D3 Matrix metering -> aggressive "exposure to the right"

[walterh]

Perhaps I missed the thread(s) or perhaps I am the only one with this experience.

My D3 exposes to the right of the histogram in a very "aggressive" way. This is

in matrix mode and especially noticeable when shooting in harsh sunlight. In low

contrast exposure is mostly either spot on but still hitting the right wall and

a -0.3 setting seems to play it safe.

 

I am used to the D200 that seems to try and carefully avoids any blown

highlights like a plague. With the D200 I often set a compensation of +0.3 or

higher to correctly "expose to the right". In low contrast the D200 made me

wonder why the histograms is fat in the center while the D200 always struggle

noise^^.

 

The D3 seems more willing to accept a few blown highlights. I now use a -0.3

setting on exposure but on clear sunny days this is not always enough and I

might give it a little more compensation. This surprises me because with the

excellent low light capability of the D3 pulling shadows is less of a problem

(compared to e.g. the D200) than blown highlights.

 

So finally I wonder if this is something only m D3 does or if others observed

similar results in matrix light measurements. Perhaps I am just too picky and

should shoot center weight or zone system anyway^^? By the way, my preferred

mode of exposure operation is A mode, shooting 14 bit RAW, Adobe RGB color space

converted into Prophoto RGB.

[meninenuotrauka]

Hi, Walter,

 

A little strange. I too have moved from D200 to D3. On my supervision, gauging of an exposition on D3 works more precisely. Practically does not demand correction.

 

Here very different conditions - from very dark church before shooting at a bright sunlight. In all cases I used matrix gauging. And in all cases I have remained happy with the chosen exposition.

[ellis_vener_photography]

"Adobe RGB color space converted into Prophoto RGB.

"

 

Since you are shooting NEFs no color space is actually assigned by the camera. How are you processing your NEFs?

[frans_waterlander]

There is a difference between aggressively exposing to the right and blowing out highlights. Which of the two is the D3 actually doing?

 

I would love to have a camera that had a setting where it consistently exposed to the right so that the highlights were just not blown out.

[frans_waterlander]

Ellis,

 

NEFs will have a color space assigned, determined by how you set it.

[ilkka_nissila]

I find the D3 matrix meter to be more accurate than that in the D200. What more can you ask? The D200 rarely blew highlights but that was at the high cost of increased noise when matrix metering was used with high ISO. Still even with the D3 I frequently get substantial underexposure in backlit situations. I would say that overall, exposures are more accurate but of course not perfect. I wouldn't say that the D3 makes more overexposed than underexposed pics based on the matrix metering. In any case you can calibrate the meter yourself if you think there is a systematic bias.

 

Matrix meters vary from camera type to another - you'll never learn to perfectly predict the behaviour of any of them. The D3 has a subject recognition system - so it really tries to guess what's in the picture and base the exposures on that. This leads to faces being more accurately exposed but highlights which only constitute a small part of the scene are overexposed. Use spot or incident metering to get predictable results (I very much doubt anyone's ability to average a scene in the head so that they perfectly simulate centerweighted metering and then compensate based on reflectances of the various parts of the scene...) Getting the exposure right enhances the practical dynamic range obtainable (greatly) and lets you do more post-processing adjustments with less noise. Takes time? Risk losing the moment? Tough - whoever said that life was supposed to be easy.

[ilkka_nissila]

And by the way - where is this idea "expose to the right" coming from? Ah, there are so many people who seem to love to try to make exposure determination a trivialized mechanical process. The optimal exposure depends on what is the content of the image and what you are trying to do with the data after its recorded. If it were so trivial as to just exposing to the right, the camera could very easily do just that. But it isn't even close.

[arthuryeo]

Walter, I had the same experience moving from the D2X to D3.

 

In addition, the PictureControl for the "Standard" mode is pretty heavy on pink/Magenta end of the spectrum and too little green. The D2X is more nicely tuned in this aspect.

