TheDman Loc: USA

Am I the only one who thought this post was about whiskey? 😁

CharleneT Loc: South Carolina

I'll try in the sun. As to post processing, I only have Picasa and Windows 10. I still haven't set up windows 10 yet. Having to learn how. Thanks for the help and compliment.

Gene51 Loc: Yonkers, NY, now in LSD (LowerSlowerDelaware)

Download the trial for Lightroom and Photoshop - you get to use the full programs for 30 days before you have to pay anything. Windows 10 does not really offer much for editing, and Picasa is finished - gone to the software graveyard. You might as well get started with a decent pair of programs, and for $10/month, you can't get a better deal on software that is not going to go away.

Gene51 Loc: Yonkers, NY, now in LSD (LowerSlowerDelaware)

I am a fan of Maker's, but yes, this is really about taking pics of white dogs that bark. Well, maybe there is another way to say that . . .

Gene51 Loc: Yonkers, NY, now in LSD (LowerSlowerDelaware)

The entire point about the zone system is that you can place any tone in any zone - so yes, the tan tone would roughly correspond to middle gray, and you "could" meter off that value and use it. But if you were to shoot that dog in contrasty lighting, there is a chance that you would end up with some blown highlights with that method. Better to meter off the white highlight areas, and just nudge them up a stop and a third or a half, so that there will be lots of detail and less noise in the black areas. If you think about it - it makes perfect sense. You want as much "exposure" as possible while still retaining detail and avoiding the clipping of highlights. Your method definitely gives you a lot of freedom from clipping highlights, but in a high contrast situation it may leave the shadow areas lacking - noisy, without contrast or detail, and generally unsatisfactory.

DJO

To Gene and Cat-

LEARN HOW TO READ! BOTH OF YOU!

I didn't say that an incident meter measures anything other than exposure. I didn't say they were new. I said that the combination of very high quality and affordability is now more obtainable.

An exposure reading from a spot meter, old school or in the camera, is a reflected reading, as is any other type of metering done in your camera. By definition, the exposure value determined by the camera will change when you substitute a white dog for a black dog. Has the amount of light changed? No, it has not. By using the incident meter you can shoot a white, a gray and a black dog in succession, bing-bing-bing, without changing the settings on your camera, which is why I stated that it would be optimal for THIS PARTICULAR situation.

Cat- have you ever used an incident meter? I didn't think so. You shouldn't be so quick criticize things you don't understand. Borrow or rent one and give it a try. Learn or have someone teach you how to use it. Then decide, for you and everyone else, if it is an expensive encumbrance.

Why do I bother? Because "at best" the two of you have shown yourselves to be illiterate, and "at worst", imbeciles.

Gene51 Loc: Yonkers, NY, now in LSD (LowerSlowerDelaware)

No need to go Trump on us. It is in really bad taste.

But you are negating one thing. Reflectance is exactly what the camera sees. Incident meters make assumptions. While it's true that most of the time, in even lighting conditions, an incident meter will provide a reasonably balanced exposure, the meter is making a guestimate at best, and using some assumptions that may or may not be true - especially regarding dynamic range of the camera or the lighting. If that dog is moving around - they usually do unless it has been provided by a taxidermist - then it can be moving between shade and sun. The exposure value will change. The incident meter will not consider extremely wide differences in reflectance - try shooting the black, gray and white dog in the same take, with the black dog in open shade, and the white dog lit by the sun. Been there, done that - the result will likely be a severely underexposed black dog, a severely blown out white dog, and the gray will be ok maybe. Reading the reflectance and adjusting the meter accordingly, or just dialing in a compensation value will always result in accurate exposures.

But only if you understand what you are doing. Based on what you wrote, you are oversimplifying things a bit and might not have the grasp on this you think you have.

Digital is not the same as film. When you underexpose negatives the detail is lost - nothing is recorded. The opposite happens with digital - it happens to the highlights. One thing is different though. Digital will record far deeper into the shadows than film ever could, and if you have a camera with very low noise, you can underexpose shadows 5 stops or more, and still get detail - it will be muddy, noisy and lacking in contrast, but it will be there. At the other end there is no reason why you have to use the exposure suggested by an incident meter. Moving the exposure to the right for any of the dogs will result in less noise in the shadows.

