Help me understand why the Z8 is metering the way that it is

[anotherMike]

Good points Mike.

In general, in studio work, for things to be printed on a metallic/glossy paper, I aim my (white) skin tone to be no more than 216 (monochrome, or for the red channel). For web output in p3 space, I'll go as high as 225, for rec709/sRGB space, closer to 220.

I also found his "corrected" images on the high side of the range I consider good for skin in terms of brightness and I agree Nikon is always going to protect blowing something out, so the matrix result won't always be optimum.

The other factor is the monitor. I work off a very expensive Eizo for a reason...

 

[Bill Ferris]

In-camera metering provides a reference for the lightness relative to middle grey of the photo about to be made. The camera takes exposure and ISO into account when determining what that reading will be. As a result, the displayed reading always indicates lightness. It reliably indicates exposure only when base ISO is in use.

Personally, I find middle grey image lightness too dark. My practice is to use center-weighted metering, as that gives priority to the middle of the frame where my subjects are often positioned or near. Being a manual exposure shooter, my default practice with the D500 was to choose settings that produced a reading of +2/3 stop from on-meter.

Since migrating to the Z9, I rely more on the appearance of the scene and the inset histogram display in the electronic viewfinder (EVF). If the subject and scene have a pleasing lightness and there's no indication of blown highlights, I'm good to go. I don't pay as close attention to the meter reading as I used to. That said, my sense is that a typical reading in the Z9 is +2/3 to +1 stop from on-meter.

There are exceptions. This morning, for instance, I was photographing a mature bald eagle. To ensure detail in the white head plumage would not be blown out, I used settings producing a meter reading of -2/3 stop. I was also at ISO 500 so, the darker areas of the frame can be lifted in post without incurring a noise penalty.

Effective use of the in-camera meter begins with abandoning the perspective that a reading of 0 is correct and should be targeted. While some objects and scenes have a natural lightness closely matching that of middle gray, many things in this world do not. As long as the subject looks good, a reading of 0 is no more or less accurate than a reading of +2, -2, or anything in-between.

 

[michaeladawson]

Effective use of the in-camera meter begins with abandoning the perspective that a reading of 0 is correct and should be targeted. While some objects and scenes have a natural lightness closely matching that of middle gray, many things in this world do not. As long as the subject looks good, a reading of 0 is no more or less accurate than a reading of +2, -2, or anything in-between.

Couldn't agree more. "Correct" meaning what the photographer has in mind for what the photo should look like.

Part of what I wrote in a previous response meant to imply this. I believe too many people approach metering from the left brain. The camera says 0 so it must be correct. And if it's not correct there must be something wrong with camera.

When I take photos I find the camera meter to indicate over exposure sometimes, under exposure other times, and sometimes it's right on. It's up to me to determine which one is right for the situation.

 

[Bob A L]

That is another down side to digital photography. The results we get in processing, or from the camera that we then fix to match what we think it should be are all totally dependent on the monitor in use at the time. So we may be making a photo look like we want it to on our monitor, but unless we send prints to everyone we want to share with, everyone may and likely does see an entirely different photo or look. We have no control whatsoever on what others see, only on what it looks like on our monitor through our own eyes, which may or may not be correct.

That's why I don't bother with such trivial things and just take photos and share them with who I want to and with prints to those that are really important to me so I know what they should be seeing.

 

[Bill Ferris]

Effective use of the in-camera meter begins with abandoning the perspective that a reading of 0 is correct and should be targeted. While some objects and scenes have a natural lightness closely matching that of middle gray, many things in this world do not. As long as the subject looks good, a reading of 0 is no more or less accurate than a reading of +2, -2, or anything in-between.

Couldn't agree more. "Correct" meaning what the photographer has in mind for what the photo should look like.

Part of what I wrote in a previous response meant to imply this. I believe too many people approach metering from the left brain. The camera says 0 so it must be correct. And if it's not correct there must be something wrong with camera.

When I take photos I find the camera meter to indicate over exposure sometimes, under exposure other times, and sometimes it's right on. It's up to me to determine which one is right for the situation.

Yes, and different tonalities meter differently. The classic example is a portrait of a bride in a white dress and a groom in a black tux. In the same light with good settings, the dress will meter at about +1.5 and the tux at about -1.5. Both readings indicate a pleasing lightness and, at base ISO, good exposure.

