# What is going on with my light meter?



## AMOMENT (Apr 13, 2012)

I was photographing outside today at around 5 o'clock.  I noticed that even though my light meter was measuring spot on "0" which is what I wanted because I was spot metering off of the children's faces to expose right for their skin, when I looked at the photo it was so underexposed!  I then switched to matrix metering and it still didn't look right despite reading correct on my meter.  By correct I mean "0."   I quickly switched to auto and noticed that everything on my meter was reading underexposed.  Does this seem right?  If it is on auto than wouldn't the light meter not be drastically reading over or under exposed because the camera is automatically perfecting the exposure?  I also tried to shoot aperture priority (I usually shoot manual) and again, my meter was way off.  I am possibly misunderstanding this and whether or not your meter is supposed to be calibrated perfectly (give or take)  Can someone help?  

I want to run a focus test on my 50mm 1/.4 lens.  Even when I am shooting at 5.6 aperture with a shutter of about 1/400 and an ISO of around 300-400, my pictures look washed out and blurry.  I will post a few originals.  I have my settings set up in camera to be sharper and more vivid to compensate for this.  I have noticed that in areas of low contrast in my photos, my camera tends to wash things out.  (or I DO?!)  

Last but not least.  I have been working with my speedlight.  This evening I really needed some fill flash outdoors at around 6pm.  I snapped on my SB700 because anything is better than a pop up.  There really is no where to bounce it off of outdoor.  Should I get a diffuser so that I canpoint it directly at my subject without the whole "deer in headlights look?"   I am usually photographing constantly moving subjects; like children.  So, setting up a scene is really not going to be ideal.  

Thanks!  Hope everyone has a great weekend!!!


----------



## o hey tyler (Apr 13, 2012)

Where are the photos that you took so that we can deduce what you're talking about? 

People who post elaborate scenarios of user error or camera failure usually do not post photos pertaining to what happened, and it drives me insane. 

To me, it sounds like your exposure compensation is biased to the negative side.


----------



## Big Mike (Apr 13, 2012)

Firstly, lets talk about the topic of metering.  Did you know that your camera is programmed to get incorrect exposures (in many situations)?  That's right, the only time that getting to zero will give you an accurate exposure, is when you are metering on something that is middle grey. How to use a Grey Card ~ Mike Hodson Photography

So if your children have typical Caucasian skin tones (a guess based on your avatar) then for 'proper exposure', you would likely need to be at around +2/3 or +1 on your meter (when spot metering on the skin).  So that may be part of your problem.  As mentioned, you may also have your exposure compensation set to something negative, causing the images to be darker than you'd want.  Nikon has a weird quirk in that you can actually set the EC when in manual mode, which just shifts the meter, which can lead to people being unaware that it's set at all.

But yes, we can't really diagnose the problem unless we can see the problem for ourselves.  



> Last but not least. I have been working with my speedlight. This evening I really needed some fill flash outdoors at around 6pm. I snapped on my SB700 because anything is better than a pop up. There really is no where to bounce it off of outdoor. Should I get a diffuser so that I canpoint it directly at my subject without the whole "deer in headlights look?" I am usually photographing constantly moving subjects; like children. So, setting up a scene is really not going to be ideal.


If you're truly just using it for fill light, then it's OK to be on-camera with no diffuser.  The key will be that you find a nice balance between the ambient light and the flash.  If you don't use enough ambient and use too much flash, then that's where you get the deer in the headlights look.


----------



## SCraig (Apr 14, 2012)

Your SB-700 has a built-in bounce card.  Use it.  It also came with a built-in diffuser and a snap-on frosted diffuser.  Use those to, they work quite well.


----------



## 2WheelPhoto (Apr 14, 2012)

Shoot manual and chimp. Although I use a sekonic light meter, I'd chimp if my pics weren't right.


----------



## AMOMENT (Apr 14, 2012)

So helpful!  Converting my RAW images now so I can upload.  I really appreciate the help!  Be back in a moment with photos depicting scenario.


----------



## AMOMENT (Apr 14, 2012)

photobucket has some perpetual ad going that will not allow me to "x" out of and upload.


----------



## AMOMENT (Apr 14, 2012)

Here are two examples.  

