New D700 - overexposure - return candidate?

jwalker019 said:

DPFranz said:

xrdbear said:

In my opinion the first shot is correctly exposed for the main subject or at the most a third of a stop too hot. The matrix metering in the D3/D700 is EXTREMELY sensitive to the content under the focus bracket in use. In this case if you were using the central bracket it did what it was asked to do.

Click to expand...

I was reading on Thom Hogan's site that the D80 (I think that was the one) did this preferential treatment of the content under the active focus sensor when using matrix metering, and he noted that this was largely a detractor of the appeal of that camera...too hard to use in practice.

Now, I can see how this would be beneficial in some cases, but this makes it more like center weighting, and I certainly don't want to have to change the active focus sensor on the fly in order to get a good reading - I can use center weighting and lock exposure, then recompose if I want that, but what I use matrix for (and what the D2x seems to do) is when I want a reasonable average exposure for the entire frame. I thought, indeed, that that was the purpose of matrix...otherwise what is the difference between matrix and center-weighted...matrix just has a larger "center" region?

Click to expand...

The way I understand it, matrix metering on Nikon cameras is "smarter" than just averaging across the frame. There is an actual database of photo metadata (tens of thousands of records) against which the current photo is compared. Nikon cameras also consider the selected focus point during the evaluation process to ensure the item you've selected to focus on (presumably, the main subject of your photo) is given due consideration in calculating the final exposure.

Click to expand...

An important question here, though, in the case of focus-and-recompose:

Does the camera emphasize the content that was under the active focus center during focusing, or the content that is under the active focus center at the time of shutter release? My experience says that it is the latter, and I think I prefer it that way (meter based on the framing at the time of shutter release).

For example, using matrix metering, if I focus on a very bright part of scene (no AE-lock), then recompose and fire a shot, then focus on a very dark part of the scene and recompose to the identical framing as in the first shot, and fire a second shot, my experience seems to tell me that the exposures will be identical, or at least very similar, the only difference being if different parts of the image have changed to or from soft focus from sharp focus. For the sake of argument, assume everything in the frame is within the depth of field. Then there should be no difference between the exposures. Correct?

--
Dana Paul Franz
[email protected]
http://dfranz.smugmug.com

'The moment an emotion or fact is transformed into a photograph it is no longer a fact but an opinion .... All photographs are accurate. None of them is the truth.' - Richard Avedon

DPFranz said:

Where you using matrix on the geese? Did you "solve" your problem?...use compensation, or go to center weighted?

Click to expand...

I went centre weighted and corrected for the snow. The D3's matrix meter does funny things with snow and beach sand. If the lighting is dim it tends to underexpose as most meters do but if the lighting is bright enough it seems to suddenly decide that it's looking at snow and compensates accordingly.

What was difficult to cope with in matrix is the small size of the centre segment and the high weight given to it. Fine if the centre subject is reasonably large but if its small and contrasts with the background, like an orange beak against the snow, the exposure wanders around all over the place.

--
Brian
Fine Art Print sales of the Isle of Skye at:
http://www.eyeofskye.co.uk/

DPFranz said:

For example, using matrix metering, if I focus on a very bright part of scene (no AE-lock), then recompose and fire a shot, then focus on a very dark part of the scene and recompose to the identical framing as in the first shot, and fire a second shot, my experience seems to tell me that the exposures will be identical, or at least very similar, the only difference being if different parts of the image have changed to or from soft focus from sharp focus. For the sake of argument, assume everything in the frame is within the depth of field. Then there should be no difference between the exposures. Correct?

Click to expand...

I think you are correct.

--
Brian
Fine Art Print sales of the Isle of Skye at:
http://www.eyeofskye.co.uk/

Honestly, you're shooting Auto ISO and trusting a camera to 'expose for you'. How about shooting manual and never needing to blame a camera ever again?

I'm not being sarcastic, just offering advice that the best professionals have always advised me.....besides you're pretty much using a pro camera, so pro technique is needed to acquire the very best from such a camera.

It's an all too common complaint I hear from people complaining about how there camera is making mistakes. Cameras cannot and NEVER will be able to provide better exposures than experience from a good photographer, so using correct technique is the only way to acquire consistent exposures.

DPFranz said:

Thanks for your reply..perhaps I should have made clear in the original post: I am under no impression that this composition has any artistic value or purpose at all other than testing, nor did I intend it to. I am reasonably competent in post-processing, and could do some serious fixing work if desired in NX2 or PSCS4, but again, this was just to test the camera.

