D200 underexposure-please help

[avril]

My brand new D200 seems to be underexposing.Have left all settings on

default and am using matrix metering as a rule, and auto WB. Lenses

were 50mm 1.8, manual 55mm 2.8 micro.Could it be influenced with

certain lenses?

[walterh]

I assume you checked all settings that may influence the exposure - read the ... manual. If you post an example it would be possible to give some better advice than this general remark. The lenses you mentioned should be fine for excellent exposure for many applications. I assume the 50mm is an AF lens?

[bernard_frank]

No, AFAIK, metering won't be influenced by different lenses.

 

I'm sure you know that, but just in case, if your subject is in front of a bright background,

like a bright sky, the snow, the sunny sand on the beach, even a bright wall, the photo

may end up underexposed, even (or even more so) with matrix metering, because of the

so-called 18% grey calibration of the meter. So you need to use a tighter metering (center-

weighted or spot) and/or add a + exposure compensation.

 

Can you post an example of one of your underexposed shots?

[bernard_frank]

Check that: lenses may influence matrix metering if they're MF AI lenses and you did not

program them first in your camera. But not, as Walter suggests, if the'yre more recent AF

lenses.

[dave_dube]

If you could also include a screen print of the Metadate, especially the Camera Raw info.

[seanb]

The D200 has a reputation for under exposing - or to be more accurate, for maintaining highlight detail at all costs; so it will underexpose rather than allow highlights to burn out. This is fine as far as it goes , but even a small highlight that you may not want to preserve can cause the whole scene to underexpose.

 

The answer is that it is really something you need to get used to - a quirk of the metering system. Just be careful when scenes contain bright highlights - take a spot reading from a neutral area. You can also apply settings to compensate (I think you can even upload a custom curve to apply to all shots). It shouldn't be a problem when shooting RAW, and in fact may be an advantage as you will almost never get highlights clipping with the D200.

[avril]

The first shot is with 50mm 1.8 AF

 

Second one is spot metering shot for highlights.

 

 

 

These are lousy shots just run off to make sure brand new beast works.Thanks in advance chaps and ladies.

[avril]

Second one.

[bernard_frank]

First one may be a bit "normally" (for the D200) underexposed. The second one is

perfectlky exposed, if you indeed spot metered for the highlights.

 

Nothing to worry about here, apparently. It took all of 30 seconds with levels and curves in

PS to correct your first one.<div></div>

[rustymadd]

The first one looks a little (1/2 stop) underexposed, but the 2nd one looks just fine on my monitor.

 

Perhaps you need to calibrate your monitor?

 

 

C Painter

[vivek iyer]

The 2nd looks very good. Shows how good that D200 is!

[david_h._hartman]

Dont panic, the exposure on both images is fine. The

wall is a little hot in the lizard photo but the dynamic range is

long. The problem is you computer display is not calibrated. You

are probably using a Windows computer and the gamma on the

display is wrong. This will make the mid tones look dark.<br>

<br>

Here are your photos with histograms. The histogram doesnt

lie.<br>

<br>

Regards,<br>

<br>

Dave Hartman.<div></div>

[david_h._hartman]

Second image...<div></div>

[david_h._hartman]

I would use levels and curves on the flower image to brighten it some but the basic exposure is fine.

[joseph_smith3]

You are beter off to have it underexpose it than to overexpose it. My D 200 tends to overexpose compared to my f 100 with slide film. Joe Smith

[dave_dube]

Is it just me or wouldn't the metadata with the shots be useful?

[david_h._hartman]

Look at the right side of the lizard images histogram.

There is a line crawling up the side. This indicates clipping of

the highlight values. To improve the image you might use a very

light touch of negative exposure compensation or soft fill with a

fill card (reflector, gator board, etc.).<br>

<br>

Now look at the left side of the histogram on both images. There

is no line crawling up the side. The histograms tape out nicely.

There is no under exposure in either image. Once your display is

properly calibrated if the mid tones are dark to your tasted then

you need to use curves either in software or camera to brighten

them.<br>

<br>

You have a bit of a road ahead in learning all the features and

best use of your camera. Congratulations on you new camera! You

are going to love it.<br>

<br>

Best,<br>

<br>

Dave Hartman.

[lex_jenkins]

This was a fairly common complaint about the D70 a couple of years ago. I don't believe that Nikon programs dSLRs to underexpose. I do think they bias the in camera processing to avoid clipping and loss of highlights or shadow detail.

 

Even with my D2H, which exposes appropriately, I see a tendency toward compressing the image data. This is often easily fixed with automatic tweaks. Even the auto tweaks provided in DIY printing stations like the Aladdin front end for Fuji Frontier printers, and Kodak dye-whatever printers, are often good enough for excellent results.

 

Also, I think we encounter more situations that can fool a meter than we'd imagine. If there's a lot of sky in the frame it can fool even the best meters into underexposing. FWIW, tho', my D2H matrix metering is far more capable of producing accurate exposures with backlighted subjects than the averaging metering mode.