 

[SCoombs]

After much thought on this, and downloading some of your images, I really don't think the exposure you are getting out of camera is that unreasonable. I'm not saying the camera is getting it perfect. But I think what is programmed into matrix metering and what your preference is for an exposure is not necessarily going to line up.

First off, you mention a lot of "what the scene looked like to my eye". Honestly, I'm not suggesting that there is anything wrong with your eye. But the truth is Nikon doesn't care what it looks like to your eye. Nikon is doing a cold calculation of light and coming up with an exposure that it has been programmed to regard as the proper exposure for the scene.

A couple of your photo examples really have no bright areas in them. Nothing which should really be reaching the right end of the histogram. So I'm not surprised if the raw files have a lot of highlight room left. In my opinion, if you exposed the shot to move the histogram to the right in some of those photos to close up the gap your photos would be overexposed.

There's a philosophy practiced loosely by some that a good photo should have something that approaches pure white and something approaching pure black. But that doesn't mean that the exposure out of camera will show that. Many times it's up to post-processing if you want to achieve that. I generally like to expose to the right myself just so I capture quality data. That means I'm often times pulling back the photo in post.

Let's consider B&W photography for just a second. Caucasian skin is generally thought to be Zone VI. When I convert a couple of your photos to B&W in ACR I find that the RGB values on the skin is around 180 to 190. In terms of general exposure, that's too bright.

Going back to color, I find that what is pleasing to me (for an ordinary photo) is to achieve a post-processed red value of between 200-210 for the bright areas of Caucasian skin. I will vary this between 200 and 220, depending on the scene. The highlight skin areas in a couple of your processed photos are above 230. That's just me. You are, of course, free to arrive at a value that pleases you. But Nikon can't possibly accommodate both of us. Even my value of 210 is above the Zone VI value for skin.

Final exposure/brightness in a photo is a very complicated and subjective matter. My preferences are not any more valid than your preferences. As far as the camera goes, it is a lot more cold and calculated.

I've only really looked at the first image I posted here, but agree that there is more red than there should be. This was edited on an older monitor which was not adequate or I imagine I'd have wound up with less red in the final result.

That being said, just toning that down the way I would do so is really not bringing that 230 down, so I am curious what method you would take if you were adjusting this photo to meet the standards you go by.

Now if I do go ahead and drop the exposure down to get something closer to what you're talking about in both color and BW, I get this:





Now to me, that is too dark but it's too dark to the point that I wouldn't even say that this is a matter of preference - I just think it's objectively too dark. Do you think that this is a more proper exposure? Even so, it's still much brighter than the metered version, which is posted above.

 

[SCoombs]

Effective use of the in-camera meter begins with abandoning the perspective that a reading of 0 is correct and should be targeted. While some objects and scenes have a natural lightness closely matching that of middle gray, many things in this world do not. As long as the subject looks good, a reading of 0 is no more or less accurate than a reading of +2, -2, or anything in-between.

Couldn't agree more. "Correct" meaning what the photographer has in mind for what the photo should look like.

Part of what I wrote in a previous response meant to imply this. I believe too many people approach metering from the left brain. The camera says 0 so it must be correct. And if it's not correct there must be something wrong with camera.

When I take photos I find the camera meter to indicate over exposure sometimes, under exposure other times, and sometimes it's right on. It's up to me to determine which one is right for the situation.

I agree with this. The big factor for me here is that I have found the metering to fairly consistently be a lot darker than I think it should be. If we're just talking about the metering not being perfect I'd expect a relatively even tendency to both over and underexpose.

 

[michaeladawson]

I've only really looked at the first image I posted here, but agree that there is more red than there should be. This was edited on an older monitor which was not adequate or I imagine I'd have wound up with less red in the final result.

I'm not sure you exactly understood what I was saying. I wasn't making any comment about the amount of red, in other words WB. I simply use the R value of RGB when I edit portraits as an indicator of brightness/lightness. I adjust exposure and highlight sliders to bring the R values of skin highlights to the neighborhood of 200 to 210.

That being said, just toning that down the way I would do so is really not bringing that 230 down, so I am curious what method you would take if you were adjusting this photo to meet the standards you go by.

Now if I do go ahead and drop the exposure down to get something closer to what you're talking about in both color and BW, I get this:





Now to me, that is too dark but it's too dark to the point that I wouldn't even say that this is a matter of preference - I just think it's objectively too dark. Do you think that this is a more proper exposure? Even so, it's still much brighter than the metered version, which is posted above.