Heh..I thought the complete boringness of this picture coupled with what I usually submit as work would make it clear that this was not a "real" shot..I'd be a little chagrined if anyone thought that I thought it was...

williams-pics said:

I will respond to both your theads here in the hope it helps you.

I have been using a D2x since it was launched and have been very satisfied with the exposures, when I added a D3 I found mine overexposed by about half a stop so I adjusted this to minus 3 in the menu, I understand the D700 has the same metering module so I would suggest you try this to give similar exposures from the two cameras.

As for your sample pictures of the people in the foreground and the overexposed background, its fairly clear that although you were unable to see difference between the light levels on the people and on the background there was a significant difference of probably 2 stops or more, and is beyond the DR of the sensor, in these situations I would have used fill in flash to ballance the exposure, since this is now no longer possible I could probably improve the picture using the H&S or layers features in Photoshop, send me a raw file if you wish and I will have a go at it.

I never use auto iso and prefer to select the iso manually, also the auto iso can give inconsistent results when using flash.
Regards,
Bruce.

Click to expand...

--
Dana Paul Franz
[email protected]
http://dfranz.smugmug.com

'The moment an emotion or fact is transformed into a photograph it is no longer a fact but an opinion .... All photographs are accurate. None of them is the truth.' - Richard Avedon

Click to expand...

Well what a strange response, I saw a "Nothing" shot which appeared to come from an amateur blaming the camera for the uneven exposure so I replied with useful advice, I won't bother in future.
Regards,
Bruce.
50 years experience in photography and counting.

No disrespect Bruce but I think you've taken the response too personally. Also, honestly after 50+ years, you're using auto exposure and compensating? Seems odd to me. If you know a camera isn't going to expose correctly, why not shoot in manual?

Exposure compensation is the best marketing gimmick ever created in photography.

williams-pics said:

DPFranz said:

Thanks for your reply..perhaps I should have made clear in the original post: I am under no impression that this composition has any artistic value or purpose at all other than testing, nor did I intend it to. I am reasonably competent in post-processing, and could do some serious fixing work if desired in NX2 or PSCS4, but again, this was just to test the camera.

Heh..I thought the complete boringness of this picture coupled with what I usually submit as work would make it clear that this was not a "real" shot..I'd be a little chagrined if anyone thought that I thought it was...

williams-pics said:

I will respond to both your theads here in the hope it helps you.

I have been using a D2x since it was launched and have been very satisfied with the exposures, when I added a D3 I found mine overexposed by about half a stop so I adjusted this to minus 3 in the menu, I understand the D700 has the same metering module so I would suggest you try this to give similar exposures from the two cameras.

As for your sample pictures of the people in the foreground and the overexposed background, its fairly clear that although you were unable to see difference between the light levels on the people and on the background there was a significant difference of probably 2 stops or more, and is beyond the DR of the sensor, in these situations I would have used fill in flash to ballance the exposure, since this is now no longer possible I could probably improve the picture using the H&S or layers features in Photoshop, send me a raw file if you wish and I will have a go at it.

I never use auto iso and prefer to select the iso manually, also the auto iso can give inconsistent results when using flash.
Regards,
Bruce.

Click to expand...

--
Dana Paul Franz
[email protected]
http://dfranz.smugmug.com

'The moment an emotion or fact is transformed into a photograph it is no longer a fact but an opinion .... All photographs are accurate. None of them is the truth.' - Richard Avedon

Click to expand...

Well what a strange response, I saw a "Nothing" shot which appeared to come from an amateur blaming the camera for the uneven exposure so I replied with useful advice, I won't bother in future.
Regards,
Bruce.
50 years experience in photography and counting.

Click to expand...

Kristian Dowling said:

No disrespect Bruce but I think you've taken the response too personally. Also, honestly after 50+ years, you're using auto exposure and compensating? Seems odd to me. If you know a camera isn't going to expose correctly, why not shoot in manual?

Click to expand...

So pray tell me what special metering have you got in manual mode that I have not got in "S" or "A" mode, none that I know of !!

Kristian Dowling said:

Exposure compensation is the best marketing gimmick ever created in photography.

Click to expand...

Once the camera metering is set up to give the optimum exposure on an average subject then you can use "A" or "S" modes and exposure compensation to get 100% success rate, I only use manual indoors with flash.
Get yourself into the 21st Century and use the technology.
Regards,
Bruce.

