I would strongly contest this assertion. On what it is based? Every meter I've seen or tested (which is quite a few at this point), seems to be well within the ANSI standards (+ - 1/2 stop of 12% gray reflectance).
Uh, that sounds like the FLASH exposure compensation button. Are you sure you're using the right control?
Okay, two things you need to know about the center-weighted meter:
As I note in detail in my books, the matrix meter looks at a lot of things, but the significance of the 10 segments is that the differences in brightness between the segments is more important than the actual values. The tactic the camera uses will depend most upon overall scene brightness and the differences in the matrix values.
It means that, unless you know how the matrix is determining the exposure, using exposure compensation is likely to be a non-repeatable action. In other words, you go out to a baseball park and shoot and find that -1 EV works for you (probably based upon your interpretation of the histograms). You now go into the clubhouse. -1 EV is no longer going to work, as the overall scene brightness has changed dramatically and the camera may be using the matrix differently when figuring exposure. Now you might find -.5 or even +.5 is what maximizes the exposure range on the histogram. In short, there is no "magic" compensation number you can dial in if you use matrix metering.
Actually, by definition, they should be a 1/2 stop underexposed. The gray card is 18%. The camera meter is looking for 12%. If you think I'm nuts, go look at the article on my site about the 18% gray myth. You have Ansel Adams to thank for that "problem."
You got me there Thom, it's basically based on statements I've read from the forums. Many of the new D100 owners have complained about dark images also I remember the same thing happening with owners of the D1x and D1h, I can't explain that darkness anyway than a conservative exposure algorithm on the part of the camera involved. Of course, it could be yet again, the inexperience of the photogs. contributing to the problem. So, you are right there isn't any hard evidence behind the statement ..I should have clarified this fact when I made the statement.
You are right , if all you data is bunched up to one side or the other it can be unrecoverable, this is why it's so important to learn your cameras useful dynamic range. Play with various light levels, metering modes and compensation values to get a minds eye view of the settings needed for a given scene and subject composition. One thing that I have to get the habit of doing that many forget is recomposing after setting exposure lock, recomposing allows you in a sense to redistribute exposure in a scene to suit your needs. The best photographers of the past are considered great because many of them could do this in their heads! and before all this fancy metering technology existed. Film photographers that know the tendancies of the films they use tend to get images that match their vision. I shiver when I look at some Ansel Adams images and realize that had I been shooting the camera he used I probably would have gotten a dark or bright mess! The more you know the tendancies of your cameras ability to capture images under various shooting situations the less likely it's output will sadly suprise you..David,
Excellent response. Thanks for the information. I'm off to learn
more about exposure...
BTW, I know NC3 allows you to adjust EV. But you can't get back
what's not there to begin with. Too far left or right is gone
forever. I'm curious when (and if) you find that useful. Since
it's "after the fact" of capturing the image, what value is it?
--
--
--You got me there Thom, it's basically based on statements I've read
from the forums. Many of the new D100 owners have complained about
dark images also I remember the same thing happening with owners of
the D1x and D1h, I can't explain that darkness anyway than a
conservative exposure algorithm on the part of the camera involved.
Of course, it could be yet again, the inexperience of the photogs.
contributing to the problem. So, you are right there isn't any hard
evidence behind the statement ..I should have clarified this fact
when I made the statement.
Thanks for pointing this out.
Regards,
--