Well, to each their own. For my preferences it looks near spot on.

I'd have to look at the raw file directly. I use ProPhoto RGB as a color space and when one converts to sRGB for jpeg and then opens the jpeg back up in ProPhoto RBG the RGB numbers can get a bit off.

But with that caveat, when I open the above photo in ACR I find the R values of the skin highlights to be pretty good. So to me, the brightness/lightness is near perfect. I use CMYK to judge skin WB. When I open this photo in Photoshop I get CMYK values that I consider to be in the perfect range for Caucasian skin.

The fact that you think it is too dark now is simply a matter of subjective opinion. You apparently like lighter skin tones. I don't. The next person may like them darker than me or brighter than you. Putting away the eye dropper tools and all the left brain analysis, when I simply open the above photo on my monitor it just looks right to my eyes. And yes, I have a color calibrated monitor. Although I will say that a color calibrated monitor doesn't mean a lot, since it begs the question of "calibrated to what?" Calibrated to 6500K, 5500K? Calibrated to 120 cd/m2, 90 cd/m2?

--
Mike Dawson

 

[michaeladawson]

I agree with this. The big factor for me here is that I have found the metering to fairly consistently be a lot darker than I think it should be. If we're just talking about the metering not being perfect I'd expect a relatively even tendency to both over and underexpose.

I'm not sure that is a correct conclusion. It will depend a lot on what your average subject matter is. If you shoot 90% people (people being the dominant object in your photos) you may not get the same average metering that someone who shoots primarily landscapes.

I can say for myself that I DO tend to get roughly equal over/under exposure metering, with a good deal of spot on metering as well. I hardly ever photograph people anymore. I used to do at least 50% runway fashion, but not anymore. My main subject matter these days is landscape, travel, wildlife (birds).

 

[Bill Ferris]

The big factor for me here is that I have found the metering to fairly consistently be a lot darker than I think it should be. If we're just talking about the metering not being perfect I'd expect a relatively even tendency to both over and underexpose.

Consistent metering is a good thing. You can adapt & adjust to results that are predictable.

 

[jmccas]

Effective use of the in-camera meter begins with abandoning the perspective that a reading of 0 is correct and should be targeted. While some objects and scenes have a natural lightness closely matching that of middle gray, many things in this world do not. As long as the subject looks good, a reading of 0 is no more or less accurate than a reading of +2, -2, or anything in-between.

Couldn't agree more. "Correct" meaning what the photographer has in mind for what the photo should look like.

Part of what I wrote in a previous response meant to imply this. I believe too many people approach metering from the left brain. The camera says 0 so it must be correct. And if it's not correct there must be something wrong with camera.

When I take photos I find the camera meter to indicate over exposure sometimes, under exposure other times, and sometimes it's right on. It's up to me to determine which one is right for the situation.

I agree with this. The big factor for me here is that I have found the metering to fairly consistently be a lot darker than I think it should be. If we're just talking about the metering not being perfect I'd expect a relatively even tendency to both over and underexpose.

I agree, my Z8 generally meters to the darker side which I don’t mind since it protects the highlights but it would be troubling if I shot SOOC.

This weekend I was testing my Z8 against my A7cii to test for banding. The A7cii metered a static scene correctly every time whereas the Z8 required 1/3 to 2/3 stop of EC for every shot to match the A7cii.

Banding, ugh, is another story and why the A7cii is boxed up ready to be sold.

 

[HyperCypher]

Me again. Man you write novel length posts.

Here’s what I do with my Z8. I set the meter to whole frame average and then just look at the VF or back screen and just nudge exposure comp in the direction that makes the shot look good to me, usually with a lens control ring programmed to EC or iso depending on mode. I could care less about all the rest. This is the promiss of mirrorless and I just go for it. I think mirrorless has obsoleted matrix metering and even metering in general. If it looks good it is good

Give it a try … don’t over think it. Save the ink

 

[HyperCypher]

Bill … I do what you do except I have gravitated toward full screen average. And then I just look and adjust either EV ( in aperture priority) - Or iso in manual exposure usually with programmed control ring … for me matrix worked in DSLR days but in mirrorless I am the matrix … and just need a ball park starting point. If it’s rapidly changing circumstance … I might activate histogram just to avoid significant over exposure … but I am all in on just using the promiss of mirrorless.

with lights little of this applies. That’s a very different form of photography.

