My first real shoot with the 5DIII

[Tcapp]

For some reason, I had to bump the exposure compensation up 1 to 1.5 stops all day long. Even in scenes that aren't contrasty by any means, the light meter seems to freak out whenever it seems any whites, grays, or silvers.

First I must say that I love the shots and my comment is purely from a personal point of view. From the above samples it looks to ME like the photos are sligthly over exposed - but it works and it gives a great feel to the pics. Could the exposure compensation on your side maybe be because of your personal taste? This said... if I say the pics looks slightly overexposed, it is definately not by a full stop - more like 2/3rds.

I also don't use the 5D mkII, but I have read before that of photographers saying they always overexpose with 2/3rds as a rule when shooting RAW.

To my eyes, they are perfectly exposed. Just goes to show that what is a "good" exposure is not set in stone. Maybe the folks over at canon just like slightly darker photos than I and some others do. So to them, the camera doesn't underexpose at all. 

Yes... it is all in the eye of the beholder  But I suppose the way the image is viewed also comes into play - like monitor calibration.

Who doesn't see 20 bands? 

I count 20. But that is very true! Too bad my clients mostly all have crappy monitors!

[rambarra]

holy f*ck the first is gorgeus. the camera seems to be sliding over the grass
how did you do that

[kenraw]

As you know the 5d3 has the same 63zone metering system as the 7D. I have two 7D's and both nearly always needed +1 exp comp in both ambient and ttl flash, especially for portraits. I got used to it so It's not much of a problem for me know I have a 5dmk3 also.
I must admit it would be nice if the metering was a bit more accurate, however I like the sound of the spot metering idea then recomposing I might give that a whirl and see how I get on.
If not it's not a problem because I have an idea now that for a particular scene or subject I know I need to to start at +1 and go from there. Metering sysytems are never 100% accurate anyway because the camera doesn't know how you want the image to look!

[wickidwombat]

As you know the 5d3 has the same 63zone metering system as the 7D. I have two 7D's and both nearly always needed +1 exp comp in both ambient and ttl flash, especially for portraits. I got used to it so It's not much of a problem for me know I have a 5dmk3 also.
I must admit it would be nice if the metering was a bit more accurate, however I like the sound of the spot metering idea then recomposing I might give that a whirl and see how I get on.
If not it's not a problem because I have an idea now that for a particular scene or subject I know I need to to start at +1 and go from there. Metering sysytems are never 100% accurate anyway because the camera doesn't know how you want the image to look!

Exactly. no metering system is going to be perfect until they invent a mind reading chip which is why i find spot meter on the part i want to be the control for my exposure works the best

[V8Beast]

Thanks for the compliments, fellas. Logistically, a lot of stuff went wrong on this shoot, so I was glad to be able to salvage some decent shots.

as for metering i stopped using evaluative on the 5D2 and the 5D3
I always use spot metering and get a quick meter from the center of the frame of the part of the scene i want to use as my exposure control point and set my shutter speed in manual accordingly, I've stopped shooting in AV or Tv as I find this method is quicker than bothering with changing exposure compensation on the fly
just remember that unless using a 1D its only metering from the center not from your selected af point so on the 5Dmk3 check you exposure first on the center frame, then compose and shoot.

Thanks for the tip. I have the luxury of manually focusing on most of my shots. Since there are no AF points in that situation, I'm presume the camera just meters the entire scene and not from the center point?

As you know the 5d3 has the same 63zone metering system as the 7D. I have two 7D's and both nearly always needed +1 exp comp in both ambient and ttl flash, especially for portraits. I got used to it so It's not much of a problem for me know I have a 5dmk3 also.
I must admit it would be nice if the metering was a bit more accurate, however I like the sound of the spot metering idea then recomposing I might give that a whirl and see how I get on.

Great info! I definitely need to refine my technique to adapt to the 5DIII. While in the field, I couldn't figure out if the metering wasn't what I was accustomed to, or if the screen display was set too dark. The screen on the 5DC is so bad, I rarely rely on it to judge exposure. The 5DIII, however, is another beast entirely In the worst case scenario, I'll just train my brain to treat a +1 reading on the light meter as "0."

First I must say that I love the shots and my comment is purely from a personal point of view. From the above samples it looks to ME like the photos are sligthly over exposed - but it works and it gives a great feel to the pics. Could the exposure compensation on your side maybe be because of your personal taste? This said... if I say the pics looks slightly overexposed, it is definately not by a full stop - more like 2/3rds.

The monitor on my desktop is calibrated, and on it the exposures look fine. The images do look slightly over exposed on my laptop, however, which has one of those stupid glossy screens and hasn't been calibrated for quite some time. That said, I have gotten into the habit of slightly overexposing. Many of my clients use very poor quality paper and ink, and the images tend to print darker than what I submit to them.

[V8Beast]

I love the 1st and 4th photos.

What was your setup/settings for the 4th one?

