Over exposure, what went wrong?

[grouchos_tash]

Hi all,

I took my Bronica out for a day at the beach using my sekonic 308s (incident readings). I got through about two thirds of the roll and finished the rest on a leafy walk in the country the next day.

When I developed the roll, all the beach shots were overexposed by around two stops, the rest were fine??

I don't understand what went wrong, the iso was correct, the camera was set how the meter told me? Any ideas?

Another interesting point that has dawned on me is that I've never underexposed a photo, only ever over. Maybe the meter needs calibrating?

Thanks,

Gary

 

[02Pilot]

Lots of reflected light at the beach. I don't normally meter, but using sunny-16 I always drop a full stop near any large body of water to account for it. If it was a white sandy beach on a sunny day, I could see that level of overexposure from incident metering.

 

[rhl-oregon]

How about sharing your film/ISO settings as well as clarifying whether the locale was sunny/clear/white sand, the subjects contrasty, etc.? More info will improve the quality of feedback ;-)

If you used the same method n leafy woods and exposure was acceptable/correct, the meter is probably fine.

 

[grouchos_tash]

I don't know why I didn't trust my instincts. It was a clear day with white sand and even light. I was using Kodak Tmax 400 shot at box speed. Now that I look back if I was to guess I would have used 1/500 at f5.6 rather than f2.8 (light meter reading).

I thought I'd add a picture just for fun...

Untitled by Gary Harding, on Flickr

The wife with the bleached out sea behind her.

 

[John Bragg]

Nice portrait. The skin tones look right, so it may be down to the bright light coming from behind her. Beach scenes are notoriously contrasty and sometimes fill flash or a reflector are advised.

 

[grouchos_tash]

I thought if you used an incident reading contrast wasn't an issue and you would get everything as it was?

Although, I think I understand what you mean about the light from behind. Does that pretty much do the same thing as flare? How would you know how to compensate for that?

Another pic facing the same direction...

Untitled by Gary Harding, on Flickr

 

[Pete B]

I would've said 1/500 @ f11 or f16 depending on brightness, it sounds like bright sunlight, and with all that sand surely it would be more f16. An overcast sky would have put it at f5.6 stretching to f8 with all the sand and sea?
Pete

 

[Pete B]

The reading for the conditions you mention seems way off. One other thing to consider. I have Sekonic that seems to lose accuracy by three stops when the batteries are dying, but right before the low battery warning happens. For example, I'll meter something that should be f/8, but the meter says f/2.8. Since I know Sunny16 well, a red flag will go off. It's happened 3 or 4 times since I bought the meter in 2002.

Thanks for this. I realise now that I've been thinking the same about my Sekonic. I think I'll change the battery now while I'm thinking about it. Sunny 16 shooter is a very useful habit for all to adopt. I often find myself questioning my meter. I ignore my MP's altogether.
Pete

 

[John Bragg]

Also important when using an incedent meter, aim it from the subject towards the camera position.

 

[grouchos_tash]

Thanks for the replies everyone, I can show you exactly how bright it was in this video the wife made haha. I would like to point out that I thought she was taking a picture not a video :/

http://scontent-a.cdninstagram.com/hphotos-xaf1/t50.2886-16/10820136_340973919416001_410336191_n.mp4

 

[Dwig]

Also important when using an incedent meter, aim it from the subject towards the camera position.

+1, and don't stand between the meter and either the light source or the camera position.

 

[rhl-oregon]

Thanks for the added info/images, Gary. The subjects are metered well (lovely portrait); the ambient sky is a white-out.

A quick and dirty (digital) ambient test @ISO400 out my window advises f5.6 1/80 for grass/trees, but f13 for the brightly overcast sky. Somewhere between lies the best compromise, with PP dodging/burning likely: f8 = burning in sky; f9 gives me good sky, but will require dodging the grass/trees to life the shadows.

 

[grouchos_tash]

+1, and don't stand between the meter and either the light source or the camera position.

I wonder if that's what I'd done, although I tend to stand the meter on my shoulder haha

 

[Huss]

The beach would have been 1/500 at f16. The subject back lit should have been 1/500 at something between f 5.6 and f8. With that tight composition, I would lean towards f8.

