Meter reads underexposed in decent light

spinno · 11-30-2018, 03:01 AM

Originally posted by runswithsizzers

So, you are metering at ISO 200 get the high exposure look you want - but at ISO 200 you can't get a decent shutter speed in low light, right?

If the camera meter says you need a shutter speed of 1/25th second, and you take a shot at 1/25th - is the negative properly exposed? And does metering the same scene with another light meter also indicate 1/25th? If so, then the problem is not enough light, and I don't see how playing with a spot meter is going to help.

I have to wonder what are the world renowned wedding photographers doing differently that enables them to shoot their indoor weddings at ISO 200 without using unacceptably slow shutter speeds? Are they using wider apertures than you are? Are they choosing venues with more light than yours has, or possibly they are adding more light to the venue (with flash or...) ?

Try experimenting with a digital camera using the same settings as you would like to use (aperture/iso/shutter speed). You may find your answer there.

runswithsizzers · 11-30-2018, 12:25 PM

Originally posted by spinno

Try experimenting with a digital camera using the same settings as you would like to use (aperture/iso/shutter speed). You may find your answer there.

Not sure why your post was directed a me rather than the OP. I think I already know the answer.

I just searched my entire catalog of 4319 images in Lightroom for those shot at ISO 200 or less. I found 1270 images, and virtually all of them were taken out of doors. Of the very few that were taken indoors, none were lit only by artificial light; either my subject was directly in front of a sun-lit open window, or I used a flash.

**rogerstg** · 11-30-2018, 12:43 PM

Originally posted by runswithsizzers

Not sure why your post was directed a me rather than the OP. I think I already know the answer.

Quoting is often to keep the discussion easy to follow and not necessarily to directly address the person quoted. I took it that spinno was adding to your comments.

runswithsizzers · 11-30-2018, 12:46 PM

Originally posted by rogerstg

Quoting is often to keep the discussion easier to follow and not necessarily to directly address the person quoted. I took it that spinno was adding to your comments.

Understood.

**rogerstg** · 11-30-2018, 01:04 PM

Originally posted by runswithsizzers

just searched my entire catalog of 4319 images in Lightroom for those shot at ISO 200 or less. I found 1270 images, and virtually all of them were taken out of doors. Of the very few that were taken indoors, none were lit only by artificial light; either my subject was directly in front of a sun-lit open window, or I used a flash.

On top of that the OP wants a "bright and airy look," AKA background overexposed by about one stop. Consistent with your numbers, I don't see how that can be practically possible shooting a wedding indoors at ISO 200 (or even 400) without a lot of artificial lighting. I suppose that look can be accomplished in the darkroom by burning.

I'm following this thread to learn something.

spinno · 11-30-2018, 01:04 PM

Sorry for confusing everyone.
I have been following the thread and wondered why a simple experiment hadn't been suggested (as far as I could see)
The only other thought would be to use either a dslr as a light meter or use a phone app.in a similar way.
By way of my experience using a narrow dof is OK but there still needs to be further processing on the computer to achieve the desired effect

runswithsizzers · 12-02-2018, 08:17 AM - **1 Like**

Originally posted by rogerstg

On top of that the OP wants a "bright and airy look," AKA background overexposed by about one stop. Consistent with your numbers, I don't see how that can be practically possible shooting a wedding indoors at ISO 200 (or even 400) without a lot of artificial lighting. I suppose that look can be accomplished in the darkroom by burning.

I'm following this thread to learn something.

I believe the OP intends on digital darkroom from scans of the negatives. My immediate thought was the "look" might be more easily and reliably created in post-processing rather than trying to shoot at ISO 200 in anything less than bright light - but - I've never tried it, so I shouldn't say.

I shot slide film for 40 years, much of it at ISO 100. In any lighting other than sunshine, I remember what a constant struggle it was trying to balance slow shutter speeds against not-quite enough depth-of-field. ISO 200 is not that much better.

Sveg15 · 12-02-2018, 07:07 PM

Runwithsizzers- Yes, you are correct regarding the digital scans. You may have made a very good point that minimally editing the images after the fact will help achieve this look.

None of this would be used for shoot wedding fully analog indoors. I'm looking to supplement my wedding shooting with film, not replace it entirely. This is primarily a question for outdoor images. I'm going to play around with ASA 800 and see if perhaps it's a better fit.l and also use my digital camera to compare while shooting and check lighting.

---------- Post added 12-02-18 at 07:10 PM ----------

Originally posted by spinno

Sorry for confusing everyone.
I have been following the thread and wondered why a simple experiment hadn't been suggested (as far as I could see)
The only other thought would be to use either a dslr as a light meter or use a phone app.in a similar way.
By way of my experience using a narrow dof is OK but there still needs to be further processing on the computer to achieve the desired effect

I'm definitely going to start using my dslr as a test. I'll have to try other films and see what offers enough flexibility with the light I'm looking for as well.