 

[SCoombs]

Me again. Man you write novel length posts.

Here’s what I do with my Z8. I set the meter to whole frame average and then just look at the VF or back screen and just nudge exposure comp in the direction that makes the shot look good to me, usually with a lens control ring programmed to EC or iso depending on mode. I could care less about all the rest. This is the promiss of mirrorless and I just go for it. I think mirrorless has obsoleted matrix metering and even metering in general. If it looks good it is good

Give it a try … don’t over think it. Save the ink

This can work for some subject matter, but for fast paced stuff like sports and candids at events obviously you're usually only getting one shot at a thing and a split second to take it, so even a quick adjustment is not really something there's time for.

By the way, what are you talking about when you say "whole frame average," which you've mentioned in this post and in another? You seem to distinguish this from matrix, but matrix metering is really the only option that could remotely be considered to be any kind of average. Are you shooting on a different system that has different options? I don't know that Nikon has anything like this.

 

[SCoombs]

Good points Mike.

In general, in studio work, for things to be printed on a metallic/glossy paper, I aim my (white) skin tone to be no more than 216 (monochrome, or for the red channel). For web output in p3 space, I'll go as high as 225, for rec709/sRGB space, closer to 220.

I also found his "corrected" images on the high side of the range I consider good for skin in terms of brightness and I agree Nikon is always going to protect blowing something out, so the matrix result won't always be optimum.

The other factor is the monitor. I work off a very expensive Eizo for a reason...

Interesting to see two comments agreeing about the brightness. I have found that anything below the brightness levels exhibited here tend to look quite dark when printed.

For instance, this one has the skin tones getting up into the 230s and even up to 240 in places and when printed it was just on the edge of too dark.

 

[SCoombs]

The big factor for me here is that I have found the metering to fairly consistently be a lot darker than I think it should be. If we're just talking about the metering not being perfect I'd expect a relatively even tendency to both over and underexpose.

Consistent metering is a good thing. You can adapt & adjust to results that are predictable.

Actually I think part of why I posted is that even though it tends to underexpose on average, I still haven't been able to figure out a consistent pattern to understand how it's going to work.

For instance, in a series of shots I took to experiment and to consider using for a post on the topic (but which I never wound up posting) I set up some situations where I had someone standing with a dark wall behind them on one side and a very bright window on the other and I would position the frame so it was the person and the wall, then the person and the window, only to have it meter exactly the same either way. I would have someone stand in front of a bright white sky and shoot then immediately angle the camera so the sky was replaced by a darker background and it would meter the same way... but then other times in seemingly the same situations it will underexpose with the bright background and meter more correctly without it.

I think if it was an easy "expect to need +2/3 EC 70% of the time" I'd have still posted but instead of framing it as I have I would have just said something like, "does anyone else find their Z8 does this too?"

 

[HyperCypher]

You can set center weighted metering to average the whole frame.

See my comment below about fast moving. In that case just expose to the right as best you can. You have to make it up in post if you must. A little under exposure is ok as a safety technique.

Look, I think you are overthinking this. I also think you don’t have confidence in what your eyes are telling you. Why not. First of all metering has never been an exact thing You are looking for a refinement that does not exist. You need to be the refinment. If you really want accurate metering do what we did in film days and get yourself a proper light meter and meter the incident light on the face of your subject.

I almost think you are implying that (once again) the Z8 is defective and you are trying like crazy to get to the bottom of it - kind of like focus issues ? A few have suggested that maybe there is something wrong with your camera. I doubt it . It did exactly what I would expect which is dial back when it saw the big bright patch behind the girl in your first example … I think my Z8 underexposes just a little too but that is a good thing. If I ever have to deliver instantly out of camera I’ll just throw in 1/2 stop ec.

cheers

 

[SCoombs]

You can set center weighted metering to average the whole frame.

I didn't know this. I will experiment with it.

See my comment below about fast moving. In that case just expose to the right as best you can. You have to make it up in post if you must. A little under exposure is ok as a safety technique.

I'm not concerned with a little underexposure. I'm more concerned with cases where it has underexposed to the point that you wind up having to try to add color back in and it's hard to get a natural look.

Look, I think you are overthinking this. I also think you don’t have confidence in what your eyes are telling you. Why not. First of all metering has never been an exact thing You are looking for a refinement that does not exist. You need to be the refinment. If you really want accurate metering do what we did in film days and get yourself a proper light meter and meter the incident light on the face of your subject.

