Exposing for the white wedding dress

Chrisly2009

Chrisly2009

Messages
49
Name
Chris
Edit My Images
Yes
Hi Everyone,

I just wanted to know how people arrive at the perfect exposure for the bride in a pure white dress. Is there a full proof, quick way to do this so that you never blow out the detail?

Would you go for AP mode, zoom in on dress and spot meter it. Record the results and put this into manual mode. Knowing that the camera will try to make the dress 18% grey, how much exposure compensation do you find works best for you where you can get consistent results???

I will be interested in other ways if people would be willing to comment.

many thanks
Chris
 
Shoot manual, learn to read your histogram.
 
Yes I thought this may be the general answer but do I have the correct approach from what I have written above please?
 
A lot of people will use Av and auto ISO. I tried this, but I was using a Canon 5D classic.. I felt it was underexposing a lot, so I went manual.. I felt much more comfortable with this..

If in doubt, underexpose slightly and recover in post, IMO.

I'm not a wedding photographer, just an enthusiast who shot a family wedding.
 
Chrisly2009 said:
Yes I thought this may be the general answer but do I have the correct approach from what I have written above please?
Click to expand...
Chrisly2009 said:
Would you go for AP mode, zoom in on dress and spot meter it.
Record the results and put this into manual mode.
Click to expand...


Not really the most efficient way of doing it. If you can meter properly in AP then just use that mode. But learn to read the histogram and blinkies. Dialling in results from metering in AP in manual mode will just give you exactly the same results. You need to compensate properly, and theres no set amount, it depends on the light, the day, the scene and a million other things.

I'll get shot for this but faces sell photos. Not dresses. As long a you don't produce amorphous white blobs its OK to blow it a bit in favour of everything else being 'right'. Whatever 'right' is
 
There is no foolproof way, it's whatever works for you.

Personally I always shoot in AV and I always use eval metering (except w flash which is set to meter CW). Never use auto ISO.

But, I understand my meter instinctively and use exp lock instinctively without a pause.

Just a note on auto ISO and manual, if you shoot canon it's not an option. Nikon will let you set exp comp in M, canon won't, so Manual ceases to be manual. Because you set the aperture and shutter and the auto ISO will set your exposure with no option of override.
 
Phil V said:
Nikon will let you set exp comp in M, canon won't, so Manual ceases to be manual.
Click to expand...

They do. But all that does is more the neutral point on the meter to where you've compensated. It doesn't actually affect the exposure. So its still manual ;)
 
Personally, and especially for Weddings, I feel the histogram is pointless - many a shot has the background brighter, sometimes way brighter, than the Bride and hence all the histogram shows you is that the blown background is blown - who cares, if the Bride is perfectly exposed the background doesn't matter in such cases

Blinkies shows you what's hot and if there is a tiny bit of blinkies on her chest, and similar throughout the day, then she is always exposed by the same amount regardless of surroundings

I use AP and compensation most of the time whenever light is changing, and Manual whenever its not

Of course if you are in the same light as your Bride, however far away she is, you can of course just use an incident meter reading and adjust accordingly

Dave
 
Kieron Nevison said:
Use a light meter. Simple as that. Take an incidental reading and set camera manually. This is a far quicker and more accurate way.
Click to expand...

Hi, Got it in one. "Correct Answer".(y)
 
G.K.Jnr. said:
Hi, Got it in one. "Correct Answer".(y)
Click to expand...
There is no 'correct answer' :ROFLMAO:

I've seen the back of my camera compared to someone who shoots full manual and my image density was more consistent, does that make AV better? Or does it make me slightly better at reading a scene? Well if you see my 2nds and she shoots the same method as me, then it's definitely not down to AV being better. So it's whatever works for the photographer, and frankly, if you need to ask how someone else does it, you definitely shouldn't be shooting professionally.

Lets grow up, I can't believe any professional photographer could lower themselves to 'this is the right way to do it', frankly it looks :muted: :muted:
 
There's defo a place for lightmeters and manual; just as there is for manual and the camera's own meter; just as there is for AP/AV; and just as there is for fully Program mode - to say one method is quicker or 'correct' is absurd and confusing to those new to photography

Dave

EDIT - HA - Phil beat me to it :D
 
boyfalldown said:
They do. But all that does is more the neutral point on the meter to where you've compensated. It doesn't actually affect the exposure. So its still manual ;)
Click to expand...
It's still Manual on Nikon, but not on Canon.

On canon, with no exp comp to set, you can set whatever aperture and SS you want, and the meter will just centre by adjusting the ISO, a centred meter doesn't equal a correct exposure (you knew that, this explanation is for the casual observer). It's an often overlooked failing of Canons auto ISO.
 