Kristian Dowling said:

williams-pics said:

DPFranz said:

Thanks for your reply..perhaps I should have made clear in the original post: I am under no impression that this composition has any artistic value or purpose at all other than testing, nor did I intend it to. I am reasonably competent in post-processing, and could do some serious fixing work if desired in NX2 or PSCS4, but again, this was just to test the camera.

Heh..I thought the complete boringness of this picture coupled with what I usually submit as work would make it clear that this was not a "real" shot..I'd be a little chagrined if anyone thought that I thought it was...

williams-pics said:

I will respond to both your theads here in the hope it helps you.

I have been using a D2x since it was launched and have been very satisfied with the exposures, when I added a D3 I found mine overexposed by about half a stop so I adjusted this to minus 3 in the menu, I understand the D700 has the same metering module so I would suggest you try this to give similar exposures from the two cameras.

As for your sample pictures of the people in the foreground and the overexposed background, its fairly clear that although you were unable to see difference between the light levels on the people and on the background there was a significant difference of probably 2 stops or more, and is beyond the DR of the sensor, in these situations I would have used fill in flash to ballance the exposure, since this is now no longer possible I could probably improve the picture using the H&S or layers features in Photoshop, send me a raw file if you wish and I will have a go at it.

I never use auto iso and prefer to select the iso manually, also the auto iso can give inconsistent results when using flash.
Regards,
Bruce.

Click to expand...

--
Dana Paul Franz
[email protected]
http://dfranz.smugmug.com

'The moment an emotion or fact is transformed into a photograph it is no longer a fact but an opinion .... All photographs are accurate. None of them is the truth.' - Richard Avedon

Click to expand...

Well what a strange response, I saw a "Nothing" shot which appeared to come from an amateur blaming the camera for the uneven exposure so I replied with useful advice, I won't bother in future.
Regards,
Bruce.
50 years experience in photography and counting.

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

If after 50+ years you haven't worked out that a computer isn't as good as photographic experience then there is nothing I can say to counter your response.

...except that A or S mode is still auto and still susceptible to exposure variation even if the lighting doesn't change, and exposure compensation will need to change as subjects position and colours/contrasts change, as the camera doesn't read ambient lighting....or maybe I'm wrong!?!

williams-pics said:

So pray tell me what special metering have you got in manual mode that I have not got in "S" or "A" mode, none that I know of !!

williams-pics said:

Exposure compensation is the best marketing gimmick ever created in photography.

Click to expand...

Once the camera metering is set up to give the optimum exposure on an average subject then you can use "A" or "S" modes and exposure compensation to get 100% success rate, I only use manual indoors with flash.
Get yourself into the 21st Century and use the technology.
Regards,
Bruce.

williams-pics said:

williams-pics said:

DPFranz said:

Thanks for your reply..perhaps I should have made clear in the original post: I am under no impression that this composition has any artistic value or purpose at all other than testing, nor did I intend it to. I am reasonably competent in post-processing, and could do some serious fixing work if desired in NX2 or PSCS4, but again, this was just to test the camera.

Heh..I thought the complete boringness of this picture coupled with what I usually submit as work would make it clear that this was not a "real" shot..I'd be a little chagrined if anyone thought that I thought it was...

williams-pics said:

I will respond to both your theads here in the hope it helps you.

I have been using a D2x since it was launched and have been very satisfied with the exposures, when I added a D3 I found mine overexposed by about half a stop so I adjusted this to minus 3 in the menu, I understand the D700 has the same metering module so I would suggest you try this to give similar exposures from the two cameras.

As for your sample pictures of the people in the foreground and the overexposed background, its fairly clear that although you were unable to see difference between the light levels on the people and on the background there was a significant difference of probably 2 stops or more, and is beyond the DR of the sensor, in these situations I would have used fill in flash to ballance the exposure, since this is now no longer possible I could probably improve the picture using the H&S or layers features in Photoshop, send me a raw file if you wish and I will have a go at it.

I never use auto iso and prefer to select the iso manually, also the auto iso can give inconsistent results when using flash.
Regards,
Bruce.

Click to expand...

--
Dana Paul Franz
[email protected]
http://dfranz.smugmug.com

'The moment an emotion or fact is transformed into a photograph it is no longer a fact but an opinion .... All photographs are accurate. None of them is the truth.' - Richard Avedon

Click to expand...

Well what a strange response, I saw a "Nothing" shot which appeared to come from an amateur blaming the camera for the uneven exposure so I replied with useful advice, I won't bother in future.
Regards,
Bruce.
50 years experience in photography and counting.

