M6 ttl metering,how accurate

[sally1]

I have been using an M6 ttl for the past few weeks with a 35mm f2 lens.I seem to be having a problem with the metering.Most of the shots I take seem to be under-exposed.

 

<p>

 

I am taking a reading off the face of the subject and then recomposing the frame.Most of the pictures are taken inside under a mix of natural and fluorescent light.

 

<p>

 

I have taken the same photo's with a Nikon F100 in AE mode with perfect results.

[virgil]

Sally-although the M6 has a very accurate meter,it's also very

basic.It's easily fooled.I think the only way to get a REALLY

accurate reading is to use a hand-held meter or ditch the M6 and

carry on using the Nikon(which is arguably a better camera anyway).

[richard_ilomaki]

Sally:

 

<p>

 

Rule 1 of exposure is that all meters, hand held or in-camera, want

to make everything mid grey-18% reflectance. This is intentional and

will result in any surface exposed that way turn out mid grey-pure

white or solid black both will be 18% grey if exposed as read. This

is Zone V in the Zone System.

 

<p>

 

Light caucasian skin is a standard for Zone VI, or 1 complete stop

lighter. If you meter of the skin, the neg will be, by design, at

least one stop underexposed, all else working right.

 

<p>

 

 

Three solutions:

 

<p>

 

1) Use an incident meter and read the light with the meter pointing

at the camera;

 

<p>

 

2)Meter off a standard 18% grey card- available at most full line

photo stores. (A good substitute is a page of newspaper with no

pictures -classified ads.)

 

<p>

 

3) Meter off the skin and open up one stop.

 

<p>

 

All this applies for colour and B&W.

 

<p>

 

An excellent book on all this is " The Zone VI workshop" by Fred

Picker.

 

<p>

 

Cheers

[richard_ilomaki]

Wow:

 

<p>

 

I can imagine the flames along this thread after that Nikon related

statement!!! We have been infiltrated by a Nikonian.

 

<p>

 

Duck, quick. I can hardly wait. Get ready for a lot of brown fans.

 

<p>

 

Cheers

[richard_ramone]

How the hell can you say the F100 is a better camera? Why are you in

this forum if that is what you think?

 

<p>

 

The F100 is in a completly different league,it's like saying a timex

watch is better than a Rolex.

[chris_henry]

More like saying an Omega is better than a Patek.

[jay_.]

The only reason the F100 exposes these shots correctly is the

background is darker than the subject's face and the meter is

averaging it together. Switch the F100 to spotmetering and meter the

face, or lean in and fill the frame with the face and lock the

reading in Matrix, and you'll get the same underexposure. The advice

above to open up one stop (or use 1 shutter speed slower)after

metering the face is a good one. Another way is to use the frame

selector lever to pull up the 50mm frames (which gives you a

*vertical* estimate of the M6's meter coverage) and meter with the

face in the left or right half of the frame. That will introduce

enough of the background to even out the exposure. The open-up-1-

stop method is the best IMO.

[bill_henick]

Many would agree that slr's are better for some things and

rangefinders for others. In this example, the basic metering of the

M6 requires more of an understanding of metering and its pitfalls.

I think this is an example of how using an M makes you a better

photographer because it demands more of the pnotographer. Instead of

relying on matrix metering and computer chips, the user will read

about the zone system, incident vs reflective metering and become a

more educated photographer. Neither approach is wrong. You just

have to decide who the photographer is; you or your camera.

You can apply these principles to the Nikon in the manual mode,

but most people but these cameras for the automation. Most

importantly, life is way too short to use anything but Leica lenses.

[nesrani]

"using an M makes you a better photographer"

 

<p>

 

The only thing makes you a better photographer is getting the shot.

For that, the F100 is possibly a better deal, except in low light.

[glenn_travis5]

You Leica respondants are acting like a bunch of morons. You're

trying to answer a question about metering when you don't even know

what type of film is being used, or how it's being processed! Is it

color negative? Is it black and white negative? Is it color positive

(slide)? Is it black and white positive? Com'on, wake up and get on

the ball!