Take a shot, check the LCD and if it looks good you've nailed it, there's really no magic formula here IMO. I use evaluative metering as others above have mentioned they do and my camera's never seem to really do anything funky and get close the right exposure without any drama. I shoot auto ISO and AV mode so just dial in a bit of exposure comp if required.

The only time I've really had to think more in depth about it was when the B&G were stood in front of a bright window so they were underexposed, so I switched to centre spot and carried on.

I think people by and large get too hung up on how to do things (I know I used to and still do sometimes), but once you do it a few times using the same camera you learn to trust it and also begin to understand what it will do and how to correct that if it's going to get it wrong.
 
ajax_andy said:
Take a shot, check the LCD and if it looks good you've nailed it,
Click to expand...

You know, it's just worth considering that the screens on cameras are not calibrated and show an auto processed JPEG - not the raw file.

For such exposure critical work as a bridal dress I don't think personally I'd be relying on something that can be wildly inaccurate.
 
This bit of Andy's...

but once you do it a few times using the same camera you learn to trust it and also begin to understand what it will do and how to correct that if it's going to get it wrong

- is why its perfectly fine to go by the LCD, WHEN you are sure how accurately it is displaying the end result. And this is exactly what I do, but with Blinkies on too :)

Dave
 
DG Phototraining said:
This bit of Andy's...

but once you do it a few times using the same camera you learn to trust it and also begin to understand what it will do and how to correct that if it's going to get it wrong

- is why its perfectly fine to go by the LCD, WHEN you are sure how accurately it is displaying the end result. And this is exactly what I do, but with Blinkies on too :)

Dave
Click to expand...

Yeah exactly Dave, I am presuming someone shooting a wedding knows how accurate their LCD is... if not then there's something wrong there.

I don't use blinkies but I can see the benefit
 
All good stuff on here and a lot to pick out and digest. Thank you for your time on this thread. It really helps
 
I used to use an exposure locked value based on a neutral area in the same light.

So meter off some grass, tarmac etc lock it with the AE-Lock and then recompose on the bride, focus, shoot. If I was shooting a series of posed portraits or groups then I'd probably get a correct exposure that way and then switch to manual with the same settings providing I was in constant lighting - which given my aim was open shade for those was typical.

If you are spot metering off the dress without any exposure comp then you are going to underexpose it. Personally I'd rather be slightly over and bring it back than underexposed and have a noise in my shadows.

It comes with experience, and you should be able to judge it from your LCD/Histogram/Blinkies assuming you know what they look like when you have a reference of them when correct. Modern cameras are far better then they were at recovering highlights 10-12 years ago.
 
I would go along with using an incident light meter for the greatest consistency in the highlights.
For most accurate results go right up to the bride and take a reading toward the camera position. or a duplex reading for extreme side light..
(But if the light is falling the same on you as on her you can equally take the reading where you are.)
 
boyfalldown said:
magic ;)
Click to expand...

In my father's day, shooting weddings, that magic was in the form of Fujifilm Reala. It could give you correct skin tones whilst keeping a wedding dress looking white.

I have no idea how the magic mega-pixies in these new fangled electric cameras do it though!


Steve.
 
Phil V said:
It's still Manual on Nikon, but not on Canon.

On canon, with no exp comp to set, you can set whatever aperture and SS you want, and the meter will just centre by adjusting the ISO, a centred meter doesn't equal a correct exposure (you knew that, this explanation is for the casual observer). It's an often overlooked failing of Canons auto ISO.
Click to expand...

On any camera you can exposure compensate in manual. you simply adjust the aperture or shutter speed control by the required amount.
 
Terrywoodenpic said:
On any camera you can exposure compensate in manual. you simply adjust the aperture or shutter speed control by the required amount.
Click to expand...
Try it on a Canon with Auto ISO set,

Come and report back.

Like I said, Manual ceases to be Manual on Canon when you set auto ISO. The 'auto' centres the needle (as it were) with no override. whereas on Nikon cameras (I have no idea about other mfrs) you can set an exp comp value in Manual and that will hold and override the cameras desire to centre the meter.
 
Phil V said:
Try it on a Canon with Auto ISO set,

Come and report back.

Like I said, Manual ceases to be Manual on Canon when you set auto ISO. The 'auto' centres the needle (as it were) with no override. whereas on Nikon cameras (I have no idea about other mfrs) you can set an exp comp value in Manual and that will hold and override the cameras desire to centre the meter.
Click to expand...


