Exposure meter question

R

RedChalice

Active member
How many of you religiously abide to the exposure meter?

It always seems like the scene/room is well lit with detail in the shadows etc, but when i look at the exposure meter its underexposed. When i compensate and increase the exposure so its at 0 on the meter, the shot looks overly lit with minimal moodiness from the lighting.

Is it safe to just use your gut and decide if the shot looks lit nicely according to your eyes?

When i watch hollywood movies with minimally lit scenes, i cant imagine the exposure meter being at 0 during shooting.
 
Definitely don't go by your eyes. Your eyes aren't the camera. you need SOME kind of tool to tell you where you're exposing. At the very worst that'd be some kind of monitor (best of the worst, imo, is a very accurate monitor... but still not the best tool to use by itself) but you can't just use your eyes.

As for religiously abiding by my light meter... what do you mean? That I meter and set my t-stop to whatever settings it tells me? No. But I use those settings to figure out where I WANT to set my exposure.

The light meter isn't a tool to tell you where to set your exposure. It's a tool to help inform your decision of where you set your exposure. But knowing what your light meter is telling you and what that means for your vision, as well as knowing HOW to meter a scene effectively, is an art. And a science. It's both.

edit: Wait, what do you mean exposure meter at zero? I thought you were talking about a light meter, are you talking about the camera's exposure guide? Yeah screw that guide. Near as I can tell it just averages the entire scene. That's no way to set exposure. It can be a guide if you're really in a pinch I guess, but I wouldn't trust it. Use your histogram, use your waveform, use your light meter.
 
Last edited:
The exposure meter on my a7S, set to center point mode, and pointed at a grey card, will give me exactly the same reading as my Sekonic in reflective mode on that same grey card, with a difference of a tenth of a stop at most. Just don't set the exposure meter in the camera at full-frame-average, that's just something random on each shot.
 
It also depends on your camera - some have far better exposure meters on them than others.
on my Panasonic GH2 I increase exposure until the "blinkies" start - telling me some highlights are blown out, then I back down until the blinkies stop. Often the meter will still read as above zero, but my first days of shooting tests showed me that the exposure meter can read well over zero with nothing in the frame being blown out. If I shoot this way - meter above zero but nothing blown out - and then lower the gamma back down in post - that gives me the cleanest video the camera seems to be able to get.

That is basically how those moody scenes you mentioned are done. I've seen plenty of sets that were bright as hell, but if you looked at the director's monitor (darkened to reflect something like what the final might be) not the camera operator's monitor, you'd say: "ah-hah".
 
Do you mean an external light meter?

Those really aren't your most useful tool when working with modern video cameras. The tools on the camera -- at least most pro-level cameras -- will be better for you.

Assuming you want to light to the correct exposure (instead of purposely lighting brighter and darkening in post), the waveform monitor (first) and the zebras (second) will be often/usually be better tools than a traditional external light meter, which are really geared for exposing FILM. If everything is within the correct IRE levels according to those tools, then you're in good shape whatever your eyes or monitor tell you.
 
I always expose by meter, whether it be a light meter or your cameras built-in. Your eye is not a reliable tool for predicting what you'll be getting in camera. Meter long enough and you can get a sense of how what your eye sees translates on film, but don't trust what you see. That's only as far as accurate exposure measurements go. How you light and how you choose to expose in the end is an artistic choice and one a 'good eye' will weigh in heavily on.
If the way you expose by meter doesn't translate to what you wanted on film, then the problem isn't the tool- It's you who don't know how to use it properly. Overexposure and Underexposure isn't black and white- A huge part of a shot can be under- or overexposed and still be Correctly exposed (in terms of the visual style of the image).
 
I have a bunch of the better meters but recently pulled their batteries, & shelved them, then picked up a Sekonic L-308DC DigiCineMate Light Meter.

I mostly use waveform, false color, or zebras, for setting exposure but still like using a meter for setting lighting ratios in some scenes so the little Sekonic fits the bill without eating up much space in the bags.
 
I was referring to meter inside camera the camera (im a GH4 owner).

Ive read an article regarding lighting setups used for certain scenes in the movie "Her" where the DP intentionally underlit the shot to achieve a certain look. If I was to recreate a similar scene/light setup like that, my in-camera exposure meter would most definitely be underexposed.
 
Then to answer your first question:

How many of you religiously abide to the exposure meter?
Click to expand...

The answer really should be 100%. Your instruments don't lie to you, but your eyes, viewfinders, and monitors do.

As to underexposing, you first need to have a firm understanding of how to read a proper exposure, and then you can be sure of your underexposure.
 
RedChalice said:
How many of you religiously abide to the exposure meter?
Click to expand...

I'm pretty irreligious... but I have more faith in my meters than my eyes... and that 'faith' is backed up by some amount of testing and comparing for various cameras and ISO settings on the cameras.

I don't have the expensive DSC charts, but I do have a Spyder Colorcheckr and a Kodak grey 18% grey card. So, I do test relative to those 'standards'.

Once I feel comfortable with the ISO setting for a camera/lens combo I have, I then may use the 'histogram' to tweak a shot, as I don't have cameras, monitors, or other 'field' equipment that can give me a waveform display. But such a display is only available when the camera is setup ready do shoot the scene.

If the scene involves a mobile camera, then I think the use of meters is more important. But if the camera motion is static then waveform could take priority... if I had that available...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top