Best use of centre-weighted metering

[Guy S]

So it seems most manual focus film SLRs use a single centre-weighted metering pattern.

It’s likely easier to design than evaluative or matrix metering, and is more likely to be idiot-proof than spot metering (ie. if you simply point it at your subject then the likelihood of a good exposure is greater).

But discussion of a considered approach seems to be lacking, given that this meter is present in so many high quality SLRs and that the meter in your camera is the most convenient (generally). Whats the best practices for using centre-weighted metering for getting the exposure you want?

Theres plenty of topics currently on the forum on spot metering and matrix metering but relatively little for this moat common pattern. So Im curious how people here use them.

 

[RalphLambrecht]

I exclusively used it prior to matrix metering. I believe mine gave a 60% priority to the center and 40% to the rest. It was surprisingly accurate.

 

[Guy S]

Yeah it works great, pentax generally used 60:40 too I believe. But given the number of chapters dedicated to using spot meters and something like the zone system theres gotta be a more sophisticated process than just point and shoot for centre-weighted patterns

 

[MattKing]

Essentially you need to become familiar with the metering system your camera has.
Start noticing in the viewfinder where in the image area an off-centre light source begins to affect the reading, and internalize that knowledge going forward.
Most scenes are pretty evenly lit, so the weighting won't make as much of a difference as unusual subject reflectance does. For the small number of unevenly lit scenes, use that information you have incorporated to determine where to point the camera when you take the reading.

 

[Guy S]

Makes sense, high contrast scenes do present a challenge. Especially If the meter pattern falls across both light and dark patches

 

[Paul Howell]

When a working PJ using the Nikon F, F2, and 3, I tended to overexpose by a 1/2 to a stop, being overexposed when shooting news is safer than being underexposed. When possible I bracket 1 1/2 stops over and under. Used my hand as a gray card, used a hood, used my hand or a hat to block some of the sky. In most cases the center weighted TTL meter did a pretty good of metering where the action was happening. With my newer AF bodies with matrix and average metering I do not find much of a difference in good lighting, matrix is better with back-lighted, slide lighted and some landscapes. And interesting TTL meter was on the Miranda Sensormates and Sensormoate EE, which was heavily bottom weighted. The meter pattern was embeded on the mirror, thrid of the mirror, then a spike in the middle to cover the center to the sky. Did not work all that well when shooting vertical.

 

[Guy S]

I guess while using that miranda you could turn it upside down to expose the sky properly in sunset pictures

 

[mshchem]

IIRC Miranda had some rather "spicy" advertising in the magazines. When I was a kid the barbershops kept the photo magazines out of kids reach. All I saw were fishing magazines

 

[koraks]

Whats the best practices for using centre-weighted metering for getting the exposure you want?

It works OK for reasonably flat scenes. For a lot of landscape work where there's a significant amount of sky, I find it's preferable if the camera also has an AE lock functionality so that a reading can be taken before recomposing the image.

 

[wiltw]

Consider this...
a 'centerweighted meter' puts more emphasis on the center, but it DOES read out to the edges

IOW, it is like using a '10 degree spot, with outside influence'. So if you put the center on an area with 'an average range of brightnesses', and then bias that reading appropriately to offset what predominates in 'the outside'...if 'average' do no biasing, if 'bright' predominates the outside give it 0.3 to 0.5EV more exposure than indicated, if 'dark'predominates the outside, give -0.3 ti -0.EV less exposure.

That's the approach I used to follow. Then I started using cameras with spot meters.

 

[RalphLambrecht]

IIRC Miranda had some rather "spicy" advertising in the magazines. When I was a kid the barbershops kept the photo magazines out of kids reach. All I saw were fishing magazines

Poor, deprived child.

 

[Guy S]

Well it seems like the advice is to continue pretty much what I've been doing and just get better at judging when to apply a compensation where appropriate for my camera. I mainly asked because while I don't currently print in the darkroom, I'd like to learn and want to produce negatives that I can go back and print easily

 

[mshchem]

Poor, deprived child.

Indeed I was

 

[koraks]

I mainly asked because while I don't currently print in the darkroom, I'd like to learn and want to produce negatives that I can go back and print easily

Understood. Well, I'd say that the proof of the negative is in the printing. So to find out what kind of negatives print easily, the most appropriate way is to start doing so.

 

[snusmumriken]

When I used a Nikon FE (with a centre-weighted meter), I often used to point it at the foreground close by to get a meter reading, and keep the values indicated. One needs to be conscious of dark and light foregrounds, but that’s simple enough. For shots against the light, I’d meter off the shade side of my hand and open up a stop. I still do much the same now that I use a Leica M, which meters only from a large central spot.

 

[Alan Edward Klein]

Would posters include whether they're shooting negative or positive film when describing their exposure techniques? The processes are usually quite different.

 

[Sirius Glass]

So it seems most manual focus film SLRs use a single centre-weighted metering pattern.

It’s likely easier to design than evaluative or matrix metering, and is more likely to be idiot-proof than spot metering (ie. if you simply point it at your subject then the likelihood of a good exposure is greater).

But discussion of a considered approach seems to be lacking, given that this meter is present in so many high quality SLRs and that the meter in your camera is the most convenient (generally). Whats the best practices for using centre-weighted metering for getting the exposure you want?

Theres plenty of topics currently on the forum on spot metering and matrix metering but relatively little for this moat common pattern. So Im curious how people here use them.

Essentially you need to become familiar with the metering system your camera has.
Start noticing in the viewfinder where in the image area an off-centre light source begins to affect the reading, and internalize that knowledge going forward.
Most scenes are pretty evenly lit, so the weighting won't make as much of a difference as unusual subject reflectance does. For the small number of unevenly lit scenes, use that information you have incorporated to determine where to point the camera when you take the reading.

Welcome to Photrio!

I agree with Matt. When I first get a new or new to me camera I read the manual and then select the metering method which I prefer.

 

[loccdor]

It works well 95% of the time for wide latitude film. Probably 98% if you add a +1 exposure compensation.

Eventually, you may experience more complex lighting situations, or you want to shoot narrow-latitude film. In that case, handheld meters combined with knowledge of the extended sunny-16 rules become useful.

 

[koraks]

Would posters include whether they're shooting negative or positive film when describing their exposure techniques? The processes are usually quite different.

Valid point. I've shot both with a center-weighted meter, but when shooting slides, evidently erring towards the side of underexposure. With neg film, the opposite.

 

[wiltw]

Outdoors, metering with an incident lightmeter, I do not alter the suggested midtone reading of the meter, so I would not alter the reading differently with a center-weighted reflected light meter aimed at a general -'averages to midtone' area (especially if the surround is 'average' too), to differentiate color neg vs. transparency (or digital)