're just guessing - no different than shooting Av or Tv and making a conscious decision to over/under-expose.

If you know how to use a histogram and how to avoid clipping you should definitely try out the "ETTR" technique: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exposing_to_the_right

Jesus fucking christ...it's not about exposure Tipp. That's the fucking problem. If all you want is perfect exposure every time then buy a fucking point and shoot and snapshot your way to flicker infamy. Of course I'm using the meter and the histogram, but I'm also aware of all the other tools I have at my command. The auto modes will only get you a properly exposed image. They will not create a beautiful photo using all the variables that one can manipulate to alter the image that you capture. If you don't understand this then you really don't have any grasp on what makes a great photograph and I can't help ya there. You wonder why pros don't bother with this forum or any other for that matter? It's because every time we answer your questions 20 know it all's that can't shoot a decent image to save their life chime in yapping about everything under the sun and refuting everything we say that might require some effort and learning. God fucking forbid. You're a great cameraman but you're no cinematographer. That's pretty much it in a nutshell. Press the buttons and get the same image every other monkey gets.

Lonnie, lost auto-focus on a shoot the other day. Manual focus is for the birds, especially in -20 windchills. Luckily it was just a glitch in the custom function settings and I eventually solved it. Turns out there's a combo of settings that if used all at once can effectively disable the autofocus on a 1dmk4. Not sure how they got selected but it was hella annoying. Not something you're gonna solve in the field with 7 models and a marketing director watching.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by truth

The auto modes will only get you a properly exposed image. They will not create a beautiful photo using all the variables that one can manipulate to alter the image that you capture.

---

For THAT, you need a plastic flower, a weather report and a lakebed!




























come on you know that was funny

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tippster

It also gave him enough DoF so focus wasn't as critical.

---

Exactly. Point being, and we can all learn for this tidbit, Be THERE is the most important thing!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by kidwoo

For THAT, you need a plastic flower, a weather report and a lakebed!




























come on you know that was funny

---

That was actually fucking hilarious. The link would have been even better for those not in the know.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by truth

Lonnie, lost auto-focus on a shoot the other day. Manual focus is for the birds, especially in -20 windchills. Luckily it was just a glitch in the custom function settings and I eventually solved it. Turns out there's a combo of settings that if used all at once can effectively disable the autofocus on a 1dmk4. Not sure how they got selected but it was hella annoying. Not something you're gonna solve in the field with 7 models and a marketing director watching.

---

Depends on what you doing, and for sport/action, I'd agree it isn't as easy a process as using AF (Af was invented for a reason). So in your typical style of shooting I'd say you're right. But one the flip side, if I had an AF failure, I'd also know how to compensate for it using manual settings. F/8 and be there, right?

The point I was trying to make to Spliter, which was a bit off topic to the discussion at hand, is that there are times, when using MF, just like full manual, is a very aesthetic, organic, hands on process. I've very much enjoyed shooting that way recently, and it's something that I recommend to everyone wanting to improve their technique.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lonnie

Depends on what you doing, and for sport/action, I'd agree it isn't as easy a process as using AF (Af was invented for a reason). So in your typical style of shooting I'd say you're right. But one the flip side, if I had an AF failure, I'd also know how to compensate for it using manual settings. F/8 and be there, right?

The point I was trying to make to Spliter, which was a bit off topic to the discussion at hand, is that there are times, when using MF, just like full manual, is a very aesthetic, organic, hands on process. I've very much enjoyed shooting that way recently, and it's something that I recommend to everyone wanting to improve their technique.

---

I agree. I shoot complete manual (exposure settings and focus) the majority of the time. When shooting action I will deal with AF but for the most part, specially with super big aperture primes I always use manual everything.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by kidwoo

For THAT, you need a plastic flower, a weather report and a lakebed!



come on you know that was funny

---

I laughed.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by kidwoo

For THAT, you need a plastic flower, a weather report and a lakebed!


come on you know that was funny

---

Indeed.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lonnie

Depends on what you doing, and for sport/action, I'd agree it isn't as easy a process as using AF (Af was invented for a reason). So in your typical style of shooting I'd say you're right. But one the flip side, if I had an AF failure, I'd also know how to compensate for it using manual settings. F/8 and be there, right?