When on "auto Iso set" by definition it is no longer in manual. ( I never use auto Iso. I prefer to remain in control)
 
Last edited:
Terrywoodenpic said:
When on "auto Iso set" buy definition it is no longer in manual. ( I never use auto Iso. I prefer to remain in control)
Click to expand...
nor do I but that was the whole point of the post Terry, as someone had suggested Manual and auto ISO earlier. I didn't just bring it up for fun, I was pointing out that it was a daft option with Canon, whereas it's viable advice for Nikon.
 
Terrywoodenpic said:
For most accurate results go right up to the bride and take a reading toward the camera position. )
Click to expand...

Surely you mean to point it at the light source to read the light falling on the Bride ??? Unless she's flat lit or lit from behind pointing it to camera can easily give you an incorrect reading

Dave
 
DG Phototraining said:
Surely you mean to point it at the light source to read the light falling on the Bride ??? Unless she's flat lit or lit from behind pointing it to camera can easily give you an incorrect reading
Click to expand...

As far as I am aware, a proper incident light reading is taken by pointing the meter at the camera rather than the light source. They do refer to the reading pointing at the camera as the incident light reading.

In the book Exposure Manual by Dunn and Wakefield, they suggested taking one reading pointing at the light and one pointing at the camera and using the half way point.

An excellent book. Wort getting if you ever see a copy.

exp_man3e.jpg



Steve.
 
Last edited:
DG Phototraining said:
Surely you mean to point it at the light source to read the light falling on the Bride ??? Unless she's flat lit or lit from behind pointing it to camera can easily give you an incorrect reading

Dave
Click to expand...

Err no. You point it towards the camera, ideally immediately in-front of the bride with the cone (if you have one) pointing directly back to the camera position. The incident reading is the light falling onto the subject not the light source itself although they could be similar they might not be.
 
Have you guys actually tried it ??? Cos you are wrong lol

Imagine your Bride is in the typical position of being near a window as the light source, beautiful soft light falling across her - if you read the light falling on her by pointing it towards the window you have a perfect exposure, if you turn the lightmeter towards the camera so its now reading from a darkened room too the light falling on the Bride will blow. If you then move your camera position more into the room to have her short-lit she will blow even more as the lightmeter is reading even more from the darker room

Dave
 
Yes plenty of times.

I was trained by one of the top wedding photographers in the country (at the time) 12 years ago when we were using Bronica SQA's, Minolta light meters, and reflectors - nothing else. No photoshop to recover, no Raw files, just Kodak Portra 160 or 400 and rarely Fuji press 800.

Your method may work. My method works and it is the one I'm commenting on based on my training and experience. As I said the incident light reading is the light falling ONTO THE SUBJECT the difference between your technique and the one I describe is that if you point the cone back towards the camera position then you are measuring the light on the subject that can be seen from the camera position. Your method only measures the light source you are deciding is the key light. It could be the same, it could be close but it might not be the only source of light as seen by the lens on the subject.

Which is why when you are setting up a multiple light studio environment you use a reading of the single light sources to ensure you have the correct ratios between the lights and then a reading back to the camera position to get the actual reading for the exposure.

YMMV
 
Nothing 'may' about it - and film has a greater latitude too so you get away with more

I too have been trained by a couple of great Wedding & Portrait photographers (current ones) both in & out of the studio; one of whom made us do the above as a simple test of where to point the meter

And yes, I am familiar with building up lighting ratios in a studio - but that's not what the OP was asking about, he's asking about a Bride and white dress and how not to get it blown (unless you want to of course); and the simple fact is that sometimes pointing the meter to camera rather than to the key light source will often blow some of the dress detail

Dave
 
Great well now the OP has two things to try and they can make their own mind up.
 
I have to agree with Mike. I have always thought of incident as being the reading pointing at the camera.

If you do a search for incident metering though, there seems to be an equal split between people thinking the meter should be aimed at the camera and at the source.

If you aim it at the camera, it will adjust for the angle of the light to the subject. If you point it at the light, it will give the same reading regardless of the subject's orientation to it.

This is from another forum written by someone whose opinion I trust:

You can, of course, use any light meter in any way that works for you, but the design of the hemispheric receptor incident meter is made to replicate a three dimensional object as seen by the camera, which means pointing the meter at the camera from the subject position (or in the same direction, i.e. parallel to that line, in the same light).
Click to expand...

Think of these two scenarios:

1. Subject illuminated from the front with the light next to the camera.
2. Subject illuminated by the same light but directly overhead.

Pointing the meter at the light will give the same exposure for both. Pointing the meter at the camera will show that more exposure is needed for shot 2 as less light will be reflected back to the camera.


Steve.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top