1. 
	

	
	
		
		

		
			





2. 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




As you can see these are gravely underexposed.  

I'm thinking of getting a grey card.  The filters my SB700 came with were an orange and green one.  I did not see a bounce card and still don't.  I have everything together too.


----------



## AMOMENT (Apr 14, 2012)

one more.
 3.  
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




In both 1 and 2 the time of day was around 4pm and pretty well lit outside. (sunny day)  I deffinitely need tons of fill light but I wanted you to see what I was talking about.  The sun was located behind me as I was shooting.  In 3, the sun was localted behind the girl so obviousely that created some shadows and need for major fill light.  But, hopefully if you see these originals (hangs head in shame) maybe you will be able to see what I mean.  I know it is my mistakes, not the camera.


----------



## AMOMENT (Apr 14, 2012)

P.S:  I know my compostion and cropping was off......These were throw away photos but showed what I wanted you to see.


----------



## cgipson1 (Apr 14, 2012)

Was the first one supposed to be flash? Flash did not fire!

#2.. Flash did not fire also....

Your SB-700 has a bounce card.. RTFM! When you pull out the wide-angle diffuser on the flash (top of flash) the bounce card comes out too!  The gels that came with the flash are for specific lighting situations... RTFM (That is READ THE F'n Manual.. in case  you don't know that either!)

I know you recently went *PRO* on your website.. and are now charging for your shoots! This is unbelievable!  

the problem could be:

#1  (your meter is messed up.. UNLIKELY!)

#2 You need to learn how to use your meter...   MOST LIKELY!

#3 You need to learn how to use your flash.... VERY LIKELY! You don't even know where the bounce card is..   RTFM!


----------



## cgipson1 (Apr 14, 2012)

AMOMENT said:


> one more.
> 3.
> 
> In both 1 and 2 the time of day was around 4pm and pretty well lit outside. (sunny day)  I deffinitely need tons of fill light but I wanted you to see what I was talking about.  The sun was located behind me as I was shooting.  In 3, the sun was localted behind the girl so obviousely that created some shadows and need for major fill light.  But, hopefully if you see these originals (hangs head in shame) maybe you will be able to see what I mean.  I know it is my mistakes, not the camera.



 Flash fired, compulsory flash mode, return light not detected

This is typically caused by either too much distance.. *incorrect bounce technique**...* (my call on this one!)


----------



## cgipson1 (Apr 14, 2012)

Here... 

SB-700 (taken with cell phone..... )  YOur SB-700 Bounce card... and the Wide Angle Diffuser.....
View attachment 6319

Your filters (off the nikon website for the SB-700) (you use these to match the flash to the existing light after you set your WB to the existing light so that you don't get mixed light sources...  but you may not understand what that means! If not.. ask!) 

View attachment 6320


----------



## 2WheelPhoto (Apr 14, 2012)

I'm surprised you didn't simply look at the back of the camera while on the shoot and compensate for the under exposure.  Thats what I meant by manual mode and "chimp".


----------



## CCericola (Apr 14, 2012)

This: Exposure Bias (EV)  {0x9204}-4/3 ===> -1.33


----------



## cgipson1 (Apr 14, 2012)

Exif Data on #1

Do we need to teach a "PRO" like you how to adjust your EV?  

View attachment 6322


----------



## cgipson1 (Apr 14, 2012)

Graystar said:


> cgipson1 said:
> 
> 
> > I know you recently went *PRO* on your website.. and are now charging for your shoots! This is unbelievable!
> ...



You haven't put up with the same nonsense from this "PROFESSIONAL" for the past six months or so... we have!  

I also see that you haven't posted any photos to back up YOUR expertise, except for one in your very first post (which was deleted!    ). You appear to only logon with this account to state an occasional opinion (usually related to someone else's opinion that you disagree with). I suspect you are one of the long time regulars.. that uses this account to say things you don't want to say in your regular account.   

35 posts in four years..with no photos!


