Metering Question on Macro Flower Shots

but since it has less latitude than
color print film, I suspect that the delta between the green foliage
and the white flower petals is going to exceed that range no matter
what I do in the way of exposure, and would leave me even more
confused about what to do to get a better exposure.

I appreciate your response, sorry to have confused you.

Best Regards,

Bill Mattocks


I would suggest spot metering the white petals of the flower and opening up a
stop to keep them light with detail. Maybe take a second shot at 1 1\2 stops
open to lighten it a little more.

I wouldn't worry about the green foliage so much, as long as the flower isn't
blown out. There's nothing worse than blown out highlights- blocked up shadow
areas are much less objectionable.

A third approach would be to diffuse the light on the flower- I some times use
an umbrella to shade the flower and the background, sometimes a reflector. This
will cut down on the difference in exposure between the sunlit white petals and
the foliage. You can also use a second reflector to bounce a controlled amount
of light back onto the flower- controlled by the distance of the reflector to
the subject (closer for more light, further back for less).

Dukephoto

but since it has less latitude than
color print film, I suspect that the delta between the green foliage
and the white flower petals is going to exceed that range no matter
what I do in the way of exposure, and would leave me even more
confused about what to do to get a better exposure.

I appreciate your response, sorry to have confused you.

Best Regards,

Bill Mattocks


I would suggest spot metering the white petals of the flower and opening up a
stop to keep them light with detail. Maybe take a second shot at 1 1\2 stops
open to lighten it a little more.

I wouldn't worry about the green foliage so much, as long as the flower isn't
blown out. There's nothing worse than blown out highlights- blocked up shadow
areas are much less objectionable.

A third approach would be to diffuse the light on the flower- I some times use
an umbrella to shade the flower and the background, sometimes a reflector. This
will cut down on the difference in exposure between the sunlit white petals and
the foliage. You can also use a second reflector to bounce a controlled amount
of light back onto the flower- controlled by the distance of the reflector to
the subject (closer for more light, further back for less).

Dukephoto

"The Bill Mattocks" wrote in message
om...
I hope someone will be able to assist me with a problem I seem to be
having with metering. I've been doing photographer for a long while,
but have only recently ventured into the realm of macro nature shots;
specifically, flowers. Our public rose garden where I live is quite
nice, and we're down south, so the flowers look great even this late
in the year.

I've been trying to photograph these roses using some macro equipment
I've put together over the years - a Canon T60 SLR (FD-mount, manual
or aperture-priority automatic), a Vivitar Series 1 90mm f2.5 with a
Vivitar 2X Macro Focusing Teleconverter. I have the matched macro for
the Series 1, but I like this 2X focusing teleconverter very much. I
am using Kodak UC 400 color print film and scanning with a Minolta
Scan Dual IV at the highest resolution using Vuescan under Linux. I
edit my scans with The Gimp 2.0.

I've been having reasonable results for a beginner, with the single
exception of white roses, which I seem to keep blowing out. I am
using both manual metering and the T60's TTL metering - both agree
after I take the 2X multiplier into account. I'm shooting at f8 @
1/125 on a sunny day, which seems pretty reasonable given the 2X
multiplier and the 400 speed film.

Several things are at work here. First is that on my monitor the photo does
not look blown, but it may on yours (as another poster said). Without
seeing the negative I can know nothing more about this photo.
Since the white area of the flower covers almost all of the frame your in
camera meter will indicate an exposure that is 2 stops underexposed (unless
you compensated by opening up 2 stops from the indicated reading). When I
use an in camera meter I set my camera on manual and then meter off of
something that is close to middle gray. I then use that reading for my
photo. A gray card held close to the lens and tilted toward the light (but
not throwing a glare into the lens) is perfect but if you don't have one
then use something nearby that is in the same light as the subject and
reflects the same amount of light as middle gray. Examples of this are
green grass, green bushes, even medium gray pavement.
If you're still worried that you might blow the highlights then take a
second exposure at 1 stop less (or 1 speed faster if you need to keep the
same DOF).
If you're still having problems then your meter may be off. Try to compare
it to a known good meter (hand held meter if available). Set the camera to
manual, then meter off of a gray card. Then do the same with the other
meter. The readings should be very close. If they aren't then your meter
may have a problem. Happy shooting!