[sally1]

Ok,I should have said.I use 50/50 Neopan 400 and Sensia 100 or 400.

 

<p>

 

Lenses are 35mm f2 on the Nikon and 35mm f2 'cron on the Leica.

[giles_poilu]

"The F100 is in a completly different league,it's like saying a timex

watch is better than a Rolex."

 

<p>

 

"Most importantly, life is way too short to use anything but Leica

lenses."

 

<p>

 

I love my Leica, but come on - it is only a camera!

 

<p>

 

What is this strange allegience to Leica or Nikon? They are tools

for the job.

 

<p>

 

As has been said above a manual camera demands more of the user, the

Nikon offers you automation - take it or leave it.

[virgil]

I should have mentioned that I had corresponded with sally before I

wrote that last comment and knew what she was shooting(indoor

documentary style portraits)and all I meant was that the Nikon was a

better camera for the way she was working.

[jackflesher]

Sally:

 

<p>

 

You Leica is great for what you are doing. BUT, keep in mind that the

methodology for metering as described by RICHARD ILOMAKI is the

correct proceedure for exposing ANY film accurately (assuming the

skin you are metering is caucasian). As such, the method he described

will generate a correct exposure directly on transparency film, and

will generate a coorectly exposed negative with print film. HOWEVER,

when printing the print film an automatic printer will make the same

assumption as the camera during the printing stage and under-expose

caucasian skin by 1 stop, thus generating an under-exposed print. A

good printing lab will know to catch this before the print leaves the

lab, while a one-hour lab generally won't.

 

<p>

 

:-),

[sally1]

So,if I am shooting a whole roll of portraits with the M6 I can rate

the Neopan400 at 200asa and trust the meter?

[nesrani]

It's a large spot. You point it at stuff you want to be exposed at

more or less midtones and use that reading, that's all.

[henry_a]

"So,if I am shooting a whole roll of portraits with the M6 I can rate the Neopan400 at 200asa and trust the meter? "

----

You could adjust your meter but I think even better is that you learn to recognize the mid point of the scene and meter that mid point - some area darker than the zone VI skin tones. The advantage of this method is that you can extend your recognition of mid point (or zone V) to other scenes. You have now adjusted your seeing and thinking to how the camera meter sees. The meter in the M6 is accurate and dependable, you do need to point it at the right part of the scene.

[andrew1]

Well, I have to respond-

I think Richard is a little off base with his specifics about

metering. First, all meters do not only give proper exposure for

18% grey. This is REFLECTIVE metering. Incident meters

measure the amount of light falling on a given spot to represent

true tone, not middle grey. Secondly, reflective meters (which

Richard correctly points out to include all in-camera meters) do

NOT all uniformly give 18% grey- they are very often 1/3 to 3/4's of

a stop brighter than this. Most in-camera area meters fall into

this category, whereas a 30 year old Luna Pro reflective meter, or

any of similar quality and calibre WILL actually read for 18% grey.

 

<p>

 

All of which leads to confusion even when a simplistic approach

to metering such as above is given. A little knowledge is a

dangerous thing.

 

<p>

 

My suggestion to effectively use ANY in-camera meter is to rate

the film at 1/3 stop under ISO (i.e. 320 for most 400 speed films)

and point the camera at an area of mid range value, meter there,

and recompose. This method will work very well, but it requires

that you understand the idea of a mid range value and can

effectively identify one in any scene, and do it quickly enough that

it not interrupt your workflow. But it's not as hard as it may

sound. Many people refer to the Leica learning curve, esp. with

M cameras; I find that often it is learning to meter properly for

one's self and not just let the camera's computer do it for you (as

with the Nikon F100- an excellent camera). Then you have the

differences of learning a rangefinder on top of this. I would

argue that it should be a choice in shooting style and approach

that should dictate the use of an SLR or a rangefinder, not

metering problems.