----------



## tirediron (Apr 14, 2012)

*Okay kids, let's stop the name-calling and finger-pointing please.   Let's just assume that all of the images were throw-away images as she indicates earlier in the thread and that she's still learning?  Mmmmmmkay? *


----------



## tirediron (Apr 14, 2012)

OP:  There is nothing wrong with your camera's light meter, you simply aren't yet familiar enough with the intracies of metering and exposure to compensate for some of the more complex situations that arise.  I would suggest picking up some books from the library, especially Peterson's "Understanding Exposure" and taking them, your camera manual, kids and gear into the back yard and working through this problem.  These are VERY common situations, and someone who is charging for their work needs to be able to deal with them quickly and easily or is likely doomed to failure.


----------



## IByte (Apr 14, 2012)

Big Mike said:
			
		

> Firstly, lets talk about the topic of metering.  Did you know that your camera is programmed to get incorrect exposures (in many situations)?  That's right, the only time that getting to zero will give you an accurate exposure, is when you are metering on something that is middle grey. How to use a Grey Card ~ Mike Hodson Photography
> 
> So if your children have typical Caucasian skin tones (a guess based on your avatar) then for 'proper exposure', you would likely need to be at around +2/3 or +1 on your meter (when spot metering on the skin).  So that may be part of your problem.  As mentioned, you may also have your exposure compensation set to something negative, causing the images to be darker than you'd want.  Nikon has a weird quirk in that you can actually set the EC when in manual mode, which just shifts the meter, which can lead to people being unaware that it's set at all.
> 
> ...



Holy $@#$$% snacks that was very helpful, thanks Big Mike.


----------



## cgipson1 (Apr 14, 2012)

tirediron said:


> *Okay kids, let's stop the name-calling and finger-pointing please.   Let's just assume that all of the images were throw-away images as she indicates earlier in the thread and that she's still learning?  Mmmmmmkay? *



I edited my initial posts to make them a little more polite...    Sorry for the harshness..


----------



## AMOMENT (Apr 14, 2012)

It's all good I have thick skin   Actually regarding 1 & 2 were not meant to have flash and it didn't fire because it wasn't set to.  I was simply using it to figure out why my photos were so underexposed.  I did "chimp it" and below you will see the results of me doing that.  I do know that sometimes you do not want it to be at comple "0."  

Listen we all have to make a living in this world.  When people actually offer to pay me and like the photos that I'm not posting simply for experimental reasons, what fool would not accept?  I have done a few shoots and people have been happy.  It's that simple.  In the photography world I'm sure this is pathetic and I respect that and yet, at the end of the day I have mouths to feed and something that people are willing and happy to pay me to do.  When I do it, and my clients are happy. Everyone wins.  No further discussion needed.


----------



## AMOMENT (Apr 14, 2012)

Are you talking to me?  Because first off, the only feedback I usually give is positive.  Go look......

I don't know who you think I might be pretending to be but that is irrelevant to me at least.


----------



## Vtec44 (Apr 14, 2012)

AMOMENT said:


> Are you talking to me?  Because first off, the only feedback I usually give is positive.  Go look......
> 
> I don't know who you think I might be pretending to be but that is irrelevant to me at least.



Who are you talking to?? lol


----------



## AMOMENT (Apr 14, 2012)

#1-3 were from the same day as the "light meter situation," same area, just a different child.  Here I spot metered on the boy's face to expose right for his skin and used some fill flash for the background.  


1. i939.photobucket.com/albums/ad236/energizero/5-3.jpg[/IMG]

2.  
	

	
	
		
		

		
			






3.  
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




4.


----------



## MTVision (Apr 14, 2012)

AMOMENT said:
			
		

> Are you talking to me?  Because first off, the only feedback I usually give is positive.  Go look......
> 
> I don't know who you think I might be pretending to be but that is irrelevant to me at least.



I don't think that comment was directed at you. Make sure you exposure compensation is at 0. Also, depending on what you use to convert your raw photos, the in camera settings won't affect the raw image so they might look better on the screen vs your computer. Also, if active d-lighting is on and you use photoshop to convert your RAW files - it will actually be underexposed. Active d-lighting brightens the photo up but photoshop doesn't read that so the photo will be underexposed. If the meter was at 0 and it was still underexposed then adjust your settings so it goes above 0 to the positive side. 

Using your histograms is much better then just looking at the picture viewed on the LCD.