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

Looks like the people were exposed correctly. It is only wrong if that was not your intention.

Fill flash is needed here for a balanced exposure
--
Craig H.
Northern NJ

Fill flash would only illuminate the people at the front with less flash exposure hitting the people behind. 'Correct exposure' is very much a subjective idea, especially when it comes to backlit subjects in this case.

I believe the image was overexposed by about 1/2 to 3/4 stop, but again it is no fault of the camera. The photographer must accept responsibility for the exposure because the camera cannot read a photographer's mind in regards to what the photographer is looking to expose for....this is why 'manual exposure' is critical, and no technology in the world can ever get it right over an experienced photographer, or a photographer that chooses their own exposure.

Craig [U] H said:

Looks like the people were exposed correctly. It is only wrong if that was not your intention.

Fill flash is needed here for a balanced exposure
--
Craig H.
Northern NJ

Click to expand...

[/U]

Yes, it's a return candidate if matrix metering often give you this type of overexposure. However I would shoot without auto-iso and see if I get the same result. It could be the auto-iso acting up instead of matrix metering and that is also a return candidate.

Nikon's matrix metering for D300/D700/D3 is very accurate. It considers the whole scene and should not give you large areas of over exposure. With this type of scene MM should protect the brighter background and darken the foreground subjects. The notion that MM is very sensitive to the focus pt is overrated. This was first propagated by Thom Hogan who was shooting B/W geometric shapes in his lab. I've not found such sensitivity in real world scenes.

But MM can be capricious, it works on a complicated algorithm and a database and it doesn't always get it right. There may be some scenes which fools it completely although we can't tell why. But mis-exposures like this should be rare. If you're getting it on a frequent basis the metering is not right.

With all due respect to old-timers who propounds manual metering, I contend that a modern dslr's metering can beat your 50 years experience, the rare mis-exposure notwithstanding. Yes, it opens up photography to all and sundry who should have no right to take such well exposed photos without learning the hard way but accept it, life isn't fair.

KennyKB said:

With all due respect to old-timers who propounds manual metering, I contend that a modern dslr's metering can beat your 50 years experience, the rare mis-exposure notwithstanding.

Click to expand...

No, it can't.

KennyKB said:

Yes, it opens up photography to all and sundry who should have no right to take such well exposed photos without learning the hard way but accept it, life isn't fair.

Click to expand...

What's this? an inferiority complex? You'll never catch up, young man, till you join me at the cemetery.

In my book, AE stands for "Approximate Exposure" and EC stands for "Error Compensation".

--
Jean Bernier

All photographs are only more or less credible illusions

It is you. Look at the scene. The two-thirds of it you want prioritized are in shadow. The meter sees it like you do. You need to underexpose by 2/3rds of a stop. If the scene was as bright as the background allover you would need to overexpose by two-thirds of a stop.

Dont worry, it just becomes a habit after awhile. I regularly do this with both a D200 and A 1Ds Canon.

Yes, you will be underexposing the shadows, but with this dynamic range, other than claw back the lost highlights in Raw, which to me gives a falsified impression of DR and Colour fidelity that affects everything, there's not much else you can do.

Hello Jean-

First, I really hope to avoid conveying any snarkyness or disrespect. I only want to ask a couple of simple, un-loaded questions, and I am not trying to convey even the slightest attitude or judgement.

Do you find that upon looking at a scene, with only a single estimate (no consulting histogram and reshooting), in manual exposure mode, that you can consistently choose aperture and shutter speed such that the exposure is more accurate (or closer to your intent) than that chosen by a modern Nikon DSLR's metering system?

How about when shooting many different types of framings and ranges in a short time, where subjects switch from shaded to well-lit to moderately lit between different framings? For example, say, an outdoor political protest...near subject, far subject, sky in frame, sky not in frame, light skin/clothing, dark skin/clothing...swings of 1, 2, or more stops in EV...

In these types of conditions, I find aperture priority enables a level of speed and control that manual would not, and without which I would miss the shot. I would think that even the most experienced shooter would welcome the automated approximation, especially since one can just role the same wheels as one uses in manual to adjust the estimate if one disagrees with it.

jean bernier said:

KennyKB said:

With all due respect to old-timers who propounds manual metering, I contend that a modern dslr's metering can beat your 50 years experience, the rare mis-exposure notwithstanding.

Click to expand...

No, it can't.

jean bernier said:

Yes, it opens up photography to all and sundry who should have no right to take such well exposed photos without learning the hard way but accept it, life isn't fair.

