Exposing for the white wedding dress

Or as we say in music... if it sounds good, it is good.

(I don't think we have helped much with the original question though!).


Steve.
 
I never ever found it problematic. RAW files have so much latitude that you can always bring back the highlights. Just don't shoot JPEGs or slide film. Between the bride and groom you get pretty much perfect exposure on evaluative. For bride alone + 1 to 1 2/3 EV does the job. Spot metering the dress will land you horrible underexposure! Camera is looking for 18% grey and you are fully capable to work back from that
 
daugirdas said:
I never ever found it problematic. RAW files have so much latitude that you can always bring back the highlights.
Click to expand...

Not if you have pushed them past the maximum recordable level of any of the colours' sensors.


Steve.
 
Steve Smith said:
Not if you have pushed them past the maximum recordable level of any of the colours' sensors.


Steve.
Click to expand...

That's true, but you really have to make an effort to get there.
 
Steve Smith said:
There are plenty of people making that extra effort!!!!

steve.
Click to expand...

hmmm white dress and 2 stops overexposure... how? If anything it needs effort to avoid underexposure most of the time. If it was a black suit in a dark hallway I could see the "problem"
 
DG Phototraining said:
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
Click to expand...

I have done it since 1956 when I got a private licence to import a Norwood director ( now Sekonic) Incident meter from the USA. Probably one of the first on these shores as imports of professional photographic equipment were heavily restricted.
in the following 57 years their method has worked with out fail. Though sekonic no longer teach how to take a duplex reading in their instructions. this is for use with extreme side lit situations.
In this you take two readings one toward the camera and the other toward the light source. Then average the result. The problem for many less skilled people was knowing when to use the duplex method as it breaks the rule for pegging tones.. The purpose of an incident readings is the same as for using a grey card. namely to peg tones, one shot to another. it is always used in Cine work.

It is a fallacy to think that an incident meter reads from a darkened room. It is only concerned with light falling on the subject (heliosphere) Dark areas transmit little or no light and add nothing to the reading.
In the situation you gave the correct method is to hold the back of the heliosphere as close as possible to the bride. pointing toward where the camera will be. It is the direction that is important not the actual location of the camera. The light reading will only change if you move the light source.
 
Last edited:
From what I remember, the duplex method as suggested in the Dunn and Wakefield book was for meters with a flat front diffusion disc. Meters with a dome already take the light from all directions into account and just need to be pointed at the camera.


Steve.
 
meonshore said:
Great well now the OP has two things to try and they can make their own mind up.
Click to expand...

This is a problem for people learning from things they read on the web.
In days gone by there was a far greater consensus and accuracy in published work, and Instructions derived from manufacturers research scientists, and their calibrations and techniques, were rarely contradicted.
Today wrong answers are all too common and they propagate through out the web alongside correct teachings, and so on to students, as if they were authoritative.

Incident readings, exposure and lighting in general, fall heavily into this trap.
What is sad is that many no longer believe the truth of the situation, when it is explained to them. because they have seen it on the web.
What is worse, is that those misled in this way, are now teaching others.
 
Last edited:
Steve Smith said:
From what I remember, the duplex method as suggested in the Dunn and Wakefield book was for meters with a flat front diffusion disc. Meters with a dome already take the light from all directions into account and just need to be pointed at the camera.


Steve.
Click to expand...

The Dunn and Wakefield book was not written when the Norwood Director instructions were given out.
The Duplex method should be used with the dome in position. Both readings are still measuring all light coming from all directions.
though the side one will give an emphasis to the high lights caused by the side light the other will give a reading that gives more account to the partial light.
An average will give a result that prevents burn out of highlights caused by the extreme side lighting, but may create a darker shadow side.
The effect is rather like using a 270 degree dome (not made) rather than a 180 degree one.
 
Terrywoodenpic said:
What is sad is that many no longer believe the truth of the situation, when it is explained to them. because they have seen it on the web.
What is worse, is that those misled in this way, are now teaching others.
Click to expand...

^^^This
 
I think it's pretty bizarre people are advocating using a light meter to shoot weddings... Our camera's have meters and it's very easy to work out exposure using it. There's no need to use a light meter and when the style these days is to capture things happening as they happen instead of posed shots, using a lightning meter is overkill and would slow things down.

