Canon ae-1/at-1 metering

Ben johns

Ben johns

Messages
957
Name
Ben
Edit My Images
No
Just got my first roll of film back and some photos are exposed correctly whilst some are very underexposed. All the photos that are too dark have either a light or a window behind the person I was photographing. The thing i dont understand is that I understand how to expose a photo. I would point the centre of the camera at the person I wanted to take a photo, get the exposure then re-compose the photo. I took the photos on my friends ae-1 but have now got an at-1 which i believe uses the same centre weighted metering as the ae-1.
32861933592_752ff218eb_n.jpg

32861911292_300b5b9a05_n.jpg
 
Last edited by a moderator:
I believe, though stand to be corrected, that the exposure doesn't lock as it can on other SLR's... so as you recompose, it recalculates the exposure. I think.
 
VirtualAdept said:
I believe, though stand to be corrected, that the exposure doesn't lock as it can on other SLR's... so as you recompose, it recalculates the exposure. I think.
Click to expand...
the thing i dont get is i did in manual mode. the only thing i can think of is that the area it uses for metering is bigger tahn i thought, but im not sure
 
How were you reading the meter? Did you use the aperture it suggested, just manually?
I'm just looking for info as to how big an area it uses to meter

ETA: Have you checked the battery condition? My ae1 reads waaaaaaaay off if the battery is getting a bit lame
 
Last edited:
VirtualAdept said:
How were you reading the meter? Did you use the aperture it suggested, just manually?
I'm just looking for info as to how big an area it uses to meter

ETA: Have you checked the battery condition? My ae1 reads waaaaaaaay off if the battery is getting a bit lame
Click to expand...
yea. i did it because i knew it would meter for the light, obviously didnt work! lol.
its got a new battery, plus there are photos that are exposed right when theres no light source behind them
 
Looking at the photos, its exposed the background/window, so perhaps the metering wasn't as confined as you thought, like you suggested.
 
The AE-1 / AT-1 use centre weighted average metering ... that means that although it pays more attention to the centre of the frame, the light from across the whole frame is measured. You'd need spot metering (which the AE-1 doesn't have) to meter for a scene like that.
 
Eloise said:
The AE-1 / AT-1 use centre weighted average metering ... that means that although it pays more attention to the centre of the frame, the light from across the whole frame is measured. You'd need spot metering (which the AE-1 doesn't have) to meter for a scene like that.
Click to expand...
thats what i imagined it was. whats the best way to meter for a scene like that?
 
oh one quick question kind of related. if i wanted to push delta 3200 but my camera only goes to 3200 all i have to do is underexpose by 1 stop then get it pushed 1 stop right?
 
Eloise said:
If you move closer (or zoom in) fill the frame and take reading, then pull back to frame.
Click to expand...
i come from digital so its a bit of a learnign curve! im used to auto iso. i think ill do that, providing im in a situation where the light isnt changing, get a reading on someone then adjust as best as i can based on what i think the lights doing
 
Ben johns said:
oh one quick question kind of related. if i wanted to push delta 3200 but my camera only goes to 3200 all i have to do is underexpose by 1 stop then get it pushed 1 stop right?
Click to expand...
You realise if you "push" film you have to compensate in development. (Sorry hope that wasn't treating you as stupid).
 
Ben johns said:
i come from digital so its a bit of a learnign curve! im used to auto iso. i think ill do that, providing im in a situation where the light isnt changing, get a reading on someone then adjust as best as i can based on what i think the lights doing
Click to expand...

If the light is a doubt then maybe think about bracketing? Repeat the same shot a few times giving it one more stop of exposure. Yes it wastes film but colour print is happier being overexposed than underexposed.
 
DNH said:
If the light is a doubt then maybe think about bracketing? Repeat the same shot a few times giving it one more stop of exposure. Yes it wastes film but colour print is happier being overexposed than underexposed.
Click to expand...

To be fair ALL negative film be it colour or b&w is happier being overexposed.


Bracketing is always an option, however if you know how to meter then what is the point?...... it.s the equivalent of chimping on digital until a result comes along that is considered acceptable.
 
Think bracketing is a good way to learn the limitations of a CW meter in awkward situations. Won't need to bracket for ever & in time will know when +1 or +2 stops over what the meter says is needed.
 
DNH said:
Think bracketing is a good way to learn the limitations of a CW meter in awkward situations. Won't need to bracket for ever & in time will know when +1 or +2 stops over what the meter says is needed.
Click to expand...
Never thought of bracketing. I'm used to the Sony evf, can see the photo before I take it
 
Fair enough but surely that comes about through photography experience.

The meter reading of the above shots would , I would have thought, have triggered some alarms before firing the shutter release.

There's two or three stops needed to accommodate the backlighting.

Knowing the film speed and aperture setting of the camera, the suggested shutter speed ( Im assuming is visible in the viewfinder of the camera used0 would have screamed a message!
 
