Metering Questions For Airshow

[WALABOOM]

I have a couple questions regarding this area of photography. I will be attending soon a local airshow to shoot a couple hundred photos and I still am unshure of how I will proceed. Ive read the manual but am looking for someone with experience in shooting up-close world war 2 aircraft. The manual talks about (evaluative,spot,center-weighted metering). Ive tried
them all, read the descriptions of each, but would like some feedback. These will be, of course, large aircraft and I will get as many great and varied shots as I can. Any real difference in these? With this subject matter? Should I set it to automatic and let the camera do the rest? Do some program as well, and at the end of the day just delete whats not good? This is my first real effort with a new camera, although I have practiced quite a bit, Just looking for a little feedback. By the way, update on my batteries and charger situation. All seems to be well. Recycled batteries and recharge them, total
shots up over 150 and climbing without change the battery signal. Any comments welcomed. WALABOOM

[toriaj]

I'm no expert, but I think you should avoid matrix metering, because it would try to get the whole sky properly exposed. For your purposes, you don't care about the sky. You want to get the much darker (I assume) plane properly exposed. Spot metering would be the best, if you can get a good zoom on the planes to meter from. But if the planes are small in your viewfinder, center-weighted might be the best, if you keep the plane in your center focus point.

When you look at the shots on your LCD, they might look really white-ish. Don't worry, unless your Highlights mode is indicating blown highlights. The sky will probably look very light in your LCD. Once you get the pictures downloaded, they will probably look better.

When it comes to other settings, I would probably go with shutter priority. Pick the shutter speed that you want (to either freeze the action, show some motion blur, or a lot of blur, depending on the effect you're after) and let the camera pick the aperture. I'd keep the exposure adjuster on 0. Unless it's an overcast day, ISO 200 should be just fine. If you can't get the shots properly exposed at ISO 200, try going up higher, but avoid ISO 800 or more unless you REALLY have to.

Make sure that you have your focus on the Continuous mode (meaning that as you pan along with a plane, the lens will continue to re-focus on the plane.) Chances are, AUTO white balance will probably be okay -- but it's better to set it yourself (to Daylight, Cloudy, or whatever) unless you're getting too overwhelmed by too much information! I'm sure your shots will be just fine. Have a good time!

[SpecialK]

If the sky is blue, face away from the sun and meter off the sky. That is the correct exposure.

Or, get a Kodak "gray card". Hold it in the same light that your subject will get, and meter off that. The palm of you hand works in a pinch as well, but over expose that reading by one stop.

[WALABOOM]

Thanks for the info, I'll make a chit sheet of all the things to focus on. I do have a new concern if anyone can comment would be great. The ultimate goal is to have a website, (what else) have many galleries of pictures,etc.
The website is for late this year and a new computer; hopefully late summer.
Ive read somewhere about making your prints at (L) large and superfine. Im starting with a canon a540. That would equal 2816x2112 for me. It said you should make your pictures at the best quality settings because you can fiddle with it later. You can never upgrade the quality only lessen it. So the thinking is make the original the best and if needbe, lessen it. True? My thinking is having everything high resolution but will it take forever to show l the pictures as far as downloading times? We all get frustrated waiting for things to download and its great when pictures download fast. If I go large and superfine, put it on a CD for later use, there should be software for editing these pictures say to a lesser resolution like 2272x1704 for faster downloads?? Maybe, I'm overthinking it. Any comments welcomed.WALABOOM

[toriaj]

Again, I'm not a website expert, but it is possible to resize the pics for web viewing, like we do to post them here on DCRP. I usually size mine at 790 pixels on the long side to post them here. There is some loss of quality in a resized pic, but the vast majority of viewers would never notice it. Many software programs, including free ones, have the resize feature. I always shoot my pics at the highest resolution.

[Visual Reality]

They don't have to be lower quality. I can re-save a JPEG at 100% and not lose anything.

[WALABOOM]

Thanks for the info, I would prefer to shoot at (large and superfine) settings.
My only concern was download times from a website would be prolonged. EBAY has a lot on the proper sizes they prefer, and why. So, does this mean that I can shoot at large and superfine, put it on a CD and at a later time use a software to resize it? Then put it on a webpage? Could you point me to any names of software that have this feature so I can look at it? Ive heard names like Photoshop and Coreldraw. Are these the types that have it? Any comments welcomed. Thanks WALABOOM

[David Metsky]

So, does this mean that I can shoot at large and superfine, put it on a CD and at a later time use a software to resize it? Then put it on a webpage?

Every imaging software ever made will do this for you. The software that came with your camera will do it just fine, there is imaging software on your computer already that will do this. Cropping and resizing photos are the most basic functions.

Always shoot as big and high quality as you can, memory and disk space are cheap. That gives you more options when it comes to cropping or printing or any other type of post processing. You can resize the image for the task at hand, such as posting on a website or making a desktop image.

[Visual Reality]

While on the topic and not to highjack:

Would shooting on the next setting down (2272x1704) give faster continuous shooting? Since it is saving smaller files can it snap them faster?

[David Metsky]

Would shooting on the next setting down (2272x1704) give faster continuous shooting? Since it is saving smaller files can it snap them faster?
No, not really. Pushing out to the memory card isn't really the limiting factor for burst speed.

[WALABOOM]

Thanks again for the info. Large and superfine settings it is! Good question as well about the continuous shooting, I will be doing some of that as well. I was thinking about getting a 2gb card since I will be shooting some video clips of the planes and people but the manual said only 1gb cards for the canon a540. Thats ok! The majority will be pictures anyway. If I ever do something with the need for more video I'll just swap out the cards one extra time. Later, WALABOOM.

[Visual Reality]

No, not really. Pushing out to the memory card isn't really the limiting factor for burst speed.
Yeah I just tested it. All the sizes do produce the same speed.

About the cards, you may want to do some research on what will work. The S3 says it only takes up to 2gb but people (including myself) are using 4gb cards fine.

[David Metsky]

About the cards, you may want to do some research on what will work. The S3 says it only takes up to 2gb but people (including myself) are using 4gb cards fine.
The S3 supports SDHC cards as well, so you can go to 8G fully supported that way.