If you use the kit you have correctly a light meter is completely pointless IMO
 
ajax_andy said:
I think it's pretty bizarre people are advocating using a light meter to shoot weddings... Our camera's have meters and it's very easy to work out exposure using it. There's no need to use a ( seperate ) light meter and when the style these days is to capture things happening as they happen instead of posed shots, using a lightning meter is overkill and would slow things down.

If you use the kit you have correctly a ( seperate ) light meter is completely pointless IMO
Click to expand...

as for the lightning meter , i'd keep away from thunderstorms :D
 
ajax_andy said:
I think it's pretty bizarre people are advocating using a light meter to shoot weddings... Our camera's have meters and it's very easy to work out exposure using it. There's no need to use a light meter and when the style these days is to capture things happening as they happen instead of posed shots, using a lightning meter is overkill and would slow things down.

If you use the kit you have correctly a light meter is completely pointless IMO
Click to expand...

While camera meters these days are very good indeed They do not measure in the same way as an incident meter.
You have perhaps noticed that even matrix metering changes the exposure with the slightest movement in the direction the camera is pointing. In the case of a bride and groom it can be a matter of how the B&G are centred. Of course in either case the light has not changed , nor has the required exposure. This is where an incident meter wins out, as its reading will not change and will give a consistent exposure and resulting tones. .

In fact it takes no longer to do. Exposure is often established before the first shot. All you need to do in stable light conditions is to take a single reading from the direction you will be shooting and mentally note the exposure, Do the same at 90 degree each side and note the difference. you can then adjust for that amount as the need arises... you will find you have a perfectly balanced set of shots. In more transient lighting conditions with fleeting clouds you need to take more care.

A set of photographs where the Brides dress looks equally detailed and white with the grooms suit equally dark in every picture, and with the skin tones spot on. demonstrates care and professionalism.
 
Terrywoodenpic said:
While camera meters these days are very good indeed They do not measure in the same way as an incident meter.
You have perhaps noticed that even matrix metering changes the exposure with the slightest movement in the direction the camera is pointing. In the case of a bride and groom it can be a matter of how the B&G are centred. Of course in either case the light has not changed , nor has the required exposure. This is where an incident meter wins out, as its reading will not change and will give a consistent exposure and resulting tones. .

In fact it takes no longer to do. Exposure is often established before the first shot. All you need to do in stable light conditions is to take a single reading from the direction you will be shooting and mentally note the exposure, Do the same at 90 degree each side and note the difference. you can then adjust for that amount as the need arises... you will find you have a perfectly balanced set of shots. In more transient lighting conditions with fleeting clouds you need to take more care.

A set of photographs where the Brides dress looks equally detailed and white with the grooms suit equally dark in every picture, and with the skin tones spot on. demonstrates care and professionalism.
Click to expand...

I understand there may be a tiny marginal gain from doing what you are saying, but realistically it's pretty pointless as those of us shooting weddings without are doing just fine and adding an extra thing in like that isn't IMO going to change my images or the quality produced. It's also reliant on the sun not constantly popping out of clouds and filling the church or venue with more light, then less light, then a bit more, then nothing etc etc. I think for 90% of people using any sort of additional light meter isn't useful and for someone like the OP probably just adds to the confusion.

It's very easy to just check the LCD or histogram quickly if you change direction and make sure it's doing what it should be, and if you're using a good camera it can usually cope well with such things anyway... ok so if you're shooting a mid range crop extra care could be needed, but I really don't see it being advantageous in any great shape.

Each to their own I guess but I personally don't think it's great advice for the OP to be adding in this, they need to learn their camera and it's quirks / abilities and start doing things in a 'second nature' kind of way as that will get the best results. Just my opinion of course :)
 
boyfalldown said:
I was with you right till this point
Click to expand...

Haha well it's not often people agree with anything I say so I've done well with my last post then :D

What don't you agree with exactly? You can't rely on it to get it right 100% of the time but if you know your camera well you should know if it's going to do anything funky when you move and the exposure changes, most of the time it'll get it reasonably right but as I said it's very easy to check the LCD or Histogram to make sure
 
ajax_andy said:
Haha well it's not often people agree with anything I say so I've done well with my last post then :D

What don't you agree with exactly? You can't rely on it to get it right 100% of the time but if you know your camera well you should know if it's going to do anything funky when you move and the exposure changes, most of the time it'll get it reasonably right but as I said it's very easy to check the LCD or Histogram to make sure
Click to expand...