Click to expand...

What's this? an inferiority complex? You'll never catch up, young man, till you join me at the cemetery.

In my book, AE stands for "Approximate Exposure" and EC stands for "Error Compensation".

--
Jean Bernier

All photographs are only more or less credible illusions

Click to expand...

--
Dana Paul Franz
[email protected]
http://dfranz.smugmug.com

'The moment an emotion or fact is transformed into a photograph it is no longer a fact but an opinion .... All photographs are accurate. None of them is the truth.' - Richard Avedon

DPFranz said:

Hello Jean-

First, I really hope to avoid conveying any snarkyness or disrespect. I only want to ask a couple of simple, un-loaded questions, and I am not trying to convey even the slightest attitude or judgement.

Do you find that upon looking at a scene, with only a single estimate (no consulting histogram and reshooting), in manual exposure mode, that you can consistently choose aperture and shutter speed such that the exposure is more accurate (or closer to your intent) than that chosen by a modern Nikon DSLR's metering system?

Click to expand...

Certainly not. IMO, nobody can (or have very low quality requirements). I'm not saying those that promote manual exposure are better: they use a better approach in many situations by choosing manual exposure. The closest I ever approached

" one-shot perfect exposure", note the commas, was with slide film using a handheld spotmeter: there was no better choice at the time with 35mm film, but even then, no matter the highly sophisticated $1000 Sekonic meter with zone system built-in (very expensive at the time), exposure is a matter of taste, judgement, perception, interpretation and you truly only know after the shot is taken. I use manual exposure most of the time (due to the type of work that I do), and the first shot is reasonably close to what I consider good exposure: I adjust from this shot. The second shot, and all those that follow on the particular scene, are usually perfectly exposed, whithout unwanted variations...simple as that. AE has the nasty habit of adjusting every one of the shots, even slightly and these unintentional variations mean more PP work, as well as more unnecessary fumbling while shooting in more situations than many think...Manual exposure is certainly not the lazy way to do things.

DPFranz said:

How about when shooting many different types of framings and ranges in a short time, where subjects switch from shaded to well-lit to moderately lit between different framings? For example, say, an outdoor political protest...near subject, far subject, sky in frame, sky not in frame, light skin/clothing, dark skin/clothing...swings of 1, 2, or more stops in EV...

Click to expand...

In hectic situations, I do use AE whithout a second thought. And I use it with on-camera flash too. It's so much more productive in those difficult, constantly changing situations, although a lot of work has to be done later to even out the approximate exposures. The trick is to identify the situations where manual is better suited than AE, and vice versa. This comes with experience. I do favour manual exposure whenever possible.

DPFranz said:

In these types of conditions, I find aperture priority enables a level of speed and control that manual would not, and without which I would miss the shot. I would think that even the most experienced shooter would welcome the automated approximation, especially since one can just role the same wheels as one uses in manual to adjust the estimate if one disagrees with it.

Click to expand...

that's what I just said...

IMHO there's nothing wrong with your camera. It works as designed and it is not a return candidate. You are put off a little by your new D700 because it exposes dfferently - though not worse - from your D2X. The D700 (as well as the D300 and the D3) has more emphasis on the "expose to the right" rule. Also there seems to be greater emphasis on the focus point though the degree of this is debated. This has been a returning topic in these fora since the arrival of the D300 and the D3. When the D300 was introduced there were numerous post from D2/D200 users that their new D300/D3 was "overexposing" - as compared to what they were used to with their previous camera.

First, the persons in the shadow parts of the picture are exposed spot on.

Second, when looking at the two histogrammes you provided, I'd say that it is the D2X photo that is undereposed rather than the D700 photo that is overexposed. In the D2X photo shadow details are clearly abandoned at the left side of the histogram, while the higlights don't go all the way to the right. As such the picture doesn't follow the rule of "expose to the right" - may even be labelled undereposed. In the D700 histogram the picture holds shadow details much better, and only a little of the highligt details is outside of the right side of the histogram. This can be explained by the high DR range of the picture and the emphasis on the shadows in your composition. I ran your D700 picture through Lightroom and could easily bring the highlights within the histogram by reducing the exposure, so that only tiny specs of blown highlights were visible in the sunlit walls in the background - and those were taken care of with a slight amount of highlight recovery. The shadows got darker as well, of course. If one doesn't want that one could have tried only highlight recovery with no reduction in exposure, but then the picture would have looked more flat and dull.