[walterh]

Ellis I set color space in the D3 to Adobe RGB. I process NEF files in Adobe ACR or NX. In both cases I "import" into Prophoto RGB. This is to do as little clipping as possible.

[frans_waterlander]

"And by the way - where is this idea "expose to the right" coming from?"

 

Read up on it on e.g. Luminous Landscape; it will open your eyes. Once you understand it you can apply it when appropriate and make adjustments as needed, e.g. clip the highlights if that's what you really want to do.

[ilkka_nissila]

Frans, I am familiar with the concept, don't need an introduction on it. It's great for maximizing SNR in certain kinds of optical measurents but I think it is not of much value in digital photography. Firstly, most people only look at the green histogram when they're doing ETTR, secondly, the histogram makes it hard to look at small regional highlights, and identify them, third, ultimately it is just as important to know where the other values go (and place them appropriately) and not focus your exposures on merely the highlights. These approaches are just too crude. John Shaw wrote on a much better approach to exposure determination than ETTR, a long time ago.

[frans_waterlander]

Illka,

 

ETTR or ER for short is one of the most useful tools for digital photography. Everybody will benefit from understanding it. When you start out with ER and then, if needed, knowingly allow for certain highlights to be blown out, you will have the best possible exposure with the least amount of noise.

[arthuryeo]

Ilkka,

 

>In any case you can calibrate the meter yourself if you think there is a systematic bias.

 

How do you do that?

[toddcwilson]

Interesting topic, as I have noticed the same characteristic with my D300. So much so that I had it checked by Nikon and they said the meter was fine. Outdoors in aperture priority I usually dial the exposure compensation down -0.7 to save the highlights.

[walterh]

Ilkka are you referring to the menu b6 "fine tune optimal exposure" ?

 

Arthur there you can set an exposure compensation for matrix metering (and center and spot as well) that does not show up as "exposure compensation".

 

Of course calibration would be interesting to do though one might need a bit of fancy equipment like e.g. a calibrated light source or a calibrated meter. I would have one available but would leave it up to Nikon do check for me because if this is not done properly on final check in quality control other things might be worth checking as well.

I also have a significant AF problem with my 105mm AFD DC f2.0 lens that is outside the range of adjustment. Right now I deal with this the way several do - use the DC adjustment (set to front f2) to compensate for this.

[bruce_margolis]

Walter, Thom Hogan notes in his recently released D300 bible that the matrix metering is quite different than the D200. I am sure the same applies to the D3.

 

The new system put much more weight on your choice of autofocus. For example, if you use single point focusing, there is a strong bias to what is below the focus point. In a high contrast shot, this easily can lead to a misreading for highlights.

 

The auto area AF is biased against bright highlights, reducing exposure. With dynamic area AF, it looks to your choice of sensor pattern and makes a guess how to set the exposure.

 

Another thought, you may want to look at the RGB histograms, not just the luminance histogram. If this is happening consistently -- and it doesn't relate to your AF selection -- you may have some issues with one of the channel histograms, most likely the red or blue.

[ShunCheung]

Walter, there is a "caliberated" light source call Sunny 16. :-) That is a reasonably accurate and certainly inexpensive way to check your meter readings.

 

I have used a D2X for over 2 years and now have used a D300 and a D3 quite a bit. I also have a D200 although I don't use it that much. I don't think their metering differs that drastically or some of them would be wrong a lot.

[walterh]

Shun - hehe yes I know that calibrated light source. I was satisfied with it for about one year when I started photography about 50 years ago. My Agfa Silette had no light meter. But it had a lens that could be focused and a shutter that offered different speeds and an iris that went from f2.8 to f16 if memory serves me right. Once I got the development of my BW film set up with a reproducibility of one to two f-stops I lusted after a light meter. It took me about a year to have no ice-cream in the summer but to safe all my pocket money and I got my first light meter.