 

[grouchos_tash]

Thanks for the added info/images, Gary. The subjects are metered well (lovely portrait); the ambient sky is a white-out.

A quick and dirty (digital) ambient test @ISO400 out my window advises f5.6 1/80 for grass/trees, but f13 for the brightly overcast sky. Somewhere between lies the best compromise, with PP dodging/burning likely: f8 = burning in sky; f9 gives me good sky, but will require dodging the grass/trees to life the shadows.

So in those kind of high contrast situations maybe I should use reflective metering and decide what I want exposed correctly? Thanks for the replies!

 

[grouchos_tash]

The beach would have been 1/500 at f16. The subject back lit should have been 1/500 at something between f 5.6 and f8. With that tight composition, I would lean towards f8.

I should use my instinct, I agree with you. I still don't understand why an incident reading would be so far out though as it's averaging the light that's coming from the sand/sky etc? If anything it should be underexposed, shouldn't it?

 

[rhl-oregon]

It's just my laziness, but with film I'm so used to metering through the VF (Bronica RF645, Fuji GF670, M5, OM4), that my calculations are the based on the reflective/ambient compensations and decisions I exemplified above. When I carry my LunaPro, I use the 7 degree spot attachment. If my livelihood depended on environmental portraits, I'd get smarter about incident metering, strobes, fill flash, reflectors, etc...but that ain't the case.

On the other hand, I really admire folks who stick to not only to film but one emulsion that they master for all their preferred lighting conditions. Marek Fogiel (mfogiel, RFF member) comes to mind as a masterful exponent of sticking to TriX at ISO 250. He lives by the Mediterranean and gets splendidly consistent exposures (look through his posted images & threads).

 

[peterm1]

I think others have nailed it. The photo you posted looks perfectly OK as regards the skin tones of your subject. You are using incident metering. The meter will have been calibrated to a mid tone grey , which is standard for the industry, it was not calibrated to the excessively bright white sand of a beach with added reflected light off the ocean. In effect when you read the incident meter it was saying "For this amount of sunlight, falling on a middle grey toned subject, the following camera setting is recommended for the specified film sensitivity". And it was right.

As a result, the skin tones of your subject (which approximate this middle grey tonal value) came out more or less perfectly using the metered settings (which is what you would expect) but the background, of sun, sand and ocean which was much lighter and hence reflects more light onto the film, is over exposed.

All that sounds exactly a sit should be to me.

If you had used a reflected rather than an incident light meter reading off your subject (which would have included a lot of reflected light from the beach) I would expect your subject to be under-exposed and in shadow and your beach / ocean background to be more or less correctly exposed. The alternative would have been to use a spot meter to meter off your subject which would produce the same result as you got using an incident meter. The fact though, is that the tonal range of very bright background and darker subject was just too wide for your film to be able to cope. Hence one or the other had to be badly exposed. In this case I think you made the right choice - better a well exposed subject than a well exposed background.

Alternatives include not shooting in these conditions, or using a flash or a reflector to balance the light between the subject and the background. None of which are perfect. so the alternative of accepting that if the subject is correctly exposed the background will be over exposed is not necessarily a bad one.

 

[grouchos_tash]

Thanks for the replies everyone! Some of you have confirmed what I already thought and reminded me to trust my instincts rather than my meter!

Thanks again,

Gary

 

[charjohncarter]

Our RFF member, Roger Hicks, is really good, among other subjects, at exposure. Here is his 'module' on exposing for slide film, but he also has one for negatives. Go down to 'Girls on a Hot Day.' Also, find his book 'Perfect Exposure' it is the best book I've ever had on photography.

http://rogerandfrances.com/subscription/ps%20expo%20slide.html

Just from a quick look at the photos, it looks like the subjects were exposed correctly. Too bad there isn't a neutral background at beaches. I would not be dragging all the stuff with me on a nice day with my wife, but exposing for the background's powerful light and then using a fill flash would have worked. I almost never go to the beach without a fill flash, but then again a use a small flash on my small Olympus 35RC (at the beach).