----------



## AMOMENT (Apr 14, 2012)

I cropped 1-3 a bit more than they are in the photos I actually used for sizing reasons.....


----------



## AMOMENT (Apr 14, 2012)

lol I'm not so sure anymore.  cgipson was commenting and saying that Graystar was the one who originally said whatever.  I don't know.


----------



## cgipson1 (Apr 14, 2012)

Notice any difference in the skin tones?

View attachment 6344


----------



## AMOMENT (Apr 14, 2012)

Megan, thanks!  Yes, I do use active D lighting and shoot in RAW and that is probably why. I have learned to expose slightly to the positive side because of this I was just surprised HOW UNDEREXPOSED the photos were at "0."  That was the premise for the original post.


----------



## AMOMENT (Apr 14, 2012)

I'm pretty sure people can have varying skin tones   I also ran a filter through some because I liked the way it looked....( as did they)


----------



## cgipson1 (Apr 14, 2012)

AMOMENT said:


> I'm pretty sure people can have varying skin tones   I also ran a filter through some because I liked the way it looked....( as did they)



Yes.. if she is sunburned and he is jaundiced!


----------



## AMOMENT (Apr 14, 2012)

little girl's skin color is true to self.  I know her in person and this is it.


----------



## AMOMENT (Apr 14, 2012)

it's called blush


----------



## Desi (Apr 14, 2012)

The girls skin tone looks ok to me (actually, I really like that picture, too bad you didn't shoot it a bit wider).

But, I think cgipson has a point about the boy.  His teeth look yellow, as do the sclera of his eyes.

I like the creative approach to portraiture that you are taking.  I can't get my kids to pose for anything.  Maybe that will make me a good wildlife photographer.


----------



## Vtec44 (Apr 14, 2012)

I'm not sure what to say about this picture... 

http://i939.photobucket.com/albums/ad236/energizero/5-3.jpg


----------



## cgipson1 (Apr 14, 2012)

Vtec44 said:


> I'm not sure what to say about this picture...
> 
> http://i939.photobucket.com/albums/ad236/energizero/5-3.jpg



lol!


----------



## AMOMENT (Apr 14, 2012)

Thanks, Desi!  It's always nice to have some constructive and respectful cc.  I will play around with the white balance and see if I can fix it.  Your pics are great!  What do you feel most passionate about photographing?  lol I cannot get my kids or pretty much any other kids to pose (except for older ones sometimes.)  I try to play games that cause them to smile or laugh or allow them to take from a bag of toys and just play.  A good game is "Red light, green light."  Basically (if you don't know it)  You say "red light, green light 1, 2, 3'...everyone runs and moves around til' you say "red light!"  Than everyone freezes and does a pose or whatever you implement in.  Works like a charm


----------



## AMOMENT (Apr 14, 2012)

Hey, CG lets get some of your pics up here


----------



## Vtec44 (Apr 14, 2012)

AMOMENT said:


> Hey, CG lets get some of your pics up here



Can I post some pix?


----------



## spwhite (Apr 14, 2012)

What is wrong with cgipson1 anyway? Geez.


----------



## Vtec44 (Apr 14, 2012)

spwhite said:


> What is wrong with cgipson1 anyway? Geez.



Nice first post... lol


----------



## Desi (Apr 15, 2012)

AMOMENT said:


> Thanks, Desi!  It's always nice to have some constructive and respectful cc.  I will play around with the white balance and see if I can fix it.  Your pics are great!  What do you feel most passionate about photographing?  lol I cannot get my kids or pretty much any other kids to pose (except for older ones sometimes.)  I try to play games that cause them to smile or laugh or allow them to take from a bag of toys and just play.  A good game is "Red light, green light."  Basically (if you don't know it)  You say "red light, green light 1, 2, 3'...everyone runs and moves around til' you say "red light!"  Than everyone freezes and does a pose or whatever you implement in.  Works like a charm



Thanks for the tip....I'm going to have to try that little game with the kids.

Since you asked.....I suppose what I am most passionate about (photographically) is landscape/adventure/travel photography.  I like to throw on a backpack and take off and bring the camera to document the beauty that I see.  Well, I've got twin 3 year olds, so lately I get very little time to travel without a stroller.  But it is the kids that really struck up my passion for photography.  Trying to capture an image which shows what I see in them turned out to be pretty hard, so that was the trigger that got me seriously learning about photography.  I'm at the beginning of this journey.  I'm glad you've enjoyed some of my images so far.