 

Now 50 years later I get greedy and want to have the last bit (could call it least significant bit ^^) of quality out of my precious D3. I am talking details here not 1 f-stop up or down. It took me a few thousand shots to get the right feel for the D200 and it may just take a while to get the same confidence for my D3. I take it the metering system is DIFFERENT from the D200 and this is probably what I see. With the D200 I could guess with good confidence when I could rely on matrix metering and when I better compensate or when I go for center or spot. Its just that the image quality of the D3 is so outstanding that any imperfection (most likely on my part) stand out more than ever.

 

To come back to the Sunny 16: Yes it helps a lot to have the right concept in your head besides all the latest nano-high-technology right in your hand.

[walterh]

This example shows a difficult light situation. The matrix system may want to pull up the skin tones as important detail. This would lead to bleaching the highlight because the tricot is illuminated by the sun from the left but the face and other skin tones in in the shade. So I should watch out for this. The problem was that the drivers went into the shade a few yards further down and they were fast and I very unexperienced in sports shooting :-P<div></div>

[lex_jenkins]

ETTR is this era's Sunny 16. Useful if somewhat crude tool. Not a gospel.

 

Try slavish adherence to ETTR on a photo consisting predominantly of a deep blue sky. You'll get a pale blue or white sky.

 

The best exposure calculator is located between the ears and behind the eyes.

[frans_waterlander]

"Try slavish adherence to ETTR on a photo consisting predominantly of a deep blue sky. You'll get a pale blue or white sky"

 

I don't think, Lex, that you totally understand ETTR.

 

a) A shot with a deep blue sky normally has some other areas like clouds, mountains, etc. that are lighter than the sky; those lighter areas make up the right edge of the histogram and you want those areas as much as possible to the right without blowing out areas you don't want to blow out

 

b) If the dark blue sky is the lightest area in your shot, you still want the right edge of the histogram as close as possible to the right without blowing out; the sky will look light blue, but that is not an issue; if it is white you blew it (pun intended) - a pilot error, not an ETTR issue or limitation

 

c) After you have taken the shot you adjust your tonal values the way you want them in your image editing program; it doesn't matter that your dark blue sky might be light blue in your original shot as long as you didn't blow any of it out; it will look just fine after your adjustments

 

d) The advantages of ETTR are minimal noise, maximum detail in the shadow areas and maximum dynamic range

[arthuryeo]

>Ilkka are you referring to the menu b6 "fine tune optimal exposure" ?

 

>Arthur there you can set an exposure compensation for matrix metering (and center and spot as well) that does not show up as "exposure compensation".

 

Thanks, Walter, I forgot about that one. Read it sometime ago but forgot them if you don't use it often.

[lex_jenkins]

I think, Frans, you don't understand what I do or don't understand.

 

You changed my simple example to suit your own biases to prove your point. We get it. You like ETTR. Great. Some of us knew how to make well exposed photographs before new acronyms were invented every few years.

 

ETTR is simplistic, dumbing down of a complex issue that requires little more than the world's most sophisticated exposure computer - the brain.

 

Now, if you'll excuse me, I need to go make some perfectly exposed-to-the-middle photos of a deep blue sky with minimal noise, maximum detail in non-existent shadow areas and maximum dynamic range that doesn't exist because not all photos need to stretch the gamut from 0-255. Unless you're into posterization. In which case, ETTR away!

[frans_waterlander]

Lex,

 

I love it how you try to ridicule me without making an effort to really respond to anything I say. That makes for great communication and opportunities to learn.

[lex_jenkins]

Taking exception to pedantic, inflexible posturing isn't the same thing as ridiculing. You made a valid point regarding ETTR. I offered an alternative point of view. You don't accept my alternative opinion and equate that to ridicule.

 

You like ETTR, it works for you, you pointed out a reference for it. Fine. Why belabor the issue? ETTR isn't a religion and doesn't need proselytes.