---

No, not really. I was shooting a catalog for a major ski clothing brand and with the current state of the Wasatch it was imperative to be able to use shallow dof to both hide a less than perfect environment and focus attention on the product / models. I'd much rather have a lower keeper rate but know that my good stuff is actually good rather than fuck off at f8 and submit a turd to a client. F8 and be there is akin to saying showing up is half the battle. Maybe it was true for a newspaper shooter 50 years ago (they don't exist anymore, they simply run iphone photos from joe blow on twitter which I guess is the new f8 and be there), but in commercial work it simply holds no water. In this situation I got lucky that the problem was at the end of the day and we were able to reshoot the two pieces with the same models at no additional cost a day later. Normally I'd grab a back up body but we were literally chasing the light as it crept away from us until the sun dropped behind the ridge behind me and it was done. The whole thing happened in less than 5 minutes.

Chad,

If I can shoot a wiggly kid at f/1.4 using MF and get the focus right, it should be possible with relatively stationary models. I understand the challenges when there is really money on the line, and I'm not trying to burn you down, but I know it can be done, and has been done for a long time.

As for f/8 and be there, I think the point is knowing your equipment (and I'm not implying you don't) and how the settings effect things. This past summer I spent a good hour or so running random numbers thru a DOF calculator. It was a very enlightening exercise. I had a conceptual idea before, but had never looked at real numbers. What it did for me was give me an idea of how "wide open" or "stopped down" effects the focal plane at different focal lengths and distance to subjects, etc. Long story short, it gave me an idea of under what conditions I can "cheat" the f-stop up or down and still get the same look as "wide open" or "stopped down" and still get the subject in focus with maximum sharpness (and to what degree the background/foreground is OOF). For example, a very simple landscape situation where this is applies is shooting a scene that really doesn't go to "infinity" at f/11 vs f/18 or f/22. If the whole scene is in focus at f/11 then all going above that does is add lens diffraction and reduces sharpness.

A wiggly kid crapping itself on the floor is a far cry from two bubbly girls walking toward the camera with fading light, an audience, in a public space, on a Sunday afternoon but I digress...clearly you're the expert here. Thank god the forum has your vast expertise to rely on as gospel. Clearly you already have all the answers: Av mode and f8 are the real inside line to banger city.

Can you get that focus right, dead on, with no time to "find" focus, and only one chance to get it right? It was hard for seasoned pros back in the day, and they were using cameras that were designed for manual focus, with a split prism focusing screen and a viewfinder larger than that on most DSLRs. I know that my D3s can focus faster than just about any human on earth, track motion in ways that nobody can, and I'm free to concentrate on composing and exposing the shot itself instead of focusing.

MF lenses are fun and there are times to use them, but if your subject can move and modern AF is an option, it's almost always the better one.

Guys,

I'm not saying it's easy, That it's my first choice, or it's the best way to do it. All I'm saying is it's possible and if you think it isn't then that is your limitation, not the equipment's. (To be fair, I did say that AF was invented for a reason).

Back to your situation, and insert some hypotheticals. Say we've been shooting the two cute girls all day with our 70-200 f/2.8 at about 100mm. We've been trying to isolate the background so we've been shooting wide open. I know, by running the numbers thru a DOF calculator, that at f/2.8 the total area that's in focus at 100mm is about 5-10% of the distance between the lens and the subject. So at 10', the DOF is 0.5,' not much margin for error. But I also know that at 20' it doubles to 2 feet, and by dropping down to f/4 I gain another 33% to 3 feet. That still leaves plenty of room to isolate the background, and that effect can easily be enhanced in post if needed. (On the flip side of that discussion, run the numbers for a 75mm f/1.8 lens shot wide open at 18" and tell me which one of these situations has a narrower depth of field and smaller margin of error).

I guess this is the difference in taking pics for fun vs taking pics for $$. If I miss, no big deal.