The best thing I can tell you is go out and try it and see if works for you. I've been doing the zone system, upon which these concepts rely, since the late 60s. I don't mess up on exposure - I nail it every time. I use reflected readings 99% of the time, and I have two incident meters. I really only use an incident meter when I have total control over the lighting, or when contrast is low to medium and even then I will tend to expose brighter than the meter suggests - but only because I want better shadows. I always use it when working with studio strobes and with speedlights in the studio as well. Again, I have total control over the lighting, and use the incident/flash meter to set my lighting ratios.

Using an incident meter with moving subjects in changing light is not easy. And with a white dog, you risk overexposing the bright side if it is in bright sunlight. Maybe you lack experience shooting moving subjects. . . .

You may not be able to get your mind around this at first, but it's worth a try. Hell, you might actually learn something new that you can use to expand your horizons and improve your photography.

Be nice, don't insult people, and you will have a better exchange of ideas, and you may learn a thing or two here and there.

CatMarley Loc: North Carolina

My, you are a pleasant conversationalist! Bless your heart! Yes I have used incident light meters with my film cameras way back in the 80's. And I do know how to read. An incident light meter will read the ambient light. The camera meter will read reflected light from whatever area you specify in your viewfinder. When I am photographing a dog, I am not interested in the overall scene, but in the details of the DOG. Therefore I am much more interested in what light is being REFLECTED off my subject - the dog, because that is the light that will make MY PICTURE.

Are you following my logic so far? The subject WAS how to photograph a white dog. Obviously a white dog will be more reflective than a black dog. If the reflective meter in your camera delivers an exposure of 18% gray for a white dog, it is going to render the white dog average as 18% gray - a little bit underexposed. So if you jigger the exposure to overexpose by a half stop or so, you will supposedly get a more or less white dog with good gray detail.

Thank you for your ever so polite suggestions. I will bone up on my reading!

G Brown Loc: Sunny Bognor Regis West Sussex UK

I have a black and white dog!!!! Often all muddy brown. If it is your dog practice everything that has been suggested, Then add a flash and start learning all over again. Seriously, I take photo's of my dog in full sun, indoors, under trees and in the sea. I meter for the background. The white balance is set for 'what is' not 'what I am taking' (except snow). You will take lots of photo's in any circumstance, so vary the exposure. That is easier and quicker in Manual when you can dial up or down ev both sides of the 0.
have fun

CatMarley Loc: North Carolina

I have showdogs - I breed them, and have exported them for show and breeding to some 20 different countries. My buyers rely on the truthfulness of my photos when they decide to buy a ticket to the USA to get one on my dogs. When I photograph a dog I am looking to convey things like facial expression and coat texture. The exposure has to be very exacting to show these details to best advantage. The background is not a consideration except that it hopefully goes away. I find spot metering on the part I am trying to portray, and then adjusting the ev for the color depth of that subject works best for my purposes. I always set WB for the conditions ambient and add very supressed flash to open shadows if necessary. It works.

Gene51 Loc: Yonkers, NY, now in LSD (LowerSlowerDelaware)

Precisely!

Gene51 Loc: Yonkers, NY, now in LSD (LowerSlowerDelaware)

Cat - I was waiting for the Southern Belle Charm to come out - yes, Bless His Heart, Indeed!

DJO

Gene and Cat-

I am not the one who through down the gauntlet; perhaps one day you will take a good long look in the mirror. You still have it completely backwards, but believe what you wish.

It's true, I am retired. Why was I able to retire, quite comfortably, at age fifty three? Because I know what I am doing with a camera. Even a digital one.

CatMarley Loc: North Carolina

And I am a dog breeder of world wide renown based on the photos of my dogs. Apparently, based on the ability to display the merits of my animals through photos, I am fairly successful at what I do. What works for you, congrats. What I do works for me. I even get some really nice photos of other things sometimes, believe it or not. Even won some prizes years ago for my color prints.

Gene51 Loc: Yonkers, NY, now in LSD (LowerSlowerDelaware)

Ah, so you just spend your time picking arguments with people on photography forums and resting on your laurels. As Cat would say, "Bless your heart!" I am so glad you had a successful career. Carry on!