Project 40 - using a meter

This project was aimed at improving understanding of the use of the camera's meter and how shots either 'over-exposed' or 'under-exposed' relative to the average meter reading may be better, or at least as acceptable.

Part 1

The first part of the project involved producing a number of photographs which were deliberately lighter or darker than average.

The first is the photograph on the right because the 'average' reading seemed to produce a washed-out shot as seen on the right, probably because of the contrast between the dark tiles and the white walls. The average meter reading at ISO 400 and shutter speed of 1/250 secs was f/6.7 but I reduced the aperture to f/13 to get better definition and textures.


Secondly, this shot of children's play equipment on the beach had the sand too bright at the average setting (f/13) and I took the shot again at f/19 will the result that the sand, sea and sky are more natural.

Part 2

The second part involved taking photographs with a spread of exposures around the one chosen as 'average' by the cameras meter (i.e.bracketing).

In this photograph of part of a hibiscus bush, taken at ISO 400, and shutter speed 1/125 secs, the 'best' exposure indicated by the camera was f/8. This (the shot on the left) seems ok but slightly over-exposed to me. The two exposures at wider aperture are unacceptable but both the underexposed shots, f/10 in the middle and f/11 on the right are better. I prefer the f/11 photograph (one f-stop underexposed from the 'best) as the colours have more depth.

The second subject was banana leaves (at least I think they were!).

Here we have a similar story to the hibiscus bush with the 'best' exposure - on the left (again f/8 with the other settings the same) - appearing a little washed-out and those overexposed being unacceptable. The middle shot at f/10 is fine but the best is the one on the right at f/11. It would have been interesting to have seen with this subject whether an exposure at higher than f/11 would have been within the range of acceptable exposures.

The third set of shots was of a totally different subject - the shore-line.

In this case, I think that the 'best' case - f/16 (the other settings being the same) - and the centre shot -f/19 - are acceptable whereas the photo on the right, at f/22, looks to me a little underexposed (and a bit kodachromy!). Again the overexposed shots were too washed-out.

Fourthly, these shots of a toy fish in a childrens' play area on the beach

Again, the 'best' exposure shot on the left (f/11) is OK although the sand lacks detail, in my view, although the fish is spot on. A better balanced shot is the centre one, half a stop underexposed at f/13. Here the sand has more definition and the fish, although not quite as vibrant, is fine. For me, the shot at f/16 on the right is a little too underexposed. The two shots more overexposed than that at f/11 were too washed out in the strong sunlight.

Finally, a photograph of a concrete bench and the shadow it produced. The 'best' shot from the

meter reading was f/13, on the left and it is just acceptable although the top of the bench lacks much definition. The f/19 shot on the right has more definition in the bench but the shadows are rather too dark. The middle shot, half an f-stop underexposed at f/16, is the best with better definition both of the bench and in the shadow.

It has been very informative for me that the 'best' shot isn't always the one to go for and, on the evidence of the 5 different photographs above, there are a high proportion of occasions when an underexposed shot (and maybe an overexposed one in certain conditions and to others tastes) is more than acceptable.