Metering observations

[BDD]

Hey guys,

Can you guys tell me why I can get a more vibrant photo of my dog when I meter on the brown patches? Yet when I meter on the white portions the colors are more subdued. More accurate. Closer to what my eyes saw. Not that the more vibrant photos didn't look pleasing as well. They did.

The lighting conditions are the same. Using the light pouring in from a window. Overcast sky. Dog was between me and the window. I was facing the window but at a 45 degree position.

However, if my position is in a darker area of the room and the light from the window is facing my dog and not on me there is little difference if I meter on the white or brown. The results are very similar.

Thanks.

[TCav]

Can you post examples of what you're getting?

[Calicajun]

Because the white spot on your dog are closer to 18% gray than the brown on the dog. Cameras are set to meter off of 18% gray card.

[BDD]

Sounds like a good and probably correct explanation Calicajun. But if that was (is) the case then why did I get similar results when I moved myself from in front of the window to the side of the window. So that the light was only covering my dog and my living room.

From this new position I took a few comparison shots. They looked pretty much the same. No photo more vibrant than the next. Whether I metered (spot metering) off the white areas of his coat or the brown.

And I have no samples TCav. Deleted them right after I took them. When the difference was obvious (more vibrant) it just looks like the color temperature was higher. Or that I used a warming filter. It was like there was a little sunlight outside. Whereas if I metered off the white area the brown would be darker. More true to what I saw at hat time.

[Calicajun]

Shoot and post some samples with the exif data.

[BDD]

Not sure why but today the two shots look different. The photo I metered of the larger brown area had more vibrant colors. As if there was more light. Which should be the case.

The first photo where I metered off the white had a less vibrant color palette.

Both were shot at ISO 1250, 1/30s and at f/8.

The photos I took yesterday...the difference seemed less apparent.

Any how here are the two photos taken today. I was seated at my kitchen table. The blur you see at the bottom left corner was the glass from my kitchen table. HEH!

[TCav]

The camera uses whatever part of the scene you meter off of as a middle value for the entire scene. When you meter off the 'white', then 'white' will be exposed correctly, anything that is darker than 'white' will be underexposed, and anything that is lighter than 'white' will be overexposed. Since not much is lighter than 'white', most of the dynamic range of the image is wasted in anticipation of something that doesn't exist in the scene. Correspondingly, anything that is darker than white is compressed into that portion of the dynamic range that's left. When you meter off the 'brown' then the 'brown' will be properly exposed, and the dynamic range is more correctly used to represent the other levels of brightness in the scene.

[BDD]

Originally Posted by TCav

The camera uses whatever part of the scene you meter off of as a middle value for the entire scene. When you meter off the 'white', then 'white' will be exposed correctly, anything that is darker than 'white' will be underexposed, and anything that is lighter than 'white' will be overexposed. Since not much is lighter than 'white', most of the dynamic range of the image is wasted in anticipation of something that doesn't exist in the scene. Correspondingly, anything that is darker than white is compressed into that portion of the dynamic range that's left. When you meter off the 'brown' then the 'brown' will be properly exposed, and the dynamic range is more correctly used to represent the other levels of brightness in the scene.

Yet, it's when I meter off the white, do I get a more "true" result. Closer to what my eyes saw. Especially when I'm in the path of the light source.