Ben johns said:
Never thought of bracketing. I'm used to the Sony evf, can see the photo before I take it
Click to expand...

This is the problem with digital / liveview

It doesn't help in learning how to meter correctly

I believe, that students who choose to follow a photography course have to learn the basics of film photography and thus learn how to meter blind as it were, ie no liveview image.......I would hope that remains the foundation of all college photography courses.
 
Asha said:
Fair enough but surely that comes about through photography experience.

The meter reading of the above shots would , I would have thought, have triggered some alarms before firing the shutter release.

There's two or three stops needed to accommodate the backlighting.

Knowing the film speed and aperture setting of the camera, the suggested shutter speed ( Im assuming is visible in the viewfinder of the camera used0 would have screamed a message!
Click to expand...
To be honest not really. The way I used to take those sort of photos with the a6000 would be I'd have a shutter speed I was happy with, maybe 1/100, f 2.8 or so and auto ISO with spot meter. I'm used to being to almost point and shoot. Obviously I knew that I had to meter for their faces so I tried to but didn't realise how big the centre weighted area was and assumed it was right, as I always had done with the a6000. I do want a light meter that can do spot metering but their so expensive! I enjoy landscape photography mainly but I'd like a meter before I try it
 
LOL welcome to "real" photography

Meters, in camera, hand held, spot, incident, reflective all cause confusion and so much frustration for people

Not unlike other accessories, they have a place and can be very handy, however they will offer you a result that they think is correct......It is up to you to figure if you agree or not and adjust accordingly if necessary.

My suggestion is ignore all your meters and learn and shoot by the Sunny F/16 rule.

If you don't have a reasonable understanding of metering then no amount of money pumped into lightmeters is going to help

Btw, I'm no expert, far from it, however although several of my cameras have built in meters, I rarely agree with them ......I will view the reading and use it as a guideline, nothing more.

Upon develepoing, I regularly come to realise that had I accepted the meters suggestion, the negs would be underexposed, not because the meters are faulty (far from it), but simply because they typically pick up on the highlights and not the shadows.
 
Last edited:
Asha said:
LOL welcome to "real" photography

Meters, in camera, hand held, spot, incident, reflective all cause confusion and so much frustration for people

Not unlike other accessories, they have a place and can be very handy, however they will offer you a result that they think is correct......It is up to you to figure if you agree or not and adjust accordingly if necessary.

My suggestion is ignore all your meters and learn and shoot by the Sunny F/16 rule.

If you don't have a reasonable understanding of metering then no amount of money pumped into lightmeters is going to help

Btw, I'm no expert, far from it, however although several of my cameras have built in meters, I rarely agree with them ......I will view the reading and use it as a guideline, nothing more.

Upon develepoing, I regularly come to realise that had I accepted the meters suggestion, the negs would be underexposed, not because the meters are faulty (far from it), but simply because they typically pick up on the highlights and not the shadows.
Click to expand...
I have just watched an in depth video on the sunny 16 rule. I knew it in principle but not how to adjust it for lower light, guess I'll be getting the digital out and practicing, films expensive!
 
Ben johns said:
I have just watched an in depth video on the sunny 16 rule. I knew it in principle but not how to adjust it for lower light, guess I'll be getting the digital out and practicing, films expensive!
Click to expand...

Ya see, them digital thingies do have a use occasionally:D

just remember that with film, you have to meter for the shadows.......if you don't then no detail of those dark areas will be recorded on the film as in your shots above.
 
Asha said:
Ya see, them digital thingies do have a use occasionally:D

just remember that with film, you have to meter for the shadows.......if you don't then no detail of those dark areas will be recorded on the film as in your shots above.
Click to expand...
Yea, part of the reason for getting a film camera was that I liked the simplicity, plus it would have taught me some stuff, I guess I just didn't realise just how much I needed to be taught!
Trust me, lesson learnt... albeit an expensive one!
 
Ben johns said:
Yea, part of the reason for getting a film camera was that I liked the simplicity, plus it would have taught me some stuff, I guess I just didn't realise just how much I needed to be taught!
Trust me, lesson learnt... albeit an expensive one!
Click to expand...

You'll master it, bit of patience and playing about.

Bottom line comes down to experience.......more valuable than any lightmeter!

You'll make errors ( we all do no matter how much experience we have) and no doubt feel frustrated but don't get despondent, plod on with it, try and understand where you went wrong and move on from the mistakes.

Good luck
 
Thank you :) I much prefer the "manual" feel of film, just winding on another frame is far more satisfying that shooting digital.
One more question, if I were to find something that was middle gray or as close to middle as possible in the light that I'm shooting in would that make the correct exposure? Gray cards and middle gray get mentioned in the video I watched.
View: https://youtu.be/bCbePKkivZ8

It's a really good video, really recommend his channel
 
Ben johns said:
One more question, if I were to find something that was middle gray or as close to middle as possible in the light that I'm shooting in would that make the correct exposure?
Click to expand...