On a lighter note I'll leave you with this....
http://www.kontraband.com/videos/517...r-Sandbagging/

Actually Lonnie, I was shooting at 200mm because not only did I want maximum fore and background blur, I also wanted maximum compression. When 200mm is adjusted for crop factor my effective focal length is actually 260mm (1.3x). So using an online calculator my actual total DOF at f/2.8 at 40 feet from my subject (guessing here but it's close to the mid point of the walk they were doing as they raced the creeping shadow line) was .76 feet. If I bumped to f/4 it would be 1.09 feet, at f/5.6 it would be 1.52 feet. At 80 feet from the subject f/2.8 would have been 3.07 feet which is still a very tight window for two moving subjects as their movement is independent. Now you also need to take into consideration that I don't just need a sharp image a 1:4 resolution, I need it tack sharp at 1:1 as the images are being used not only for a print catalog, but also to wrap the client's SIA booth. Go out and track a subject moving at you with manual focus and see just many keepers you get a 1:1. It's not as easy as it might sound.

That's one of the reasons I've really enjoyed the switch to full-frame. I can drop a stop for sharpness but still pull the same DoF that I did wide open on crop. I really like shooting my 2.8 glass at f/4 and my 1.8 glass at f/2.2 or f/2.5 and getting awesome results.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Chainsaw_Willie

Because someone said they shoot manual because they don't want the camera doing any calculations for them. To me, that's misleading because if you're using the camera's meter to create a starting point to work from for a scene, then you are absolutely letting the camera do some calcuations for you. While you may wish to modify the settings the camera is telling are best for a particular shot, you are still starting with what the camera is telling you.

---

NONONONONONONONONONONONO... :cussing: The camera meter is telling me nothing other than how much light MY settings are letting in.

A meter is a MEASURING DEVICE. Set it to "SPOT" and MEASURE. There are no calculations. I now realize that many people aren't even considering what metering mode is being shot or possibly what that even means.

If you still can't understand then maybe rent an external light meter and use it for a day. Perhaps getting the meter out of the camera will help your thought process.

Reading this just makes me realize how much I don't know. My head hurts now.

All modes have their place. It's not like shooting in manual gives you some magic aperture or SS that don't exist in the other modes. All modes can get you to the same exact settings.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 4-TEEF'S Ghost

NONONONONONONONONONONONO... :cussing: The camera meter is telling me nothing other than how much light MY settings are letting in.

---

For some 70s vintage TTL, yes. Best a Leica CL with a sensor on a paddle that swung up and measured the light in the center just in front of the film plane; similar to a handheld lightmeter just other side of the lens.

For a modern metering camera in matrix mode (Nikon), no, it's doing quite a bit more information gathering than a simple "how much light is there"



like hitek70 said - they all have their place, depends on what you want to do and what you want to shoot.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Hugh Conway

For some 70s vintage TTL, yes. Best a Leica CL with a sensor on a paddle that swung up and measured the light in the center just in front of the film plane; similar to a handheld lightmeter just other side of the lens.

For a modern metering camera in matrix mode (Nikon), no, it's doing quite a bit more information gathering than a simple "how much light is there"



like hitek70 said - they all have their place, depends on what you want to do and what you want to shoot.

---

Agreed. But I was responding to Willie's specific question of how I set my exposure. I use the spot metering mode which is 4% of the frame.

I like the second part of hitek's quote better -> "All modes can get you to the same exact settings." <- I simply prefer using spot metering and manual shutter/aperture to get to those settings.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by truth

Jesus fucking christ...it's not about exposure Tipp.

---

Of course it is... it's exactly what it is. It's the one constant in all photography, from Film and Digital still cameras to Film/digital moving picture cameras. You are exposing a light-sensitive medium to light. HOW you do that is the rub.

Quote:

---

That's the fucking problem. If all you want is perfect exposure every time then buy a fucking point and shoot and snapshot your way to flicker infamy.

---

I never mentioned "perfection" in any way.

Quote:

---

Of course I'm using the meter and the histogram, but I'm also aware of all the other tools I have at my command. The auto modes will only get you a properly exposed image. They will not create a beautiful photo using all the variables that one can manipulate to alter the image that you capture.

---

So how did anything I say disagree with this?

Quote:

---

If you don't understand this then you really don't have any grasp on what makes a great photograph and I can't help ya there. You wonder why pros don't bother with this forum or any other for that matter? It's because every time we answer your questions 20 know it all's that can't shoot a decent image to save their life chime in yapping about everything under the sun and refuting everything we say that might require some effort and learning. God fucking forbid. You're a great cameraman but you're no cinematographer. That's pretty much it in a nutshell. Press the buttons and get the same image every other monkey gets.

