Metering Problem or Bad Scan?

[seth_samuel]

<p>Hi all,<br /> I have been having a strange bout of inconsistency with exposure lately. I shoot with an M6TTL and a 50mm summicron. This last role of film (portra 400 NC) I had developed at Baboo in NYC has made me question how I have been using this camera's meter. Most of the pictures look underexposed and grainy. I'll post an example below.<br /> I didn't order prints, just processing and scans. I wonder if a bad scan could do this, but something tells me this is a week exposure.<br /> I've had this camera for about a year, and I just feel like it's hit or miss when I use it. Any tips on metering with this camera would be greatly appreciated. Thanks!</p>

<p>Seth<br>

http://www.gonefishingpictures.com/31820025.jpg</p>

[michael_a._shapiro]

<p>Seth, meters are meters. The one on that model camera is usually good, unless there is something wrong with it.<br>

Do you understand about 18% gray and all that?</p>

<p>Regarding exposure vs scan, how do the negs look?</p>

<p> </p>

[michael_ginex1]

<p>I have found Portra 400NC to be quite grainy, especially if processing isn't done very carefully re temps, times and agitation. It also tends to be less contrasty than, say, the Kodak UC films. However , the photo does look underexposed by about a half a stop. Whether the scanner is at fault or the camera meter remains subject to further experimentation IMO.</p>

[seth_samuel]

<p>Thanks Michael. I do understand metering very well (i make my living shooting on my other cameras). I shoot on a variety of different cameras, but this one I think I may be using too much like a spot meter. By "metering problem" I mean that I may be using this meter wrong. While meters are meters, they can be affected by batteries, and whether or not they are center-weighted or spot etc.<br>

This is my only leica and rangefinder so I have nothing to compare it too. Does the picture simply look underexposed to you? Everything just looks gray, even the blacks.<br>

Negs look fine. </p>

[seth_samuel]

<p>Thanks Michael G. I may start mixing up my film selection to see.</p>

 

[curt wiler]

<p>Frankly, I feel that chasing an exposure problem with negative film is a waste of time. I would shoot some slide film so the processing is better under control before I look for problems with the meter or the shutter. That said, the example looks underexposed (or underdeveloped).</p>

[SolaresLarrave]

Strangely enough, whenever I shoot print film with my M6TTL bodies, the prints seem strangely overexposed (unless the light is fairly uniform).

 

Now, if you're concerned about the meter, do as Curt said and burn some transparency film. Negative film will always have latitude enough to play one or one-and-a-half stops over or under, whereas with transparency, as you know already, barely allows one stop.

 

BTW, I only shoot transparency film with my Leicas (Ektachrome 100 and 200, and whenever I can, Kodachrome 64). So far, I like the results.

 

One more thing: try another lab too! Best of luck!

[kris]

Looks like scanning issue to me with gamma setting pushed too high. The black point is at 30-31 value where I normally use 4.

<p>

I personally find scanning colour negatives very tricky. It is very hard to get clean scans even with ISO100 film like Fuji Reala. I have to scan negatives as positive then invert in Photoshop to get better results, which is still inferior to scans from slide films.<div></div>

[seth_samuel]

<p>This is all very helpful, everyone. Thanks. I put some fresh batteries in. I'll take the negs to another lab for scanning (or maybe it's better to get a scanner myself). I know little to nothing about scanning film myself. Interesting about the black point, etc.<br>

It is clear that the image was slightly underexposed, but how I got there is mainly my concern. thanks again!</p>

[Gus Lazzari]

<p>Seth, automated C41 processing is pretty consistent and the Kris' post processed scan shows quite a bit of grain. (Underexposure confirmation)</p>

<blockquote>

<p>"Most of the pictures look underexposed and grainy" & " I just feel like it's hit or miss when I use it"</p>

</blockquote>

<p><strong>Why burn more film ?</strong> If you quickly metered on that exact scene, (with those many black portions visible to the meter) it should have if anything, gone to the <strong>overexposed</strong> side. It isn't metering...</p>

<p>The M6 TTL meters are programmed & <strong>rarely</strong> off; the next variable would be the shutter. On LTM & M Leica's, it's pretty well documented with speeds 125th thru 1000th, that they experience an out of tolerance to the <strong>fast side</strong>. (Minor to excessive underexposure would be the result)</p>

<p>Get the shutter speeds checked out by a technician that has a "3 sensor" speed tester. This will also assure that the 1st & 2nd curtain balance is confirmed. (Also a common problem)<br /> A proper CLA will correct all of this.</p>

[anthony_ilardi]

<p>I periodically check my two M6ttl cameras against my Canon 5D and my handheld meter. I tend to use the Canon in selective mode and with manual exposure, so the metering pattern and methodology are similar to the Leica, but not identical -- the Canon selective mode angle is narrower than the Leica. Also, I usually use an 18% gray card for confirmation when cross-checking the meters. The Leicas and the Canon 5D are spot on. The handheld meter generally needs a 1/3 stop correction. I am not concerned so much with absolute expsoure, but relatively consistency between meters. Have you checked your meters against each other? If the meters are wildly off, then perhaps the M6 meter needs an adjustment. </p>

 

[juan_bonet]

<p>The best way to know if the camera works fine, is shooting a roll of slides, using a handle light meter. Then you can know that the metering is right and if the developing is correct. Perhaps the problem is the shutter.</p>

[frdchang]

<p>it looks underexposed because there is too much noise in the blacks. it does not seem like a scanning problem since your midtones are fine. what happen is that there was no tonal separation in the blacks because of underexposure. then the scan tried to boost this weak signal to balance the image histogram, therefore this weak noisy shadow got exaggerated in the jpeg. <br>

1) check your meter with another camera/handheld meter<br>

2) even with my reliable meter i shoot portra 400 at 320 </p>