I'm not sure what else I could
have done here, except to bracket like crazy. But I'm just learning, I
hope not to have to bracket forever, and get a feel for what I should
be doing with the exposure here. I used C41, I thought the film's
latitude would have saved me, but alas, it did not. I guess slide
film would have been even worse!

I am enclosing a link to this mistake in jpeg format. I've done
nothing to it in The Gimp except to convert it from TIF format and
save. I also saved a resized version for anyone who doesn't want to
see the original monster file.

I would appreciate any advice anyone could give me - not just on this
specific shot, but in general - white flowers, how to avoid messing up
the metering?

Thanks!

Best Regards,

Bill Mattocks

http://www.growlery.com/blown_out_rose_big.jpg

http://www.growlery.com/blown_out_rose_small.jpg

"The Bill Mattocks" wrote in message
om...
I hope someone will be able to assist me with a problem I seem to be
having with metering. I've been doing photographer for a long while,
but have only recently ventured into the realm of macro nature shots;
specifically, flowers. Our public rose garden where I live is quite
nice, and we're down south, so the flowers look great even this late
in the year.

I've been trying to photograph these roses using some macro equipment
I've put together over the years - a Canon T60 SLR (FD-mount, manual
or aperture-priority automatic), a Vivitar Series 1 90mm f2.5 with a
Vivitar 2X Macro Focusing Teleconverter. I have the matched macro for
the Series 1, but I like this 2X focusing teleconverter very much. I
am using Kodak UC 400 color print film and scanning with a Minolta
Scan Dual IV at the highest resolution using Vuescan under Linux. I
edit my scans with The Gimp 2.0.

I've been having reasonable results for a beginner, with the single
exception of white roses, which I seem to keep blowing out. I am
using both manual metering and the T60's TTL metering - both agree
after I take the 2X multiplier into account. I'm shooting at f8 @
1/125 on a sunny day, which seems pretty reasonable given the 2X
multiplier and the 400 speed film.

Several things are at work here. First is that on my monitor the photo does
not look blown, but it may on yours (as another poster said). Without
seeing the negative I can know nothing more about this photo.
Since the white area of the flower covers almost all of the frame your in
camera meter will indicate an exposure that is 2 stops underexposed (unless
you compensated by opening up 2 stops from the indicated reading). When I
use an in camera meter I set my camera on manual and then meter off of
something that is close to middle gray. I then use that reading for my
photo. A gray card held close to the lens and tilted toward the light (but
not throwing a glare into the lens) is perfect but if you don't have one
then use something nearby that is in the same light as the subject and
reflects the same amount of light as middle gray. Examples of this are
green grass, green bushes, even medium gray pavement.
If you're still worried that you might blow the highlights then take a
second exposure at 1 stop less (or 1 speed faster if you need to keep the
same DOF).
If you're still having problems then your meter may be off. Try to compare
it to a known good meter (hand held meter if available). Set the camera to
manual, then meter off of a gray card. Then do the same with the other
meter. The readings should be very close. If they aren't then your meter
may have a problem. Happy shooting!

I'm not sure what else I could
have done here, except to bracket like crazy. But I'm just learning, I
hope not to have to bracket forever, and get a feel for what I should
be doing with the exposure here. I used C41, I thought the film's
latitude would have saved me, but alas, it did not. I guess slide
film would have been even worse!

I am enclosing a link to this mistake in jpeg format. I've done
nothing to it in The Gimp except to convert it from TIF format and
save. I also saved a resized version for anyone who doesn't want to
see the original monster file.

I would appreciate any advice anyone could give me - not just on this
specific shot, but in general - white flowers, how to avoid messing up
the metering?

Thanks!