I just don't think you can rely on your camera out sorting things out...its a bit like my Mum's common statement 'Hugh has a good camera, he takes fantastic photos" Cheers Mum
 
boyfalldown said:
I just don't think you can rely on your camera out sorting things out...its a bit like my Mum's common statement 'Hugh has a good camera, he takes fantastic photos" Cheers Mum
Click to expand...

Yeah fair point I was probably being a bit too positive towards the camera there and it's why I check my LCD and histogram a lot during a wedding... they are good but they aren't perfect and to just rely on it getting the settings right would be a road to failure :)
 
what I find extraordinary is how well Incident light meters hold their second hand prices on EBAY.
even After all I have said, there seems to be a never ending demand for them. So some one is still using them.
 
Terrywoodenpic said:
what I find extraordinary is how well Incident light meters hold their second hand prices on EBAY.
even After all I have said, there seems to be a never ending demand for them. So some one is still using them.
Click to expand...
Not wedding photographers ;)

Whilst technically brilliant, they're not really practical at a wedding the way we tend to shoot nowadays. Although I do almost exactly what you described, but I pick a neutral scene and lock, quicker because I can unlock and re-meter as often as I like from the camera position.
 
It just astounds me. RAW, Blinkies, Exposure lock, Materix metering, Auto ISO, Exposure compensation and a screen on the back of the camera to see what you have taken instantly.

How ever did I manage with a Bronica S2a (do a google search) and a Weston light meter and get it right.:pompous:

Sorry forgot - Histogram :ROFLMAO:
 
Last edited:
kestral said:
It just astounds me. RAW, Blinkies, Exposure lock, Materix metering, Auto ISO, Exposure compensation and a screen on the back of the camera to see what you have taken instantly.

How ever did I manage with a Bronica S2a (do a google search) and a Weston light meter and get it right.:pompous:

Sorry forgot - Histogram :ROFLMAO:
Click to expand...


I wonder if all this digital stuff helps get it right first time, or is it just a more complex suck it and see system.

Take a shot
Have a look
don't like it
Make an adjustment
Try another shot
Iterate as needed
Iterate as needed
Iterate as needed

Opportunity lost.....:eek: :exit::dummy1:

Perhaps it is all a faster way to get it wrong first time.
 
Last edited:
kestral said:
It just astounds me. RAW, Blinkies, Exposure lock, Materix metering, Auto ISO, Exposure compensation and a screen on the back of the camera to see what you have taken instantly.

How ever did I manage with a Bronica S2a (do a google search) and a Weston light meter and get it right.:pompous:

Sorry forgot - Histogram :ROFLMAO:
Click to expand...
Terrywoodenpic said:
I wonder if all this digital stuff helps get it right first time, or is it just a more complex suck it and see system.

Take a shot
Have a look
don't like it
Make an adjustment
Try another shot
Iterate as needed
Iterate as needed
Iterate as needed

Opportunity lost.....:eek: :exit::dummy1:

Perhaps it is all a faster way to get it wrong first time.
Click to expand...
Jeez.

At what point do you get so old that you assume you're so superior because you used to do something a different way.

Many of us shooting digital, whether we're using blinkies or histogram, onboard spot, incident or whatever, are supplementing these 'tools' with knowledge. It's not like everyone's reliant on technology and has had a lobotomy just because cameras have got smarter.

Lots of us shot film for years too.

And we know the dirty secrets:
Neg film had fantastic latitude
A decent pro lab produced consistent results that belied lots of sloppy camerawork.
And the biggest one: the average standard of 'social photographers' 20 years ago was devoid of any 'talent'. Basically if you could manage the technical side of photography, you were considered of a 'professional standard'.

Like many of us have already said, there's no 'right' way. And I've seen no results from anyone claiming to know the 'right way' that show any measure of superiority.

In fact the last 'old school' guy shouting the odds about how digital shooters rely on Photoshop and how 'traditional was best' turned out to be about the worst 'professional' that ever graced this forum.
 
This cracks me up...
A meter is just a tool, it's neither right nor wrong. It doesn't matter which type of meter it is, what mode it's in, or dome/disk. If you don't understand *what* you're doing and *why* then they can all lead you awry. No meter knows what you want to accomplish and no meter/method is going to be the best choice in every situation.