Desi


----------



## cgipson1 (Apr 15, 2012)

spwhite said:


> What is wrong with cgipson1 anyway? Geez.



Do you lack the ability and knowledge to be able to differentiate between Professional Quality photography, and Amateur photography? You must, or you would know whats wrong with me!


----------



## Vtec44 (Apr 15, 2012)

cgipson1 said:


> spwhite said:
> 
> 
> > What is wrong with cgipson1 anyway? Geez.
> ...



EVERYTHING is wrong with cgipson =P


----------



## cgipson1 (Apr 15, 2012)

Vtec44 said:


> cgipson1 said:
> 
> 
> > spwhite said:
> ...



Yep... that is probably true! LOL!


----------



## Tee (Apr 16, 2012)

For starters, always double check your settings (i.e. your EV setting was off for this picture).  Keep reading and learning.  Congrats on going pro.  You have more courage than most.


----------



## STM (Apr 16, 2012)

There is nothing wrong with your meter. Meters are DUMB, they always meter what you point them at to to Zone V (18%) neutral gray especially if you are using them in a spot rather than a matrix mode. They don't know the difference between a child's face and ping pong ball. If you are going to use a meter in the spot mode, you need to know something about what exactly it is you are actually metering. Most caucasian skin is Zone VI or even Zone VII in very fair skinned individuals like redheads. If you are going to meter off a caucasian face, you have to over expose by 1 f/ stop or more depending on the situation.


----------



## 2WheelPhoto (Apr 16, 2012)

Tee said:


> For starters, always double check your settings (i.e. your EV setting was off for this picture).  Keep reading and learning.  Congrats on going pro.  You have more courage than most.



Tee, many "pro's" leave bestbuy cashier lines every day. I suspect it takes more charge card than either know-how or guts to become a self-proclaimed pro.


----------



## cgipson1 (Apr 16, 2012)

Tee said:


> For starters, always double check your settings (i.e. your EV setting was off for this picture).  Keep reading and learning.  Congrats on going pro.  You have more courage than most.



Tee... Going PRO and Being PRO are two different things....   How many of the new "PRO's" could survive off of their income from shooting.. if they didn't have a husband supporting them financially?


----------



## Vtec44 (Apr 16, 2012)

cgipson1 said:


> .   How many of the new "PRO's" could survive off of their income from shooting.. if they didn't have a husband supporting them financially?




So this is why I'm not a pro.  I don't have a husband to support me financially.... oh wait... what?? lol


----------



## cgipson1 (Apr 16, 2012)

Vtec44 said:


> cgipson1 said:
> 
> 
> > .   How many of the new "PRO's" could survive off of their income from shooting.. if they didn't have a husband supporting them financially?
> ...



Referring primarily to the surge in MWAC Pro's.... as you well know! I am sure you could find a "husband" if you wanted one! lol!


----------



## Vtec44 (Apr 16, 2012)

cgipson1 said:


> Referring primarily to the surge in MWAC Pro's.... as you well know! I am sure you could find a "husband" if you wanted one! lol!



Oh HELL NO! hahahah... nothing's wrong with that but I don't swing that way...


----------



## cgipson1 (Apr 16, 2012)

Vtec44 said:


> cgipson1 said:
> 
> 
> > Referring primarily to the surge in MWAC Pro's.... as you well know! I am sure you could find a "husband" if you wanted one! lol!
> ...



LOL!


----------



## jwbryson1 (Apr 16, 2012)

CCericola said:


> This: Exposure Bias (EV)  {0x9204}-4/3 ===> -1.33



_*HELLO!!  Exactly!!  How did you NOT notice this?!*_


----------



## cgipson1 (Apr 16, 2012)

jwbryson1 said:


> CCericola said:
> 
> 
> > This: Exposure Bias (EV)  {0x9204}-4/3 ===> -1.33
> ...



Makes you kind of wonder!


----------



## jwbryson1 (Apr 16, 2012)

cgipson1 said:


> jwbryson1 said:
> 
> 
> > CCericola said:
> ...