---

Well thanks for keeping it civil. I wasn't refuting anything you said, and yes I do understand how changing shutter speed and/or aperture and/or ISO and/or focal length affect the captured image. As you admit - despite your long and storied career - at some point all photographers do take a fucking meter reading to base their decisions on, be it incident or reflective...

Clearly this is an easier conversation to have in person over beers. Do "Pros" do that still? ;)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 4-TEEF'S Ghost

NONONONONONONONONONONONO... :cussing: The camera meter is telling me nothing other than how much light MY settings are letting in.

---

I think we're splitting hairs here.

All I'm saying is that you're relying on the camera to tell you something about the shot you're about to take and manual doesn't save you from that, which is what it appears you just said also. I think maybe I've muddled up the word "calculate" with "measure." My bad if that's incorrect terminology leading to frustration.

I totally get using the spot meter to meter the most important part of the scene rather than relying on matrix metering. Makes a lot of sense and is a technique I really ought to get more comfortable with. I admit that I don't make the best use of the light meter in my camera, that I almost never use spot metering, and that light metering as a whole is kind of a "dark art" to me (play on words intended).

I know that back in the days before cameras had light meters in them photogs used external light meters, but I don't know how they took a number in Lux or Foot-Candles or whatever and turned that into a shutter speed to go along with a particular aperture. I'm guessing there were tables published and/or formulas every photographer knew for this but nowadays the camera calculates all that.

And what about in the very early days of photography when they didn't even have light meters. Was it all trial and error 'til you got a feel for how the particular medium you were exposing would react to exposures of various lengths?

Attachment 106970

18955754326

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Chainsaw_Willie

And what about in the very early days of photography when they didn't even have light meters. Was it all trial and error 'til you got a feel for how the particular medium you were exposing would react to exposures of various lengths?

---

They had basic "guidelines" based on time of day, how much sunlight there was or wasn't, etc. But the film plates were so slow (were talking exposure times of several minutes), if they missed by a few seconds then it didn't matter that much.

http://www.earlyphotography.co.uk/Images/E42-1.JPG

https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/-C...table_1840.JPG

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Chainsaw_Willie

I think we're splitting hairs here.

All I'm saying is that you're relying on the camera to tell you something about the shot you're about to take and manual doesn't save you from that, which is what it appears you just said also. I think maybe I've muddled up the word "calculate" with "measure." My bad if that's incorrect terminology leading to frustration.

---

Yes. I use the camera's meter always but it's not for calculations. The defining difference here is the metering mode. My bad for not identifying that earlier.

Think of it this way. You have a white circle that takes up 50% of your viewfinder and the rest of the viewfinder is black. SPOT METER the white and you will get a MEASUREMENT of the amount of light coming into the camera. If you adjust your shutter/aperture/iso so that MEASUREMENT of white reads 2 stops over on your meter you will get a perfectly exposed image. <- This is an overstatement ;-)

Now. Same white circle, etc but put the camera is "average metering mode" or whatever. Now the camera CALCULATES the amount of white AND black in the frame and gives an AVERAGE of the scene. If your composition is exactly 50% white/black you will get a perfect exposure but if the white circle is offset in the frame the calculations and exposure will be different. This is why I don't like most auto-exposure modes. As composition changes so does exposure.
[/QUOTE]

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Chainsaw_Willie

I totally get using the spot meter to meter the most important part of the scene rather than relying on matrix metering. Makes a lot of sense and is a technique I really ought to get more comfortable with. I admit that I don't make the best use of the light meter in my camera, that I almost never use spot metering, and that light metering as a whole is kind of a "dark art" to me (play on words intended).

---

I don't think you really get it... or at least you're not getting how I use it.

I'm rarely looking for the "most important part of the image" I'm looking for something to measure. If I want white find the brightest spot, spot meter and set 2 stops over. If I want black I find the darkest spot, spot meter and set 2 stops under. Many times I'm not even measuring true "white" or "black" but actually what I WANT to be white/black.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Chainsaw_Willie

I know that back in the days before cameras had light meters in them photogs used external light meters, but I don't know how they took a number in Lux or Foot-Candles or whatever and turned that into a shutter speed to go along with a particular aperture. I'm guessing there were tables published and/or formulas every photographer knew for this but nowadays the camera calculates all that.