White dress/ spot metering. I'd add +1 (either EC or manually). If the dress is being brightly/hard lit then +1 might not be quite enough. But in every case I would err towards slight underexposure... white is pretty easy to push up, but clipped is clipped.
 
Phil V said:
Neg film had fantastic latitude
Click to expand...

That's the most useful of the 'secrets'.

Over expose it a few stops if you like, just don't under expose it and it will be fine.

(and it's has, not had)


Steve.
 
Last edited:
kestral said:
It just astounds me. RAW, Blinkies, Exposure lock, Materix metering, Auto ISO, Exposure compensation and a screen on the back of the camera to see what you have taken instantly.

How ever did I manage with a Bronica S2a (do a google search) and a Weston light meter and get it right.:pompous:

Sorry forgot - Histogram :ROFLMAO:
Click to expand...

I wonder what polaroid backs were for :whistle:
 
Of course we all realise that you were the mary poppins of photography and never needed to check your exposure or have any post process work done in the dark room. Its odd that we've never seen these amazing and perfect shots :whistle:
 
Crikey...these discussions are interesting and educational, if you don't get emotionally involved.

In the last month I've used a Bronica SQ-B with a Weston meter, both incident and reflected - various films, a Nikon F80 using both matrix, spot metering and the zone system (sort of), an Fa using it's matrix metering, a D7000 with both spot and matrix metering and a Fuji X100s, using the live histogram and exposure comp.

I love it all. My photos are still mostly dog's doo-doo, but I can't remember the last time I messed up an exposure.

Surely, people with knowledge and experience - as most of the posters here seem to be - should not be arguing over this really quite trivial issue.

Edit - Thought I should just add that I realise it's not a trivial matter to those who have not yet learned to read the scene and the meter. It took me a long time to crack that. But first you have to realise it is about reading the meter's interpretation of the scene and not following it blindly.

Just to be clear.
 
Last edited:
Phil V said:
Jeez.

At what point do you get so old that you assume you're so superior because you used to do something a different way.
Click to expand...

That would seem to be a Non sequitur

And we know the dirty secrets:
1)Neg film had fantastic latitude
2)A decent pro lab produced consistent results that belied lots of sloppy camerawork.
3)And the biggest one: the average standard of 'social photographers' 20 years ago was devoid of any 'talent'. Basically if you could manage the technical side of photography, you were considered of a 'professional standard'.
Click to expand...

I am not sure that any of those points relate to this thread.

1) Neg film certainly had very good latitude, but the secret of real quality was to have every exposure to look the same when held up to a light box.
that is an normal expectation.
2) whether you processed your self, or used a pro lab. sloppy camera work is just that, and always shows in the result.
3) good social photography has changed little since the 1920's when Erich Salomon used an Ermanox to capture his socialite and political friends by available light.
What has change is the technical equipment and the style of what is considered "modern". What we think of as " fine and fashionable today" will be thought old hat and boring soon enough. 20 years ago Photographers were not "devoid of talent" they worked at the cutting edge of what was considered socially acceptable, just as they had been twenty years before that.
Like many of us have already said, there's no 'right' way. And I've seen no results from anyone claiming to know the 'right way' that show any measure of superiority.
Click to expand...

There is perhaps never a single right way in most things, but there is the most accurate way (comparative photometer), The most accurate direct way to set tones (incident meter) and the most convenient way (in camera metering) Each of these has its place.


In fact the last 'old school' guy shouting the odds about how digital shooters rely on Photoshop and how 'traditional was best' turned out to be about the worst 'professional' that ever graced this forum.
Click to expand...

.............another Non sequitur that is perhaps neither helpful nor apropos.
 
Actually it's very apropos.

All those modern photographers being 'attacked' for their working methods have links to their websites in their signatures. Some good work too IMO.

All the 'old guard' looking down on them are doing so without putting their money where their mouth is.

Like I say, the last guy doing this was found to be incompetent.

You could easily clear up any suspicion.
 
Phil V said:
Actually it's very apropos.

All those modern photographers being 'attacked' for their working methods have links to their websites in their signatures. Some good work too IMO.

All the 'old guard' looking down on them are doing so without putting their money where their mouth is.