My conclusoon is, that the D700 RAW file is a better starting point for further work as is holds more deatails than the D2X file.

If you want to avoid this kind of exposure, just point up your camera to take in a greater part of the highlights in the picture, press the AE-lock, recompose and shoot. Then you should be fine.

One can also do it the old "color slide film way": Go to manual mode and spot meter the highlights in the background and then expose at +2.7 relative to that metering result. That way details are kept in the highlights (and the shadows will fall where they may).

KennyKB said:

The notion that MM is very sensitive to the focus pt is overrated. This was first propagated by Thom Hogan who was shooting B/W geometric shapes in his lab. I've not found such sensitivity in real world scenes.

Click to expand...

I'm sorry but this is not true. Not my experience at all. After having some trouble with metering while photographing our hens and geese I did some experiments which showed that the variability was definitely down to what was under the focus bracket. Hens are far from geometric shapes.

For this application centre weighted metering was more reliable. Matrix metering does a fine job with uncomplicated conventional scenes and with large subjects but you have to know when to abandon it.

--
Brian
Fine Art Print sales of the Isle of Skye at:
http://www.eyeofskye.co.uk/

Petruska said:

just asking what the actual ISO is set to? You may, or may not, be aware that even though you set the D700 for Auto-ISO you must set the actual ISO at say 200 or less to have the Auto_ISO ramp up as needed. What I'm getting at is that if you had the D700 Auto-ISO turned on and had the acutal ISO set at 400, it would have never droped to the 320 ISO that the D2X used in your example. It would have stayed at 400 even if the D700 metering wanted it to drop down.

Auto-ISO is not so auto if you have the actual ISO mode set to some hi-ISO.

Click to expand...

The exposure is still going to be correct ... the ISO may remain too high, but that just means that the cam will stop down the aperture or shutter more, depending on mode.

--
http://letkeman.net/Photos
http://kimletkeman.blogspot.com

jean bernier wrote:

I use manual exposure most of the time (due to the type of work that I do), and the first shot is reasonably close to what I consider good exposure: I adjust from this shot. The second shot, and all those that follow on the particular scene, are usually perfectly exposed, whithout unwanted variations...simple as that. AE has the nasty habit of adjusting every one of the shots, even slightly and these unintentional variations mean more PP work, as well as more unnecessary fumbling while shooting in more situations than many think...

Ah, this is the kernel here. I completely agree - when the light is not changing (though framing or subject arrangement may be), and one wants consistency between shots, manual is not only as good, but better. Cheers
--
Dana Paul Franz
[email protected]
http://dfranz.smugmug.com

'The moment an emotion or fact is transformed into a photograph it is no longer a fact but an opinion .... All photographs are accurate. None of them is the truth.' - Richard Avedon

olstrup said:

IMHO there's nothing wrong with your camera. It works as designed and it is not a return candidate. You are put off a little by your new D700 because it exposes dfferently - though not worse - from your D2X.

Click to expand...

After a few more days of fiddling with the camera and files, I am thinking this is correct. In fact, thinking back on processing 5 years of D2x files, I often wished the shadows were a little brighter, and noticed that the D2x is often a bit too conservative in exposing to the right. I'm 99% convinced now that I just need to become accustomed to the new hotter metering of the D700.

olstrup said:

I ran your D700 picture through Lightroom and could easily bring the highlights within the histogram by reducing the exposure

Click to expand...

I did the same, and was surprised to find that most of what the histogram was indicating was blown was, in fact, not blown. I also loaded UniWB and the histograms (on subsequent shots) are now not so worrying.

olstrup said:

My conclusoon is, that the D700 RAW file is a better starting point for further work as is holds more deatails than the D2X file.

Click to expand...

Hesitantly...I now agree.

olstrup said:

One can also do it the old "color slide film way": Go to manual mode and spot meter the highlights in the background and then expose at +2.7 relative to that metering result. That way details are kept in the highlights (and the shadows will fall where they may).

Click to expand...

I've done this method a lot. 2.7 for the D2x was indeed just about right. Are you sure that 2.7 is the magic number for the D700? I can't remember exactly what I read of the dynamic range of this camera, but I thought it was 7+ stops, which would indicate that perhaps 3EV or more would be the correct boost for spot metering on the brightest part of the frame..your thoughts?

--
Dana Paul Franz
[email protected]
http://dfranz.smugmug.com

'The moment an emotion or fact is transformed into a photograph it is no longer a fact but an opinion .... All photographs are accurate. None of them is the truth.' - Richard Avedon