Nikon F4 matrix mode

When getting an exposure reading in matrix mode, I am getting an

overexposure of one to two stops difference than my Sekonic incident

meter or a spot reading off of a gray card with the cameras spot

meter. This has been on very contrasty sunny days with some clouds. I

shot some film and the shadows had excellent detail but the

highlights were washed out on my prints. (Kodak 200 print film).The

negatives were dense and appeared to have detail in the highlights. I

would blame the color lab, but I am seeing a differance in the

exposure between the camera and the hand held incident meter. I have

noticed it most when there are dark woods in the background (half of

the picture and large bright grassy field in the foreground. Is the

meter picking a happy medium between the two? I thought the matrix

mode was suppose to be fairly accurate in about 90% of situations? I

had a Canon A2E before and it was usually dead on exposure in same

situations. I must admit, this it forcing me to be more methodical it

setting exposure and takinking readings. Also makes me look for

things that might throw the meter off instead of just pointing and

shooting.

Just an anecdotal observation: I find the matrix exposures on N90, N90s and F100 to generally be quite good, and I'm comfortable leaving the camera in matrix mode most of the time. I don't feel the same way about the F4. It has 'surprised me' too many times, and I feel I have to leave it on Center Weight for it to be predictable. Beyond that observation, I have no idea why the F4 behaves the way it does.

<<When getting an exposure reading in matrix mode, I am getting an overexposure of one to two stops difference than my Sekonic incident meter >>

 

A consistent deviation to one side might indicate a fault in the meter. But the matrix metering will, in general, try hard NOT to be fooled by a scene with some bright sky, much brighter than the rest of the component portions of the image. In such cases one might expect it to suggest an overexposure by comparison to a one-sensor incident meter.

 

 

<<This has been on very contrasty sunny days with some clouds. >>

 

But not in other conditions? If the matrix meter is sometimes in agreement with your Sekonic, and sometimes seems to be reading "hot" and sometimes seems to read "cool," you're probably just discovering the intricacies of multisensor exposure algorithms at work.

 

<<the highlights were washed out on my prints... The negatives were dense and appeared to have detail in the highlights. >>

 

Your F4 is only responsible for the negatives, and you seem to think it did a good job capturing detail in the highlights. The absence of such detail in the prints is the lab's responsibility.

 

<<I would blame the color lab...>>

 

Well, at least go talk to them, and show them both your negatives and your prints, and see if they agree they might be able to do a better job on the second attempt.

 

<<I thought the matrix mode was suppose to be fairly accurate in about 90% of situations?>>

 

I'm trying to imagine Nikon selling the F4 to pro photographers and well-heeled amateurs a decade ago with the slogan, "Fairly accurate in about 90% of situations!"

 

<<Kodak 200 print film>>

 

James, you might just be surprised at how much better your prints will look if you switch films. Kodak's 200 films have never been favorites of mine; others have characterized them as having all the grain disadvantages of faster 400 or 800 films, without any of the vivid punch of slower 100 films.

 

Try Fuji Reala or Supra 100 for bright conditions or whenever you are able to use a tripod... Supra 400 or Portra 400NC or Fuji NPH for less bountiful light... Fuji NPZ for times when you need 800 speed. See whether the results are more pleasing for you.

Based on a friend's F4s vs my F100 and D1X in matrix mode, there are some subtle differences in high contrast scenes. He had'nt used matrix metering and wanted to get a better feel for what it did without wasting film. We calibrated out the body to body differences with the ISO on a solid blue north sky. The matrix sensor and algorithms in F5/F100/D1/D1X/D1H has a few more years of tweaking, but the differences we saw were less than one stop and shouldn't affect negatives (slides would be a different story). We pretty much came to the conclusion that if the majority of the frame were medium tones, matrix on both did great and matched.

 

Matrix metering on any of the Nikon bodies isn't magic, you still have to think when you have a large dynamic range of tones. I've never mastered applying exposure compensation to a matrix meter reading in a high contrast frame (and I usually am using slide film for these situations), so I fall back to center weighted and spot readings and let 30 years of experience with Nikon gear kick in.

In my experience with the F4 (though it's been ages since I've switched it matrix), its matrix meter seems to ignore the sky when the meter detects it in the top half of the frame. Foreground subjects seem to be well exposed generally to the detriment of a "white out" sky. In fact, the F4 has mercury gravity switches in the viewfinder to signal the meter to follow a vertical orientation, i.e. virtually telling it where the sky is.

 

Your example of high contrast situations seems to fall into this bright sky/dark foreground category that the meter overexposes.

Craig and James, you may find the answer here

 

http://www.kenrockwell.com/nikon/matrix.htm

 

Without trying to take away from Ken, matrix metering is designed to ignore highlights, that is , bright points of light, brightly rear lit scenes, the sun/moon. It does this by knowing the absolute exposure value for an element of a scene, not just its relative value compared to the rest of the scene, thats why later matrix cameras need D series lense (the D information also tells the camera the maximum apature of the lens so that is knows HOW bright the subject is), the F4 does this with a linkage at the bottom of the lens mount ... cool eh.

 

Anyway, the camaras meter splits up the image into various sections and considered the absolute brightness of each section, if any section is at or aboev 16.5LV then it is assumed to be the sun or some artificial light source and disguarded from the calculation.

 

It is probably unfair to compare one matrix meter against another as they differ in the number of matrix segments and the processing algorythm behind the computation.

 

Also, what lens did you use to perform this test, was it a zoom, AI or AF? Maybe try to shoot some slide film to test the exposures without 'input' frmo your lab. One other tip might be to attach a flash to your camera to check the DX reading, I don't trust my cameras DX (no real erason, just don't trust it) so always set the ISO manaully. On a SB-2x flash you will see the ISO set on the camera body.

 

btw. Did you know that in Manual mode the Matrix mode is disabled and you are in center weighted metering? That amy account for some of the confusion, the F4 does this slitently, F90's and later tell you they are using center weighted.

 

Cheers

 

Dave