D500 Overexposure

[Ann_JS]

I use the ColorChecker Passport (in conjunction with xRite's own software) to create my own Camera Profiles for each of my camera bodies — and, also, separate ones for every kind of lighting-source under which I shoot.

I then store those Profiles in my computer and choose the appropriate one when I convert my RAW files.
(I use ACR but this works in Lr too.)

This saves an enormous amount of time in processing; and I get much better results than I do from using any of the canned Camera Profiles.

It also means that I seldom need to shoot a CCP shot on location unless precise colour-matching to fabrics etc is a factor.

 

[pictureted]

If it's a studio (non-portrait) or landscape shots, I bracket. Seems the easiest and most effective approach. The more you bracket, the more you know how your camera meters various lighting situations. If in a hurry, it's about the relative light on the subject and the +- dial and all that DR. A whole lot easier than shooting slide film.

Unless I'm playing with multiple, controllable light sources (strobes), it's a lot easier to use my cameras meter and chimp, than use a separate meter. I used one religiously when shooting multiple flash heads for portraits years ago and occasionally think about replacing my old Minolta meter (now dead), but just don't know if it would get much use.

 

[Eyaldar]

Thank you all (especially @TonyW and @Ann_JS) for taking the time to share with us this valuable information!

One more question... What do you do if you have a distant subject with a bit different lighting conditions where you can't use your palm or a color checker? Is there any way to recognize 12.5/18% gray?

 

[Ann_JS]

That is the sort of situation where you have to make a personal decision as to whether the subject-matter would benefit from under- or over-exposing it more than you do under normal conditions.

With experience, one just knows the answer instinctively, but until then, bracketing will help you to learn these things.

In really difficult situations, you might also choose to bracket, with ±1 EV steps, so that you can combine the series of exposures when processing using HDR software.

 

[Ann_JS]

I do have a Sekonic Flash exposure meter with an Incident-light-reading dome.
I don't use it all the time, because the in-camera exposure meters are so good these days under normal conditions, but I find the Sekonic invaluable when setting-up multiple flash heads and balancing ambient lighting during on-location shoots.

 

[Beagledog]

The red queen says: "the correct exposure is what ever I say it is"

to which Georgie replied: "there is no such thing as a correct exposure"

The debate on exposure has been going on forever... Ansel Adams and Minor White in there seminal work developed a zone system that tried to account for the problems of exposing film to look something like what they thought they saw. It was for black and white film and does not translate well to color materials and certainly does not translate to digital. Why?

First, film sensitivity is logarithmic while sensors are linear. Our eyes are logarithmic sensors so film better translates what we see than a digital sensor. To get around this the sensors use a transfer function to translate the linear sensor to a logarithmic representation. To further complicate things, the camera has two sets of transforms it preforms on the data, the first being to get a "raw" representation of the sensor output and the second being the JPEG representation. As we all know they are different, and many of us think raw is better. So the camera makers are left with a dilemma: set the exposure meter to give the best response for the Raw or for the JPEG? Since, they think most people think the JPEG is the image the camera makes, they have set it to optimize the JPEG. The back of the camera displays the JPEG, not the raw so it is reasonable that they would want to make this image look the best possible.

So if you shoot JPEG, and look at JPEG images on your computer then you are better off using the metered value. If, however you are using RAW images and they processing them to what you like before displaying them you should expose differently. In general, we have two hard limits in digital: the noise floor, and the saturation level. In the former, your image is lost in the noise that is inherent in the camera sensor output, while the latter is where the photosite is saturated and any increase in signal does not increase the output of the sensor. So, when shooting raw, you want the brightest bit of the image to not quite saturate the photosite so you get the best possible representation of the dark parts of your photo. So, you expose for the brights to save the blacks....

It really does not matter where 18% gray falls on your raw file as you can adjust it to what every you want in post. What you cannot fix in post is the noise floor or the very dark parts of your image, so you want to have as much exposure as possible to give clean "blacks"

Why not just use the metered setting? Well it is set for JPEG so does not fill the photosites to avoid blocked highlights. If you do not fill the photosites in the highlights then you are reducing your dynamic range. If you have a camera with a dynamic range of 10 stops and the highlights are 2 stops under saturation then you have reduced your dynamic range by two stops.

So this is a long winded way of saying if you shoot JPEG then follow the meter, if you shot RAW then "expose to the right"

cheers,
alexis and Georgie Beagle.

 

[Ann_JS]

>>>
So this is a long winded way of saying if you shoot JPEG then follow the meter, if you shot RAW then "expose to the right"
>>>

EXACTLY!!


But do make your own personal tests and your own personal Camera Profiles for your own cameras.

It really doesn't take much effort to do that.

 

[richardmills]

been using mine for a bit now and my copy exposes to the left a bit. ive found that on all the bodies ive used.