11-30-2018, 12:43 PM	#18
rogerstg Loyal Site Supporter Join Date: Oct 2007 Location: Rhode Island Photos: Albums Posts: 1,168	Originally posted by runswithsizzers Not sure why your post was directed a me rather than the OP. I think I already know the answer. Quoting is often to keep the discussion easy to follow and not necessarily to directly address the person quoted. I took it that spinno was adding to your comments. Last edited by rogerstg; 11-30-2018 at 12:47 PM. Reason: tense

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
K1000 Light Meter Calibration - Aperture has no effect on light meter?	appalachian1	Film SLRs and Compact Film Cameras	5	03-14-2017 07:08 PM
Histogram- using it. Any good reads?	derelict	Pentax DSLR Discussion	49	08-22-2014 09:54 AM
Photos on Memory Card, But PC Reads 0 Files	Kbace	Visitors' Center	3	10-09-2012 05:32 AM
It reads "Card is Locked" why ?	Jesus	Troubleshooting and Beginner Help	24	05-28-2012 09:33 PM
Camera RAW update - reads K-5 PEF	andi	Digital Processing, Software, and Printing	31	12-16-2010 01:53 PM

11-30-2018, 03:01 AM	#16
spinno Senior Member Join Date: Sep 2013 Posts: 119	Originally posted by runswithsizzers So, you are metering at ISO 200 get the high exposure look you want - but at ISO 200 you can't get a decent shutter speed in low light, right? If the camera meter says you need a shutter speed of 1/25th second, and you take a shot at 1/25th - is the negative properly exposed? And does metering the same scene with another light meter also indicate 1/25th? If so, then the problem is not enough light, and I don't see how playing with a spot meter is going to help. I have to wonder what are the world renowned wedding photographers doing differently that enables them to shoot their indoor weddings at ISO 200 without using unacceptably slow shutter speeds? Are they using wider apertures than you are? Are they choosing venues with more light than yours has, or possibly they are adding more light to the venue (with flash or...) ? Try experimenting with a digital camera using the same settings as you would like to use (aperture/iso/shutter speed). You may find your answer there.

11-30-2018, 12:25 PM	#17
runswithsizzers Senior Member Join Date: Jun 2011 Location: USA Posts: 186	Originally posted by spinno Try experimenting with a digital camera using the same settings as you would like to use (aperture/iso/shutter speed). You may find your answer there. Not sure why your post was directed a me rather than the OP. I think I already know the answer. I just searched my entire catalog of 4319 images in Lightroom for those shot at ISO 200 or less. I found 1270 images, and virtually all of them were taken out of doors. Of the very few that were taken indoors, none were lit only by artificial light; either my subject was directly in front of a sun-lit open window, or I used a flash.

11-30-2018, 12:46 PM	#19
runswithsizzers Senior Member Join Date: Jun 2011 Location: USA Posts: 186	Originally posted by rogerstg Quoting is often to keep the discussion easier to follow and not necessarily to directly address the person quoted. I took it that spinno was adding to your comments. Understood.

11-30-2018, 01:04 PM	#20
rogerstg Loyal Site Supporter Join Date: Oct 2007 Location: Rhode Island Photos: Albums Posts: 1,168	Originally posted by runswithsizzers just searched my entire catalog of 4319 images in Lightroom for those shot at ISO 200 or less. I found 1270 images, and virtually all of them were taken out of doors. Of the very few that were taken indoors, none were lit only by artificial light; either my subject was directly in front of a sun-lit open window, or I used a flash. On top of that the OP wants a "bright and airy look," AKA background overexposed by about one stop. Consistent with your numbers, I don't see how that can be practically possible shooting a wedding indoors at ISO 200 (or even 400) without a lot of artificial lighting. I suppose that look can be accomplished in the darkroom by burning. I'm following this thread to learn something.

11-30-2018, 01:04 PM	#21
spinno Senior Member Join Date: Sep 2013 Posts: 119	Sorry for confusing everyone. I have been following the thread and wondered why a simple experiment hadn't been suggested (as far as I could see) The only other thought would be to use either a dslr as a light meter or use a phone app.in a similar way. By way of my experience using a narrow dof is OK but there still needs to be further processing on the computer to achieve the desired effect

12-02-2018, 08:17 AM - 1 Like	#22
runswithsizzers Senior Member Join Date: Jun 2011 Location: USA Posts: 186	Originally posted by rogerstg On top of that the OP wants a "bright and airy look," AKA background overexposed by about one stop. Consistent with your numbers, I don't see how that can be practically possible shooting a wedding indoors at ISO 200 (or even 400) without a lot of artificial lighting. I suppose that look can be accomplished in the darkroom by burning. I'm following this thread to learn something. I believe the OP intends on digital darkroom from scans of the negatives. My immediate thought was the "look" might be more easily and reliably created in post-processing rather than trying to shoot at ISO 200 in anything less than bright light - but - I've never tried it, so I shouldn't say. I shot slide film for 40 years, much of it at ISO 100. In any lighting other than sunshine, I remember what a constant struggle it was trying to balance slow shutter speeds against not-quite enough depth-of-field. ISO 200 is not that much better.

12-02-2018, 07:07 PM	#23
Sveg15 New Member Join Date: Nov 2018 Posts: 7 Original Poster	Runwithsizzers- Yes, you are correct regarding the digital scans. You may have made a very good point that minimally editing the images after the fact will help achieve this look. None of this would be used for shoot wedding fully analog indoors. I'm looking to supplement my wedding shooting with film, not replace it entirely. This is primarily a question for outdoor images. I'm going to play around with ASA 800 and see if perhaps it's a better fit.l and also use my digital camera to compare while shooting and check lighting. ---------- Post added 12-02-18 at 07:10 PM ---------- Originally posted by spinno Sorry for confusing everyone. I have been following the thread and wondered why a simple experiment hadn't been suggested (as far as I could see) The only other thought would be to use either a dslr as a light meter or use a phone app.in a similar way. By way of my experience using a narrow dof is OK but there still needs to be further processing on the computer to achieve the desired effect I'm definitely going to start using my dslr as a test. I'll have to try other films and see what offers enough flexibility with the light I'm looking for as well.