So, my photos are like dark and stuff but I totally know about spot metering, and stuff.  My FB friends love my shots but this stuff is sorta hard.  And, well the pixx are dark, and stuff.  Then I took off my lens cover, and stuff, and whoa baby!  Let there be light!


----------



## 2WheelPhoto (Apr 16, 2012)

jwbryson1 said:


> cgipson1 said:
> 
> 
> > jwbryson1 said:
> ...


----------



## jwbryson1 (Apr 16, 2012)

jwbryson1 said:


> cgipson1 said:
> 
> 
> > jwbryson1 said:
> ...




Sorry--as my profile indicates, I have a VERY dry sense of humor.  But, c'mon.  Your EC was set to underexpose by 1 1/3 stops and you come on here asking about problems with your light meter.  That's like running out of gas and getting your car towed to the dealership to get the engine checked.


----------



## cgipson1 (Apr 16, 2012)

jwbryson1 said:


> jwbryson1 said:
> 
> 
> > cgipson1 said:
> ...



I believe EV will be part of the upcoming federally mandated photography business license testing.... and will be in essay form, not multiple choice! It will be interesting to see how many of the new breed of "Pros" can pass that!


----------



## 2WheelPhoto (Apr 16, 2012)

I suggest continue to blame the light meter per the opening thread topic.  It just has to be the source of the EV being decreased a stop or so


----------



## AMOMENT (Apr 16, 2012)

You are doing great!!! It's wonderful that you are passionate about this and is so lovely to be able to really capture the beauty you see in people and the world!! (Desi)


----------



## AMOMENT (Apr 16, 2012)

How do you know my husband supports me fiancially?  You don't know me or my life. BTW, not that I necessarily care CGIPSON, but how did you know about my website?  I have not linked it to search engines, you didn't know my name, or what I decided to call my site.   To be honest, it's a little creepy.  Others have googled me to see and it is next to impossible to pull up unless you know the EXACT address.  (which is what I wanted) I did this because I really am only doing shoots for people that I know, have grown up with, and who are very local.  

I could never survive on this and I'm not trying to.  I have a career.  I am so sorry you have such animosity in you.  It must suck.  I suggest you deter from this thread because clearly it is only aggrivating you.  It's probably not worth it, IMO.  I hope you have a good day and I have no problem saying I have seen your photos and I think they are great.  Perhaps you are a nice person in REAL LIFE and since I don't REALLY know you as you don't KNOW ME, I have no right to say otherwise.  

P.S.  Life is too short to linger in threads that make you frustrated or angry. Go take some more beautiful pictures.


----------



## AMOMENT (Apr 16, 2012)

Tee said:


> For starters, always double check your settings (i.e. your EV setting was off for this picture).  Keep reading and learning.  Congrats on going pro.  You have more courage than most.



You know, that was really sweet!  I really appreciate it!  I'm no where near great but if I can capture a photo that other people sem to enjoy than I'm going to do it; especially because I love it!  There are so many negative and terrible things in this world and photography really keeps me in the moment.  I'm having fun growing.  It's scary to take a step, especially because I know I have so much more to learn and yet I like to take risks.  What is the worst that could happen?  I take some photos people don't like and learn from it.  Not so risky.  Plus, if anyone happened to not be satisfied, I would redo it for free or reimburse!


----------



## AMOMENT (Apr 16, 2012)

STM said:


> There is nothing wrong with your meter. Meters are DUMB, they always meter what you point them at to to Zone V (18%) neutral gray especially if you are using them in a spot rather than a matrix mode. They don't know the difference between a child's face and ping pong ball. If you are going to use a meter in the spot mode, you need to know something about what exactly it is you are actually metering. Most caucasian skin is Zone VI or even Zone VII in very fair skinned individuals like redheads. If you are going to meter off a caucasian face, you have to over expose by 1 f/ stop or more depending on the situation.



very helpful


----------



## cgipson1 (Apr 16, 2012)

I was referring to MWAC PRO's in general, and the concept of them being supported by their husbands (paraphrased) was put forth in a article I read on the MWAC explosion.... not something I came up with! Can't take the credit for that.... I wish I could find that article, I would post it!


----------