I almost think you are implying that (once again) the Z8 is defective and you are trying like crazy to get to the bottom of it - kind of like focus issues ?

I don't think there is anything defective with the metering. I have just been confused as to why it is metering the way it is at times and curious if others have similar experiences. It sounds like several do.

A few have suggested that maybe there is something wrong with your camera. I doubt it . It did exactly what I would expect which is dial back when it saw the big bright patch behind the girl in your first example … I think my Z8 underexposes just a little too but that is a good thing. If I ever have to deliver instantly out of camera I’ll just throw in 1/2 stop ec.

cheers

 

[Bill Ferris]

The big factor for me here is that I have found the metering to fairly consistently be a lot darker than I think it should be. If we're just talking about the metering not being perfect I'd expect a relatively even tendency to both over and underexpose.

Consistent metering is a good thing. You can adapt & adjust to results that are predictable.

Actually I think part of why I posted is that even though it tends to underexpose on average, I still haven't been able to figure out a consistent pattern to understand how it's going to work.

For instance, in a series of shots I took to experiment and to consider using for a post on the topic (but which I never wound up posting) I set up some situations where I had someone standing with a dark wall behind them on one side and a very bright window on the other and I would position the frame so it was the person and the wall, then the person and the window, only to have it meter exactly the same either way.

If f-stop, shutter speed, or ISO is delegated to the camera for selection, it will choose settings producing an image in which the area being metered will have a middle grey lightness. Unless the camera is prevented for some reason from using the setting its algorithm has chosen, the meter will always read, 0. The delegated setting(s) will change but the meter reading won't.

Fujifilm cameras don't even have a true lightness meter display when one of the three settings is delegated. The display shows the exposure compensation (EC) setting.

An in-camera lightness meter will often display something other than 0 when the camera is in full manual mode with the photographer choosing exposure settings and ISO. It's performerance that can be highly useful. For example when doing bird photography on a sunny morning, I'll often meter off a field of straw-huen grass. If the reading is +2/3 stop from on-meter, I know most birds will look good at those settings.

I would have someone stand in front of a bright white sky and shoot then immediately angle the camera so the sky was replaced by a darker background and it would meter the same way... but then other times in seemingly the same situations it will underexpose with the bright background and meter more correctly without it.

I think if it was an easy "expect to need +2/3 EC 70% of the time" I'd have still posted but instead of framing it as I have I would have just said something like, "does anyone else find their Z8 does this too?

The EVF display is a great reference. If the subject has a pleasing lightness, your settings are good. An inset histogram is a useful reference to confirm highlights won't be blown and blacks won't be crushed. EC is your friend in a semi-auto mode. The meter will still read, 0, but - with the right EC setting dialed in - the EVF display will have a pleasing lightness.

 

[michaeladawson]

Interesting to see two comments agreeing about the brightness. I have found that anything below the brightness levels exhibited here tend to look quite dark when printed.

For instance, this one has the skin tones getting up into the 230s and even up to 240 in places and when printed it was just on the edge of too dark.

I didn't find any 240 values when I loaded this jpeg into ACR. I saw several places where it got above 220.

But I'll add an additional piece of information that I learned from several years of shooting models using flash. You will get hot spots from flash. I can see it on that girl's cheeks and on the leg. I usually dismiss highlight skin values that come from flash hot spots when it comes to my "R 210 guideline".

That doesn't mean I ignore it. As I look around using ACR on her right leg, chin, neck, etc. I see that the R values pretty much stay under 220. To me, this image passes my own criteria for how I edit skin. If I'm being picky I will then use an adjustment brush with a minus highlights value to tame just the obvious hot spots from the flash.

So I don't see any big issues with this image. It looks about like it would have if I had processed it. But that's my taste. One comment I will make is that it looks like the bottom half of the photo is brighter than the top half. Or rather, from the shoulders up it looks a bit unbalanced against the brightness of the legs. Oh, it also looks like you had some color moire issues that you needed to fix. I always hate to have to deal with that.

If you say that this image prints significantly darker than what is on the monitor I would question your hardware setups between computer, monitor, and printer. If you've got things properly color managed all the way through your workflow there shouldn't be a big discrepancy between monitor and printer.

But we're now going down the rabbit hole of post-processing and printing. And adding flash in as well. That's all an entirely different discussion.

--
Mike Dawson