Exposure compensation?

Hi all, I took some portrait shots today in quite bright sunlight. On my digital I was able to adjust the exposure compensation and managed to get some decent face exposures despite strong back lighting.

But when it comes to the P30n I was at a bit of a loss as what to do? In the manual it says you can point at a subjects face that is strongly back lit and press the auto exposure lock. Would this in fact give a good exposure of the face? Isn't this just the same as pointing the lens at the face, focusing, and pressing the shutter?

I could experiment and end up with a roll of over/under exposed faces!

Any help much appreciated.

Deryn

Ya thats right the p30n only has centre spot if i remember so centre focus and lock ae on the face and the fzce should be perfectly exposed, the sky however and maybe the background will be blown out.

The P30n is a manual focus camera, so focusing is done by eye, using the central split image if required.

The idea Deryn is to focus on the face but for the exposure point the camera at something that won't be fooled by the bright sky. Then use AE lock, recompose and shoot.

You can also take the camera into full manual mode (I think you just take both and shutter speed off the A setting?) and choose a higher shutter speed than the meter is telling you. But experiment. Unless you're shooting slide film, you may have more leeway than on digital.

Thanks guys.

even with the digital yesterday face pics were still a little underexposed with a little exposure compensation added. Shooting in RAW might have helped.

I also forgot how annoying it can be when the subject moves just as you press the shutter on a film camera. Every time this happened I looked to the back of the camera to check the pic on the playback!!!

Do you guys ever use a grey card when using film?

Deryn

What film are you using, Deryn? Some films will probably have more latitude than digital when it comes to dark/bright areas in the same scene. Ektar certainly seems to.

Here's a couple of further thoughts re the face shots - have you tried using a reflector to bounce some light into the subject's face, so you haven't got such an extreme difference between dark face / bright background? Anything white or silver will do. And a silly question perhaps - have you tried moving your model somewhere less challenging?

No I have never used a grey card. In your scenario I would probably just tilt the camera down so the sky didn't take up so much of the frame and hit exposure lock, but then again I am really really lazy. Hence why I also tend to like film that is forgiving on exposure and extremes of dynamic range!

I think your problem starts with metering Deryn. There are books all about metering, hundreds of pages I'm afraid!

However, there is fundamentally no difference between digital and film for metering. Both should give the same result. As Pentaxophile suggests, how about starting with a less challenging scenario? Then, we need to remember that any meter is just a device for measuring light levels, reflected light in this case.

Meters are (ostensibly) set to measure 18% reflectance, a mid-grey. So your meter reading, if it was solely of a Caucasian face, would render that face as grey. It's not grey, so you need to modify the exposure to make it lighter. On film +1 stop on negative materials, on slides and digital maybe +0.5 stops maximum. This is an instance where you could usefully use spot metering and manual exposure.

When you have this sorted, then you can use any metering pattern you like and just apply compensation. But you need to be able to judge when and how much, and that's where practice comes in.

My advice is buy a slide film and shoot all 36 shots as best you can. This will show you how well you are metering and initially might be something of a shock. Anyone who can meter accurately with slide (transparency) film will have no problems with digital.

Thanks guys, the only film I could find on a shopping trip was ISO 400 and so that might cause me problems as I'll see when I develop. It is also B&W. Other ISO's might be suitable for outdoor portraits which I can buy on the internet.

I was photographing a baby at ground level and similar to your suggestion about a reflector, a light coloured sheet on the grass threw up some lovely light onto the face.

Thanks again, very helpful.

Deryn

Instead of a grey card, use the palm of your hand. The difference is (I've found) is almost negligible.


regards
Bernard

Bernard.... You have middle-grey hands which planet
you from!

Caucasian skin (unless heavily sunburnt) is 1 to 2 stops
lighter than mid-grey. It's not very reliable.... bits
can be shiny

See...
http://www.luminous-landscape.com/tutorials/zone_system.shtml
Zone 6 or Zone 7

'

Keep up with the racial comments and you vill be assimilated


Seriously though, I managed quite well doing that for many years. But I suppose the latitude in negative stock allowed for those kind of errors.

regards
Bernard

It would work anyway..... If you do all the Zone System tests to arrive at the correct film speed for a maximum black on the print most B&W films were rated about a stop too high by the manufacturer so overexposing by 1 stop by taking a reading off your hand and not adjusting it would give the correct exposure. I always used 200 ASA for Tri-X instead of 400 ASA.

You could use 400 ASA, but there wouldn't be a maximum black on any of your prints

'

Yup I always rated film down a peg, but shot Ektachrome as labelled.

Got to admit I've got a huge collection of duff pics though. And I'd usually forgotten why I took them by the time I got the prints.

I recall that 'Kodak' was apparently named after the sound a camera made.
I would have thought ker-ching would have been more appropriate.

regards
Bernard

There's a good TV program about the Kodak history, but
I can't remember where the name came from. The first
Kodak cameras didn't even have a viewfinder.... you just
aimed in the general direction

Edit: According to.....
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eastman_Kodak

"The letter k was a favorite of Eastman's; he is quoted as saying, "it seems a strong, incisive sort of letter." He and his mother devised the name Kodak with an Anagrams set. Eastman said that there were three principal concepts he used in creating the name: it should be short, easy to pronounce, and not resemble any other name or be associated with anything else."

'