Like I say, the last guy doing this was found to be incompetent.

You could easily clear up any suspicion.
Click to expand...

No one is attacking young photographers. or blaming them for anything.

I have put up a number of shots in various threads to demonstrate something or other, even a shots taken in the 1950's and shots taken very recently.
However I have never put up a shot just to show off or as a form of competition.
I would not have held the senior positions I have, if I were incompetent.
Nor does Old imply "not modern". we all fit the "contemporary modern" bracket till we pop our clogs.

I would not want to turn the clock back to pre digital days. There is no doubt that it is now far easier to get fantastic quality results, perhaps far better than most people want or require. Of course top quality results should be the starting point for professional work, not the target
 
I don't believe any metering method is "the most accurate." The only thing any of them do is tell you the exposure for 18% grey based upon the metering pattern; spot/cw/matrix vs dome (matrix equiv)/disk (spot equiv). One tool is measuring what *is being reflected* to the camera, the other tool is telling you what *will be reflected* back to the camera (same-same).

Once again, just different tools...an incident meter can be just as "wrong" as a reflectance meter.
If you have a white dress in hard light that's actually blowing out in spots, following an incident meter will (can) make it blow out.
If you have a black suit that's actually clipping to black, following an incident meter will (can) make it clip to black.
If you want a high key image, following an incident meter will not give the desired result.
If you want a low key image, following an incident meter will not give the desired result.
If you want a silhouetted, pointing an incident meter at the camera will not give the desired result.
If you don't want a silhouette, pointing the meter at the light source won't give the desired result.
Should I meter the area (dome) or the spot (disk)? depends.
Should I meter for a flatter surface (disk) or a more rounded subject (dome)? depends.
In either case an incident meter doesn't account for reflectance efficiency (i.e. white vinyl vs white fabric).
etc., etc....

The in camera meter can be just as wrong of course...
Anyone who says they can take an incident meter reading and set their exposure 100% right "every time" is, um... stretching the truth a bit. Anyone who says they can take a reflectance reading and set an offset 100% is also "stretching the truth." But either method will/can get you a reasonable/usable exposure if you know what you are doing and why. Hell, once I have a known exposure I can set subsequent exposures just by using the inverse square law (f-stops) with very reasonable results.
 
sk66 said:
I don't believe any metering method is "the most accurate." The only thing any of them do is tell you the exposure for 18% grey based upon the metering pattern; spot/cw/matrix vs dome (matrix equiv)/disk (spot equiv). One tool is measuring what *is being reflected* to the camera, the other tool is telling you what *will be reflected* back to the camera (same-same).

Once again, just different tools...an incident meter can be just as "wrong" as a reflectance meter.
If you have a white dress in hard light that's actually blowing out in spots, following an incident meter will (can) make it blow out.
If you have a black suit that's actually clipping to black, following an incident meter will (can) make it clip to black.
If you want a high key image, following an incident meter will not give the desired result.
If you want a low key image, following an incident meter will not give the desired result.
If you want a silhouetted, pointing an incident meter at the camera will not give the desired result.
If you don't want a silhouette, pointing the meter at the light source won't give the desired result.
Should I meter the area (dome) or the spot (disk)? depends.
Should I meter for a flatter surface (disk) or a more rounded subject (dome)? depends.
In either case an incident meter doesn't account for reflectance efficiency (i.e. white vinyl vs white fabric).
etc., etc....

The in camera meter can be just as wrong of course...
Anyone who says they can take an incident meter reading and set their exposure 100% right "every time" is, um... stretching the truth a bit. Anyone who says they can take a reflectance reading and set an offset 100% is also "stretching the truth." But either method will/can get you a reasonable/usable exposure if you know what you are doing and why. Hell, once I have a known exposure I can set subsequent exposures just by using the inverse square law (f-stops) with very reasonable results.
Click to expand...

I would take it for granted that a professional should know how to use all their tools to the best advantage.
The best a meter can do is provide accurate information.
The only claim I was making for an incident meter is that it can consistently peg tones. The rest is down to the user.
It can not know anything about when your sensor registers are full... But you should...
A correctly used Incident meter will not blow out any reflected highlights. (Specular highlights are by their nature blown out.)
The contrast range between a brides dress and a morning suit is easily managed but usually benefits by the use of fill flash or reflector.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top