 

[TonyW]

been using mine for a bit now and my copy exposes to the left a bit. ive found that on all the bodies ive used.

That is to be expected. There is nothing wrong with any of your Nikon cameras - the calibration point is 12.5% which is near enough to what is generally accepted as an 'average' scene luminance of 12% by ANSI/ISO standards.
Thereby placing a spike on a histogram slightly left of centre - should you be metering a specific area and really require it to be placed centrally, let's say a grey card, you would need to open up by a half stop stop which equates to approximately 18%

This has nothing to do with JPEG v raw as it has been this way for very many years preceding the digital age.

While it can be argued that it does not matter where mid grey 12% or 18% falls due to pp this is a potentially flawed approach. What is important is to understand where your metering places mid grey 10-14% and how many +EV you have to sensor saturation.

Once known then by metering a specific highlight (non specular) where you must hold detail and opening up to a little under saturation you will have guaranteed to have placed your data to the right and not clipped your important highlights and kept your shadows as high as possible on the scale.

This assumes you have the time and you are striving for the optimum exposure which will be via spot metering of a required value such as important highlight in manual mode with the application of plus or minus EV according to subject and desired placement of tonal values.

Or, you can just trust the auto modes Matrix or CW and generally get an acceptable exposure

Perhaps worth bearing in mind that with just one stop underexposure at base ISO you have discarded 50% of usable data and increased noise potential

 

[richardmills]

That is to be expected. There is nothing wrong with any of your Nikon cameras - the calibration point is 12.5% which is near enough to what is generally accepted as an 'average' scene luminance of 12% by ANSI/ISO standards.
Thereby placing a spike on a histogram slightly left of centre - should you be metering a specific area and really require it to be placed centrally, let's say a grey card, you would need to open up by a half stop stop which equates to approximately 18%

This has nothing to do with JPEG v raw as it has been this way for very many years preceding the digital age.

While it can be argued that it does not matter where mid grey 12% or 18% falls due to pp this is a potentially flawed approach. What is important is to understand where your metering places mid grey 10-14% and how many +EV you have to sensor saturation.

Once known then by metering a specific highlight (non specular) where you must hold detail and opening up to a little under saturation you will have guaranteed to have placed your data to the right and not clipped your important highlights and kept your shadows as high as possible on the scale.

This assumes you have the time and you are striving for the optimum exposure which will be via spot metering of a required value such as important highlight in manual mode with the application of plus or minus EV according to subject and desired placement of tonal values.

Or, you can just trust the auto modes Matrix or CW and generally get an acceptable exposure

Perhaps worth bearing in mind that with just one stop underexposure at base ISO you have discarded 50% of usable data and increased noise potential

got to be honest but most of that went over my head.

ive got no problem with mine underexposing a little as i shoot raw anyway. i just wanted to add mine into the pot as the title was overexposure. But are you saying i should adjust metering fine adjust to bring it up a little so i dont loose the stop of data?

 

[TonyW]

First and most important if you are happy with IQ including noise, I would suggest do not try to fix something that is not broken - in my experience this usually leads to tears

I definitely would not recommend adjusting metering fine exposure adjustment - unless you know for sure that the metering system is outside of Nikons standards, prior to a visit to Nikon service. Or you wish to recalibrate to another standard of your own. Just apply exposure correction when required for your subject either manually or via exp. comp. if relying on the meter in auto modes and your own experience.

 

[richardmills]

First and most important if you are happy with IQ including noise, I would suggest do not try to fix something that is not broken - in my experience this usually leads to tears

I definitely would not recommend adjusting metering fine exposure adjustment - unless you know for sure that the metering system is outside of Nikons standards, prior to a visit to Nikon service. Or you wish to recalibrate to another standard of your own. Just apply exposure correction when required for your subject either manually or via exp. comp. if relying on the meter in auto modes and your own experience.

thanks ill leave mine well alone.

 

[cybertec69]

Hi there,

I just bought a new D500, coming from D300 I must say that overall it is a tremendous improvement in both image quality and AF performance.
I did notice though that in some scenes where there is both shadowed and direct sunlight the camera using matrix metering often chooses to overexpose a bit (1/3-2/3 stop)

I will say that I do realize that this scenario is challenging for the camera but I didn't see such behavior from the D300 and I'm wondering whether I'm missing something or is it something that other people have encountered using the D500.

For example:
1/13, f5.6, ISO 200 @ 11mm, on Aperture mode

Subscribe to see EXIF info for this image (if available)

1/20, f5.6, ISO 500 @ 11mm, on Aperture mode

Subscribe to see EXIF info for this image (if available)

You can still control the exposure compensation in A mode.

 

[cybertec69]

This thread is 2 years old, but this might help.

Using the Highlight-Weighted Metering Mode from Nikon