---

Maybe way back when they used something else but for as long as I can remember the measurement have always been in exposures/f-stops. I've mainly used external meters for flash work so we ended up with measurements like 60/sec@f6.0@iso100.

You're close Willie but I think you're missing out on how technical (and also simple) photography was BEFORE the advent of digitals and matrix metering. Here is the first link I found to learning how to guess exposures -> http://theonlinephotographer.typepad...to_guess_.html

Here is a quote from the above site: "What you'll find is that for any light you can encounter outdoors in the daytime, standing under God's open sky, there are only about five possible exposures, or EV values, that you will ever have the opportunity to use. Five. As in the number of fingers you have on one hand."

P.S. Happy New Year!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lonnie

They had basic "guidelines" based on time of day, how much sunlight there was or wasn't, etc. But the film plates were so slow (were talking exposure times of several minutes), if they missed by a few seconds then it didn't matter that much.

---

For wet plate photography (which replaced Daguerrotypes, but before dry plates which came before "film") you had to make the glass negative onsite and develop it rapidly after taking the photograph; quick feedback for failures.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 4-TEEF'S Ghost

Now. Same white circle, etc but put the camera is "average metering mode" or whatever. Now the camera CALCULATES the amount of white AND black in the frame and gives an AVERAGE of the scene. If your composition is exactly 50% white/black you will get a perfect exposure but if the white circle is offset in the frame the calculations and exposure will be different. This is why I don't like most auto-exposure modes. As composition changes so does exposure.

---

Yep. Just a note on Nikon's Matrix Metering - it's heavily weighted towards the focus point. If you're using single point AF then the metering system will try to get the focus point exposed "properly" at the expense of other areas in the frame, which is probably why I've had blown highlights but no true blacks in low-contrast scenes as I'm usually using single point AF when shooting landscapes. This is something I just learned a couple months ago and it explains a lot about what I've been seeing in my camera's behavior.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 4-TEEF'S Ghost

I don't think you really get it... or at least you're not getting how I use it.

I'm rarely looking for the "most important part of the image" I'm looking for something to measure. If I want white find the brightest spot, spot meter and set 2 stops over. If I want black I find the darkest spot, spot meter and set 2 stops under. Many times I'm not even measuring true "white" or "black" but actually what I WANT to be white/black.

---

Ding! The light just went on over my head. Thanks! *That* is extremely useful information. In essence you're setting the white or black point, depending on what you want, for an exposure before taking the picture. Much better idea than trying to fix things in post which never works if the whites or blacks are clipped...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 4-TEEF'S Ghost

You're close Willie but I think you're missing out on how technical (and also simple) photography was BEFORE the advent of digitals and matrix metering. Here is the first link I found to learning how to guess exposures -> http://theonlinephotographer.typepad...to_guess_.html

Here is a quote from the above site: "What you'll find is that for any light you can encounter outdoors in the daytime, standing under God's open sky, there are only about five possible exposures, or EV values, that you will ever have the opportunity to use. Five. As in the number of fingers you have on one hand."

P.S. Happy New Year!

---

Cool, thanks for the link. I'll do some more reading on this for sure. And, happy new year to you too!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Chainsaw_Willie

Ding! The light just went on over my head. Thanks! *That* is extremely useful information. In essence you're setting the white or black point, depending on what you want, for an exposure before taking the picture. Much better idea than trying to fix things in post which never works if the whites or blacks are clipped...

---

Exactly. Just remember, that if the dynamic range of the scene exceeds that of your cameras ability to capture it, something is going to be clipped be it highlights or shadows....

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Chainsaw_Willie

Yep. Just a note on Nikon's Matrix Metering - it's heavily weighted towards the focus point. This is something I just learned a couple months ago and it explains a lot about what I've been seeing in my camera's behavior.

---

My cam has like 4 or 5 metering modes. Average, center-weighted, center-weighted average, etc. They all suck save for "spot". ;-) Actually most cams with spot metering let you sample multiple spots and average them out. Essentially "manual matrix metering."

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Chainsaw_Willie

Ding! The light just went on over my head. Thanks! *That* is extremely useful information. In essence you're setting the white or black point, depending on what you want, for an exposure before taking the picture. Much better idea than trying to fix things in post which never works if the whites or blacks are clipped...