Yep as long as it's in the same light to take an exposure reading from, the grey card to be correct would be the Kodak one, but anything as a substitute would do from say the equivalent light reading from... blue, green or a cut pierce from a bit of old wall paper would do as light meters can't see colour only shades of grey.
Taking a reading from a Kodak grey card is the same as an incident light reading which is also roughly sunny 16 (h'mm depends what country you are as on the equator it wouldn't be the same as the Uk).
BTW:- old camera's light meters were set for Kodak grey (a standard) that's why it's important, maybe modern digis are set to a different standard. Also IIRC film is tied into the Kodak standard esp to select ISO rating.
 
Last edited:
I'm not very good at explaining stuff like this tbh
The rear wall of the room in the video clip is effectively mid grey, hence the highlights of the top of the box bottom right, the cloth or whatever it is mid left and the prismon the slr bottom left show up white without being blown and the dark shadows like the guys hat and t shirt are very much black.

Is this the correct exposure??......to show everything correctly exposed in the scene of the room, the answer is yes, however, if you wanted to see the detail of the material of the guys T shirt, then no, the exposure is too dark, you would need to open up by a stop or two to be able to see that detail which of course would increase the exposure of the rest of the scene.

It all depends on what you want to be exposed correctly.

In your shots, if the people were correctly exposed then the background windows would be over exposed, perhaps to the point of not being recognisable BUT the subject that you want to photograph will be correctly exposed.

The video explains it all very much better than I can do..


 
Ben johns said:
Just got my first roll of film back and some photos are exposed correctly whilst some are very underexposed. All the photos that are too dark have either a light or a window behind the person I was photographing. The thing i dont understand is that I understand how to expose a photo. I would point the centre of the camera at the person I wanted to take a photo, get the exposure then re-compose the photo. I took the photos on my friends ae-1 but have now got an at-1 which i believe uses the same centre weighted metering as the ae-1.
Click to expand...
I get what you say so far, but you haven't (as is common) fully defined your terms. What did you get back - a processed roll of film, or the same along with scans &/or prints? What are the NEGATIVES like?

I only ask because if you used an everyday process & print service, the lab's machines would automate the print exposures no matter what your film exposures had been - and since the images are tonally challenging, almost certainly screw things up. And though I've never used those cameras, it might appear that you did it right ... so ...
 
Ben johns said:
oh one quick question kind of related. if i wanted to push delta 3200 but my camera only goes to 3200 all i have to do is underexpose by 1 stop then get it pushed 1 stop right?
Click to expand...

Just a note on this.

You've come from digital where low light and stratospheric ISO's are part of the fun. Whatever you get on film in those conditions will not get close to your digital adventures.

If you want quality results (and why wouldn't you); consider playing to the strengths of the film gear. In good light with plenty of time, you can get some fantastic results that will rival the best digital kit.
 
If you have an Android based smartphone with a decent camera on it then perhaps have a look at a free app called LightMeter. https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.dq.fotometro&hl=en_GB

This has a zoomable 'spot metering' type function on it that you could maybe try. Perhaps compare that with the reading from your camera in similar conditions and see if it gives better results? If it works well with your smartphone it might be a cheap way to get a light meter with spot 'type' function.... and it's one less thing to carry round or forget to pack! If it works OK for you, then you could always upgrade to the 'pro' version which comes without ads and features more functions and costs £1.99! I have this app and find it useful, but it I think it depends on how it suits your particular phone.

Other than that, get to know your camera, this takes time and a certain amount of trial and error, so don't get disheartened. Perhaps think about buying an old book on 35mm photography, such as 'The 35mm Photographers Handbook' by Pan publishing (you should be able to find a 2nd hand copy for two or three quid on the internet/eBay). This book was published about the time the Canon A series cameras were being produced, so might be of use to you. (y)
 
Last edited:
droj said:
I get what you say so far, but you haven't (as is common) fully defined your terms. What did you get back - a processed roll of film, or the same along with scans &/or prints? What are the NEGATIVES like?

I only ask because if you used an everyday process & print service, the lab's machines would automate the print exposures no matter what your film exposures had been - and since the images are tonally challenging, almost certainly screw things up. And though I've never used those cameras, it might appear that you did it right ... so ...
Click to expand...
I got back just the negatives and hi res scans from ilford
 
Phil V said:
Just a note on this.

You've come from digital where low light and stratospheric ISO's are part of the fun. Whatever you get on film in those conditions will not get close to your digital adventures.

If you want quality results (and why wouldn't you); consider playing to the strengths of the film gear. In good light with plenty of time, you can get some fantastic results that will rival the best digital kit.
Click to expand...
I have been thinking about this, it might be a good idea to stay with digital in the light that I got in the photos I put up
 
One thought if you are new to film photography ... maybe worth to try looking in charity book shops for old photography books from the time before digital. Pretty sure there is usually a few when I look around here.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top