Best Regards,

Bill Mattocks

http://www.growlery.com/blown_out_rose_big.jpg

http://www.growlery.com/blown_out_rose_small.jpg

(MDCORE) wrote in message ...
I would suggest spot metering the white petals of the flower and opening up a
stop to keep them light with detail. Maybe take a second shot at 1 1\2 stops
open to lighten it a little more.

OK, I think I understand here. Spot metering the petals gives me the
appropriate exposure for an 18% grey card, and the white petals ain't
- so open up a stop. Is that correct?

I wouldn't worry about the green foliage so much, as long as the flower isn't
blown out. There's nothing worse than blown out highlights- blocked up shadow
areas are much less objectionable.

Fair enough, I guess since the foliage is not the subject of the
photo?

A third approach would be to diffuse the light on the flower- I some times use
an umbrella to shade the flower and the background, sometimes a reflector. This
will cut down on the difference in exposure between the sunlit white petals and
the foliage. You can also use a second reflector to bounce a controlled amount
of light back onto the flower- controlled by the distance of the reflector to
the subject (closer for more light, further back for less).

OK, this would be new to me, but I'm guessing that proper lighting
techniques are something I am going to have to tackle at some point
anyway. I understand your point about reducing the difference between
the petals and the foliage. Excellent explanation, thanks!

Best Regards,

Bill Mattocks

Dukephoto

(MDCORE) wrote in message ...
I would suggest spot metering the white petals of the flower and opening up a
stop to keep them light with detail. Maybe take a second shot at 1 1\2 stops
open to lighten it a little more.

OK, I think I understand here. Spot metering the petals gives me the
appropriate exposure for an 18% grey card, and the white petals ain't
- so open up a stop. Is that correct?

I wouldn't worry about the green foliage so much, as long as the flower isn't
blown out. There's nothing worse than blown out highlights- blocked up shadow
areas are much less objectionable.

Fair enough, I guess since the foliage is not the subject of the
photo?

A third approach would be to diffuse the light on the flower- I some times use
an umbrella to shade the flower and the background, sometimes a reflector. This
will cut down on the difference in exposure between the sunlit white petals and
the foliage. You can also use a second reflector to bounce a controlled amount
of light back onto the flower- controlled by the distance of the reflector to
the subject (closer for more light, further back for less).

OK, this would be new to me, but I'm guessing that proper lighting
techniques are something I am going to have to tackle at some point
anyway. I understand your point about reducing the difference between
the petals and the foliage. Excellent explanation, thanks!

Best Regards,

Bill Mattocks

Dukephoto

(MDCORE) wrote in message ...
I would suggest spot metering the white petals of the flower and opening up a
stop to keep them light with detail. Maybe take a second shot at 1 1\2 stops
open to lighten it a little more.

OK, I think I understand here. Spot metering the petals gives me the
appropriate exposure for an 18% grey card, and the white petals ain't
- so open up a stop. Is that correct?

I wouldn't worry about the green foliage so much, as long as the flower isn't
blown out. There's nothing worse than blown out highlights- blocked up shadow
areas are much less objectionable.

Fair enough, I guess since the foliage is not the subject of the
photo?

A third approach would be to diffuse the light on the flower- I some times use
an umbrella to shade the flower and the background, sometimes a reflector. This
will cut down on the difference in exposure between the sunlit white petals and
the foliage. You can also use a second reflector to bounce a controlled amount
of light back onto the flower- controlled by the distance of the reflector to
the subject (closer for more light, further back for less).

OK, this would be new to me, but I'm guessing that proper lighting
techniques are something I am going to have to tackle at some point
anyway. I understand your point about reducing the difference between
the petals and the foliage. Excellent explanation, thanks!

Best Regards,

Bill Mattocks

Dukephoto

(MDCORE) wrote in message ...
I would suggest spot metering the white petals of the flower and opening up a
stop to keep them light with detail. Maybe take a second shot at 1 1\2 stops
open to lighten it a little more.

OK, I think I understand here. Spot metering the petals gives me the
appropriate exposure for an 18% grey card, and the white petals ain't
- so open up a stop. Is that correct?