 

<p>

 

Metering is so much at the heart of what we do. Learning to

properly expose film with whatever tools we use is the absolute

foundation of technical neccesity in photography, and it is a

subject around which lots of debate has always swirled. We all

learn methods that work for us. There will be techniques that

work fine for some and not at all for others. The

recommendations about ISO ratings for given films on this forum

tell a story about this. Some folks get best results from Tri-X or

Superia 400 at 200, some at 320, some at 400. It is as often as

not a difference in metering technique as anything else.

 

<p>

 

So take everything we've all said with a grain of salt. There's lots

of good information available from the great contirbutors to this

forum. Of course lots of it is conflicting, too. So read what we

have to say, and TEST. You'll figure it out, and learn as you go.

 

<p>

 

Your pictures are dark they way you are working? Open up a

stop, stop and a half, two stops. Look at your contact sheets- is

it uniformly dark? Maybe you should cut the ISO rating of the film,

or maybe you should meter of a different/darker area than the

face; maybe you should meter as you do and open up a stop. All

of these achive the same result- a stop more exposure, which is

what you need if your pictures are dark. Find the method that

reminds you to get there that works best for you.

[jay_.]

I agree a little knowledge is indeed a dangerous thing. Rating a

color neg film consistently 1/3-stop slower than box speed will

tighten the grain some but won't give enough of an increase in

negative density to compensate for a full stop of underexposure.

Sally can tell her lab to print the negs lighter but the image

quality will still be degraded due to underexposure.

 

<p>

 

With color reversal film (Sally says she uses Sensia), consistently

rating it 1/3-stop slower than box speed will result in a loss of

color saturation and blown-out highlights at the bright end of the

film's contrast range. With color reversal film, many photographers

rate them to underexpose by 1/3-stop, to increase the saturation.

But again, a 1/3-stop compensation will not be sufficient to correct

a subject that is 1 stop brighter than middle tone.

 

<p>

 

The bottom line is, if the photographer wishes not to be bothered

with exposure theory, a modern camera with evaluative metering will

give a higher percentage of keepers in situations where the subject

is not middle-tone, unless it occupies the majority of the frame, in

which case the meter will be fooled. I owned a Nikon F5, whose meter

is much more sophisticated than the F100, and despite what anyone

says that it is 100% accurate, it still underexposes an extremely

light or overexposes an extremely dark subject if it fills the frame.

[jackflesher]

Drew wrote:

 

<p>

 

>Well, I have to respond- I think Richard is a little off base with

his specifics about metering. First, all meters do not only give

proper exposure for 18% grey. This is REFLECTIVE metering.<

 

<p>

 

Leica meters ARE calibrated to read 18% gray, and that is what Sally

is shooting with.

 

<p>

 

>Incident meters measure the amount of light falling on a given spot

to represent true tone, not middle grey.<

 

<p>

 

AND which will generate EXACTLY the same result as directly metering

a gray card with a reflective meter.

 

<p>

 

:-),

[kristian5]

Sally, I am surprised that no one has brought this up. The simple

fact is that when you are using a new camera, you shoyld know

the area and size of the metering pattern. In the Nikon F100,

metering is superb for a camera that thinks for you. Now that you

have a camera where you have to think, it is importnant taht

you...well, think!

 

<p>

 

Anyway in the M6 the camera reads light of a white spot behind

the lens inside the body. That white spot reads off approximately

the centre 13% of the viewfinder. So when you are metering a

person with a 35mm lens, usually you aren't that close and the

camera also picks up abient light surrounding the face- as long

as it is within 13% of the centre of the viewfinder.

 

<p>

 

So make sure that you go up closer to the subject and take a

reading, or over/under expose accordingly, dependent on the

type of light available- usually overexpose. this technique is

learnt over time. but for now, take a reading closer to the subject

including the center 13% of take a reading off your hand, if the

lighting is the same as the person's face- assuming that is

where you want to take the reading.