---

I think you've got the basics but keep expanding your thinking. Sometimes I'm actually clipping white or black on purpose. However it's all based on determining what white or black really IS in the scene. White and Black have a measured value whether you measure with cam light meter on "spot", external light meter or trial and error.

Example #1:
You're lying on your back on a sunny day. Girl stands over you. Back-lit hair and face. She's wearing SHINY black lipstick. I would probably try to frame in tight, meter the lips and set exposure at 1 stop under to give a LOT of detail in the black lips. This would undoubtedly lead to blown out highlights and maybe overexposed skin but the "look" is what I wanted.

Example #2:
Same girl and same scene. I turn her sideways for a profile shot, meter the sun and set exposure 2 to stops over. In this shot the head is now a silhouette with NO black detail and the look becomes all about the rim-light and the position of the sun.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 4-TEEF'S Ghost

Example #1:
You're lying on your back on a sunny day. Girl stands over you. Back-lit hair and face. She's wearing SHINY black lipstick. I would probably try to frame in tight, meter the lips and set exposure at 1 stop under to give a LOT of detail in the black lips. This would undoubtedly lead to blown out highlights and maybe overexposed skin but the "look" is what I wanted.

Example #2:
Same girl and same scene. I turn her sideways for a profile shot, meter the sun and set exposure 2 to stops over. In this shot the head is now a silhouette with NO black detail and the look becomes all about the rim-light and the position of the sun.

---

Example #3:
Same girl and same scene. She's now lying on her back, staring back at you with that "come hither" look that most sluts have perfected before they've graduated high school. You rip off her blouse violently, exposing her ample, giggling breasts. She like it; her nipples become erect. I don't give a fuck how you fucking meter, what aperture is appropriate or if you go up to ISO 58,000. Take copious pics and post here by the end of today!

^^^
THIS is the answer to my original question. Thanks all!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 4-TEEF'S Ghost

My cam has like 4 or 5 metering modes. Average, center-weighted, center-weighted average, etc. They all suck save for "spot". ;-) Actually most cams with spot metering let you sample multiple spots and average them out. Essentially "manual matrix metering."

---

There's a metering button on the D7000 that lets you easily switch metering modes with the command dial. It allows changing between 3 modes: Matrix, Center Weighted, and Spot. I looked these up in the manual and there's a menu setting for the Center Weighted mode that changes it to Center Weighted Average so that effectively gives 4 metering modes, plus you can adjust the size of the metering area for center weighted.

I could not find any way to average the results from separate spot meters though. If this camera can do that, it's not well explained in the manual. What camera do you shoot with?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 4-TEEF'S Ghost

I think you've got the basics but keep expanding your thinking. Sometimes I'm actually clipping white or black on purpose. However it's all based on determining what white or black really IS in the scene. White and Black have a measured value whether you measure with cam light meter on "spot", external light meter or trial and error.

Example #1:
You're lying on your back on a sunny day. Girl stands over you. Back-lit hair and face. She's wearing SHINY black lipstick. I would probably try to frame in tight, meter the lips and set exposure at 1 stop under to give a LOT of detail in the black lips. This would undoubtedly lead to blown out highlights and maybe overexposed skin but the "look" is what I wanted.

Example #2:
Same girl and same scene. I turn her sideways for a profile shot, meter the sun and set exposure 2 to stops over. In this shot the head is now a silhouette with NO black detail and the look becomes all about the rim-light and the position of the sun.

---

Good examples! I think I'm going to try Viva's example though.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by truth

Manual mode 99.999% of the time.

---

+1 for the "M".

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Viva

Example #3:
Same girl and same scene. She's now lying on her back, staring back at you with that "come hither" look that most sluts have perfected before they've graduated high school. You rip off her blouse violently, exposing her ample, giggling breasts. She like it; her nipples become erect. I don't give a fuck how you fucking meter, what aperture is appropriate or if you go up to ISO 58,000. Take copious pics and post here by the end of today!

---

Viva FTMFW.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Viva

You rip off her blouse violently, exposing her ample, giggling breasts.

---

Giggling breast? Is that like laughing your tits off?

Yeah, I know. Meant to write "jiggling", but I was kinda working myself into a frenzy and spelling tends to suffer under such duress. Bottom line, photography is fucking fun!

Now, where are those copious jiggling breast shots, dammit?!