 

BTW, the lens can indeed make a difference. A wider lens sees more of the sky so the meter may be fooled into underexposing. A longer lens is more selective, sees less sky (or other backlighting) and may provide more accurate exposures or, in some cases, lead to a bit of overexposure.

 

Also, if you're using an AI or AI-S lens, some exposure modes won't work properly. I'm not sure about the D200 but with AI or AI-S lenses on my D2H only manual and aperture priority modes will give accurate exposures, and it's necessary to tell the camera which lens is mounted by dialing in the focal length and maximum aperture.

 

Try to avoid auto WD if you can avoid it. While it can work okay it'll make post processing more difficult because the white balance will need to be adjusted individually for each photo. If you shoot only a few keepers per session, it's no big deal. I tend to shoot hundreds of frames per session and prefer batch processing. It's impossible to batch process NEFs when auto WB is used. Consecutive frames of the same subject can have wildly varying color balances.

[dave_dube]

Yes, I know but, it is more pleasing.

[jalywol]

This has all been very helpful, as I am running into the same problems with my D200. I do believe that for me, the underexposures will abate as I learn more about how this camera meters, and adjust my technique accordingly. However, what IS bothering me more, is that the auto white balance seems to err on the cool/bluer side in most circumstances (including flash). I have been using the auto WB while I get familiar with the camera, but I am not sure it is doing exactly what it should be. Is there a method I can use to evaluate whether the auto WB is adjusted correctly in the camera?

[dave_dube]

Read Sean Buckley's post above.

[marc_rochkind]

Nikon DSLRs, and many others, can produce two kinds of pictures: half-baked (raw), and

fully-baked (JPEG). If you are getting JPEGs poorly exposed, then I guess that's an issue,

but if you think your raws (NEFs, in the case of Nikon) are poorly exposed, then I would

ask what you mean by "exposed."

 

In order to see a raw image, it has to be converted to something that will display or print,

normally RGB. That conversion is complex and has many degrees of freedom, which is

why, for example, Adobe Camera Raw is such a powerful tool. My experience is that a

"default" conversion, with no interference from me, can produce many kinds of images,

from under-exposed, to well-exposed, to over-exposed. It's a crap shoot.

 

The raw image itself is neither under-, nor well-, nor over-exposed. It is data captured

from the camera. All that matters is that as much data as is mathematically possible is

there, because then that data can be manipulated (e.g., in Camera Raw) in the widest

variety of ways. What the image looks like when subjected to a default, mindless

conversion is of no consequence whatsoever.

 

Hope this helps...

 

--Marc

[dave_dube]

Marc - right on! The RAW file in a D200(or others) is like an embryo, you just need to give it life. Photography, in digital, is only part of the art (my opinion).

[david_h._hartman]

<em>The raw image itself is neither under-, nor well-,

nor over-exposed. It is data captured from the camera. --Marc

Rochkind<br>

</em><br>

Yes, but... there is a point at which shadow or highlight detail

or in some cases both are not recorded because they are beyond

the dynamic range of the sensor. This is easily seen when a tall

time runs up the extreme shadow or highlight end of the histogram.

So a raw image can be under, well or over-exposed and if its

the former or latter at a point visible clipping is seen in the

image. Exposure compensation when opening a raw file is not quite

the same as exposing correctly when shooting. Its more like

push or pull processing after you unintentionally shoot a roll of

100 ISO film at 400 ISO.<br>

<br>

---<br>

<br>

Now folks if I can direct your attention to the histograms I

overlaid there is no evidence of under exposure in either image.

This is luminosity histogram fond in the Image menu of Photoshop

7.0.1. <br>

<br>

If you look at the individual color channels in the flower image,

RG&B, you will see there is some clipping that didnt

show up in the simple luminance histogram but the only important

clipping is in the blue channel indicating a WB problem. I this

case the blue channel is clipped at the shadow end quite severely.<br>

<br>

I find auto white balance to be somewhat lacking and get better

images using my Minolta Color Meter II or custom white balance

feature built into my Nikon D2H. White balance is another story

for another time.<br>

<br>

Best,<br>

<br>

Dave Hartman.<br>

<br>

---<br>

<br>

Ill attach a couple of blue channel histograms below. Note

in the larger one the lack of something resembling a bell curve,

the left side is cut off, clipped, and all the values are pushed

to gather into a tall light at the value 0.<br>

<br>

---<br>

<br>

Avril,<br>

<br>

As I see it you need to calibrate your display and learn about

white balance. Also you need to learn the limits of the dynamic

range of these DSLR as the image with the carved lizard has

serious clipping in the highlight area.<br>

<br>

I hope this helps,<br>

<br>

Dave Hartman.<br>

<br>

PS: Im still learning myself and I feel I still have much to

learn.<div></div>

[david_h._hartman]

Here is the detail...<div></div>