>>2894852>you are either trolling me, or are retarded and have no idea how camera meters work, my friendreactionfaceappropriateforwhenyouhaveconfirmedyourearguingwithsomeonewellbeneathyourpowerlevel.tiff
Mate, that's because matrix meters are for retards.
Their entire job is to try and second-guess what you're trying to achieve with the photo.
Simple cameras have simple meters.
They read the luminance of the approximate FOV of the camera and expose appropriately for it with regards to the set ISO and exposure program selected (flash/noflash/fillflash if you're lucky; more than/less than 1/30@wide open if you're not). A reasonable quality compact may even show you what the programs are in the manual. If you want to expose for the shadows, point your camera at the damned shadows and lock the meter with a half press, focusing on something the same distance away as your subject.
>but it chose f/4 when I wanted f/2.8 wahhhhTough titties bitch, if you think that's the difference between a good photo and a bad one, you've got a long way to go.
The portraits I posted were:
>out for dinner with>grabbed camera out of centre console when I saw the light and the pose>at a gig>having coffeeI wasn't carrying my 85L at those times, and even if I was, I wouldn't have got the same shots with it, because of its size, minimum focus distance, and the added layers of complexity involved in taking a picture with it.