 

<p>

 

Good luck. Comming from a Nikon F100 and F5 myself, I too had

to adjust. But if you do adjust, the photographic process

becomes so much more enjoyable.

[sally1]

Thanks guys,you are all right.It's just such a different way of

working.I have always just pressed the shutter and known the exposure

would be good,but that's not really what I want,I want to be more in

control of the final image.

 

<p>

 

I will start tommorrow with a new way of thinking.

 

<p>

 

Thank you all for the fantastic information,I have learned more in 1

night than I learned in 4 months at a collage night-class!

[glenn_travis5]

Why your getting underexposure remains somewhat of a mystery to me,

but I would seriouly look at your lab. I just shot 13 rolls of Sensia

II 200 in four days, in varying light, and sent them to Fuji for

development, and the only problem is an occasional 1/2 stop

overexposure which I'll correct in Photoshop. With silver b&w which

has such a wide latitude, how the hell can anyone get an

underexposure? They would have to be shooting with the lens cap on!

To me that would mean the film is black (no light has hit it.) But I

also develop and print my own b&w. Again, this would indicate to me

that your lab sucks. Take the b&w prints back to the lab, tell them

they suck, and you want them redone, or you want a credit. From now

on with the b&w, I would only ask for developing and a contact sheet.

Also get a decent loupe and light box and examine the negs. If you

can see detail in the highligths and shadows, then they are OK. Any

competent printer should be able to get a decent print. Also, the

Leica M meters are not spot, but partial meters. The M6 classic

meters approximately 23% of the frame for the lenses you are using.

The M6 ttl meters approximately 13%. When you say you're metering off

the subject, do you mean that you hold the camera inches from their

face and take a reading? Or do you mean that you're pointing in the

general direction from say 10 feet away? If you're metering from 10

feet away against a white or very light background, then this will

slightly squew the meter. Check the meter by metering the palm of

your hand, filling the lens. This should be within a stop of where

you want to shoot, or right on if you want extra saturation.

[andy_piper2]

Actually, Sally - skin can be a good substitute for an incident light

meter - provided it's yours!

 

<p>

 

A lot of photographers who like incident metering for its consistency

(it isn't affected by bright/dark areas in/around the subject) but also

like built-in camera meters for their convenience, use their hand as a

substitute 'gray card'.

 

<p>

 

Put your hand in the same light conditions as the subject, meter it,

open up 1 stop, and you're there! By the same token, in your proposed

"whole roll of portraits" - you COULD change the film speed, but you

can also just open up one stop or increase the time by 1 shutter speed

from the meter's 'preferred' exposure.

 

<p>

 

The advantage to a non-AE camera (Like the Leica, but also the F100 in

manual mode) is that IN CONSTANT LIGHT, once you set the camera you can

stop worrying about exposure and metering and dials - it's done. Just

wait for the moment and shoot.

 

<p>

 

The AE camera is making a new exposure reading for each frame, which is

unneccesary if the light isn't changing, and introduces the possibility

of an error (due to a bright spot or reflection in the background or

whatever) every time you press the shutter/meter button.

[richard_ilomaki3]

Note to Glenn Travis

 

<p>

 

Glenn

 

<p>

 

I respectfully suggest a bit of polishing up is in order on the

subject of exposure latitude and densitometry.

 

Yes, a one stop"latitude" may be apparent in a casually made print,

but in order to achieve the maximum tonal range a film is capable of,

there is essentially no latitude.

 

<p>

 

For every film/camera/lens/developer combination there are unique

film speed and developement parameters that will result in optimum

use of the full 10 stops available in B&W and 5 in reversal

transparencies.

 

When one relies on "latitude" without compensating in the development

or printing there is a loss of either highlights or shadows, as well

the subtleties between. Either the whites will be burnt out or a real

Dmax will be missing.

 

<p>

 

Consult Ansel Adams: "The Nagative" or "Zone VI Workshop" by Fred

Picker, or any standartd text on densitometry. THAT part of

photography is a science, the rest is art.

 

<p>

 

Cheers