I wouldn't worry about the green foliage so much, as long as the flower isn't
blown out. There's nothing worse than blown out highlights- blocked up shadow
areas are much less objectionable.

Fair enough, I guess since the foliage is not the subject of the
photo?

A third approach would be to diffuse the light on the flower- I some times use
an umbrella to shade the flower and the background, sometimes a reflector. This
will cut down on the difference in exposure between the sunlit white petals and
the foliage. You can also use a second reflector to bounce a controlled amount
of light back onto the flower- controlled by the distance of the reflector to
the subject (closer for more light, further back for less).

OK, this would be new to me, but I'm guessing that proper lighting
techniques are something I am going to have to tackle at some point
anyway. I understand your point about reducing the difference between
the petals and the foliage. Excellent explanation, thanks!

Best Regards,

Bill Mattocks

Dukephoto

(MDCORE) wrote in message ...
I would suggest spot metering the white petals of the flower and opening up a
stop to keep them light with detail. Maybe take a second shot at 1 1\2 stops
open to lighten it a little more.

OK, I think I understand here. Spot metering the petals gives me the
appropriate exposure for an 18% grey card, and the white petals ain't
- so open up a stop. Is that correct?

I wouldn't worry about the green foliage so much, as long as the flower isn't
blown out. There's nothing worse than blown out highlights- blocked up shadow
areas are much less objectionable.

Fair enough, I guess since the foliage is not the subject of the
photo?

A third approach would be to diffuse the light on the flower- I some times use
an umbrella to shade the flower and the background, sometimes a reflector. This
will cut down on the difference in exposure between the sunlit white petals and
the foliage. You can also use a second reflector to bounce a controlled amount
of light back onto the flower- controlled by the distance of the reflector to
the subject (closer for more light, further back for less).

OK, this would be new to me, but I'm guessing that proper lighting
techniques are something I am going to have to tackle at some point
anyway. I understand your point about reducing the difference between
the petals and the foliage. Excellent explanation, thanks!

Best Regards,

Bill Mattocks

Dukephoto

"The Bill Mattocks" wrote in message
m...
(MDCORE) wrote in message
...
I would suggest spot metering the white petals of the flower and opening
up a
stop to keep them light with detail. Maybe take a second shot at 1 1\2
stops
open to lighten it a little more.

OK, I think I understand here. Spot metering the petals gives me the
appropriate exposure for an 18% grey card, and the white petals ain't
- so open up a stop. Is that correct?

I wouldn't worry about the green foliage so much, as long as the flower
isn't
blown out. There's nothing worse than blown out highlights- blocked up
shadow
areas are much less objectionable.

Fair enough, I guess since the foliage is not the subject of the
photo?

A third approach would be to diffuse the light on the flower- I some
times use
an umbrella to shade the flower and the background, sometimes a
reflector. This
will cut down on the difference in exposure between the sunlit white
petals and
the foliage. You can also use a second reflector to bounce a controlled
amount
of light back onto the flower- controlled by the distance of the
reflector to
the subject (closer for more light, further back for less).

OK, this would be new to me, but I'm guessing that proper lighting
techniques are something I am going to have to tackle at some point
anyway. I understand your point about reducing the difference between
the petals and the foliage. Excellent explanation, thanks!


Coming late to this thread, these are exactly the three points I would have
made if I hadn't been beaten to it.

Just one thing to add: you can diffuse the light when it is contrasty, and
or use a reflector to bounce light back into the shadows - but the other
option is to use light that isn't contrasty to begin with. Macro flower
shots are often particularly nice on days when the sky is cloudy and the
whole sky then acts as one big diffuser/reflector. Flower pictures taken
during light rain can be very good too.

If you never get overcast weather and soft light while the flowers are out
where you live, try shooting some at dawn just before the sun breaks the
horizon - that can be a lovely light. If the very early morning light makes
the flowers too pink in colour, use a pale blue filter from the 82 series -
an 82A is usually enough.

John Shaw's book called (something like) "Closeups in Nature" gets
recommended a lot, with good reason. It's a very good introduction (more
than you'll need in some areas). You can probably get it from the library.



Peter