It's a mix of natural and accent lighting with a couple of off-camera 550EXs. It was taken with a 70-300L, and according to the exif data shot at 120mm, f/8, 1/3 shutter, ISO 100. One flash is to the left of the wheel, and the other is to the right of the grille. The image is more or less straight out of camera.

holy f*ck the first is gorgeus. the camera seems to be sliding over the grass
how did you do that

The camera is sliding over the grass There's a boom attached to the front of the car which was later removed in post. This allows using a very long shutter speed to enhance motion blur. While the results can be dramatic, the technique is very common and quite overdone in the walk of automotive photography. I don't like rigging cars all that much, as it's become kinda gimicky, but when you have a car that doesn't run very well and you need to get some action shots, it is very effective for that purpose

[Bosman]

Cool stuff V8, If the light is even I always use manual on clouds in and out i use AV since i like to decide my Dof. I havent seen the metering be bad for me yet. You should def try partial or center weighted. I use center weighted for sports since my subject is usually framed in the center. Else like i said if the light is stable i use manual because when a runner with a black outfit comes it doesn't blow out, the power of manual is just awesome, it takes post work out of the equation for the most part.
As far as the flashes go, they arent supported with the camera so i wouldn't expect results to be good. Step up to a 580exII or even 430 exII's would be good. Personally i prefer my 430exIIs over the 580's

[Tracy Pinto]

V8 Are those done in camera or post processing to get the feeling of motion?

[Old Shooter]

Now I REALLY miss my '65 Fastback!

Thanks for the trip down memory lane, V8Beast!

I usually leave my camera in evaluative because it seems to do pretty well...

That being said, I love to tinker, and your subject seems to have been challenging for that mode...

It would have been interesting to lock down the camera on a tripod, and measure the exposure in all four metering modes... Even toggle the highlight tone priority and auto lighting optimizer on and off... Finally, a spot meter reading off a gray card... Makes me wonder what the range of suggested exposures would look like?

[hhelmbold]

The monitor on my desktop is calibrated, and on it the exposures look fine. The images do look slightly over exposed on my laptop, however, which has one of those stupid glossy screens and hasn't been calibrated for quite some time. That said, I have gotten into the habit of slightly overexposing. Many of my clients use very poor quality paper and ink, and the images tend to print darker than what I submit to them

This is exactly what I mean. What is proper exposure any case? Is it the value a grey card gives you or is it something that your eye finds pleasing?  I think in the end it comes down to knowing and trusting your equipment, even if it means pushing it a stop or 2 to get the results you like and are used to. From experience you know to slightly overexpose because of the way your clients print and that is priceless experience... I call this Perfect Exposure ;-)

[V8Beast]

V8 Are those done in camera or post processing to get the feeling of motion?

The motion blur is real, but how it's captured isn't. Bascially, you rig a pole to the car, hang your camera off of it, and drive or push the car very slowly to minimize vibration. That enables using a very slow shutter speed, usually several seconds long, to dramatically increase the motion blur. The pole is then removed in post.

Here's a video clip of a super high-end, super high-budget commercial photog rigging up a car. (Edit: The vid won't embed, so just click the URL at the bottom.)

Audi R8GT + Lee Howell, Kaptured Photography	Small | Large

At the commercial level, they have the budget to rent far more elaborate rigs that allow mounting the camera much farther back from the car. This enables using longer focal lengths, and minimizing distortion, and capturing the proportions of the car in a far more pleasing manner. With homemade setups that editorial hacks like myself use, you can't get the camera as far back from the car as you'd like, so you have to rely on wide-angle lenses which don't always yield pleasing proportions. Some people like the distortion, but I despise it. 

[BobSanderson]

Very interesting - your results are great despite not having their monster rig

[Tracy Pinto]

Thanks V8

[Bosman]

V8 Are those done in camera or post processing to get the feeling of motion?

The motion blur is real, but how it's captured isn't. Bascially, you rig a pole to the car, hang your camera off of it, and drive or push the car very slowly to minimize vibration. That enables using a very slow shutter speed, usually several seconds long, to dramatically increase the motion blur. The pole is then removed in post.

Here's a video clip of a super high-end, super high-budget commercial photog rigging up a car. (Edit: The vid won't embed, so just click the URL at the bottom.)

Audi R8GT + Lee Howell, Kaptured Photography

At the commercial level, they have the budget to rent far more elaborate rigs that allow mounting the camera much farther back from the car. This enables using longer focal lengths, and minimizing distortion, and capturing the proportions of the car in a far more pleasing manner. With homemade setups that editorial hacks like myself use, you can't get the camera as far back from the car as you'd like, so you have to rely on wide-angle lenses which don't always yield pleasing proportions. Some people like the distortion, but I despise it.

V8, your work kicks ***. Love it. I have seen the comercial shoot but they didnt explain the glass boom thing. Pretty tough glass i guess!

[Kernuak]

I've never trusted evaluative metering. Supposedly it works better on the 7D, but I still use spot, as I've never got around to trying it, old habits die hard. Out of interest though, my 7D also tends to underexpose compared to my 5D MkII by 2/3rds stop, so maybe it is the new metering system reading things differently with the two coloured layers, although I always put it down to how it asesses ISO sensitivity.