Exposure compensation gone mad ?

Oricoh · Jan 14, 2024

Hey, today I have been trying to take some photos indoor (Z6ii in manual mode), and everything turns out extremely dark. Then I noticed that the exposure compensation is all the way at the bottom (-), its daylight, there is plenty of light in the room btw.

I manually changed it back to 0 and then it jumps back to the bottom max. As if it's doing auto exposure compensation (?) and doing it completely wrong...

P.s ignore the 1/60, it does the same thing with 1/400 or more.

Why is this happening?

Thom Hogan · Jan 15, 2024

Oricoh said:
I am happy to provide evidence tomorrow during day time if the light conditions are similar, if people are not bored of this thread already... but I did provide an iso 1600 image that is significantly higher than 100, and I still got a very dark photo.

No, you haven't. You've supplied a photo of the back of the camera. I'm starting to wonder about that. You have yet to supply an actual photo taken by the camera. One where we can look at the EXIF data and see what the camera actually says is happening.

michaeladawson · Jan 15, 2024

Yes, too bad. But that's still a useful data point.

Oricoh · Jan 15, 2024

Thom Hogan said:
Oricoh said:

I am happy to provide evidence tomorrow during day time if the light conditions are similar, if people are not bored of this thread already... but I did provide an iso 1600 image that is significantly higher than 100, and I still got a very dark photo.

Click to expand...

No, you haven't. You've supplied a photo of the back of the camera. I'm starting to wonder about that. You have yet to supply an actual photo taken by the camera. One where we can look at the EXIF data and see what the camera actually says is happening.

What?? https://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/67473112

Thom Hogan · Jan 15, 2024

Oricoh said:
2. The wood is under exposed but I think the top marble thing is casting some shadow over it.

3. The focus was to highlight the resin statue not so much the scene but yes it could have been slightly more exposed.

4. Note, the curtain is also half closed, I could have gotten a lot more light in....

These comments seem to indicate that you think that light is even in any setting. That is most certainly not true. Moreover, a camera, unlike your eye/brain, will not adjust for lighting that is different within a scene, it can only do one exposure.

And as someone else pointed out, the glass statue is a distinctly different target when it comes to light then your dark chair or even your bright coffee cup.

Oricoh said:
Point is again, today in the same environment

This, too, argues against you. It is not the same environment. It is not the same lighting. It is not the same subject.

Oricoh said:
It's like the camera today was misbehaving.

You seem to believe that the camera is at fault. However, your explanations and examples do not indicate that to me at all.

Oricoh · Jan 15, 2024

Thom Hogan said:
Oricoh said:

2. The wood is under exposed but I think the top marble thing is casting some shadow over it.

3. The focus was to highlight the resin statue not so much the scene but yes it could have been slightly more exposed.

4. Note, the curtain is also half closed, I could have gotten a lot more light in....

Click to expand...

These comments seem to indicate that you think that light is even in any setting. That is most certainly not true. Moreover, a camera, unlike your eye/brain, will not adjust for lighting that is different within a scene, it can only do one exposure.

And as someone else pointed out, the glass statue is a distinctly different target when it comes to light then your dark chair or even your bright coffee cup.

Thom Hogan said:

Point is again, today in the same environment

Click to expand...

This, too, argues against you. It is not the same environment. It is not the same lighting. It is not the same subject.

Thom Hogan said:

It's like the camera today was misbehaving.

Click to expand...

You seem to believe that the camera is at fault. However, your explanations and examples do not indicate that to me at all.

True, I am a complete idiot, who think the light is the same every day. I was born yesterday and I have yet to experience season changes. Thanks for your input.

People asked for more samples, so I provided them. I was fair to everyone who put effort yesterday to try and help. And my comments show that I realise that its apparently a different light issue, but you have nothing positive to say, in the other post, you accused me bizarrely for not posting a single image.... maybe just skip posts that do not interest you next time?

Thom Hogan · Jan 15, 2024

Oricoh said:
1, This is a grey metal office drawer cabinet, very ugly and should get rid of it, but it's very grey, not white.

I think we're getting to the heart of your misunderstanding. You appear to think that at any given camera exposure everything should be rendered correctly. In that backlit scene, it absolutely will not be, because some of it is being directly lit, some not lit at all except by ambient bounce. The exposure the camera (or you) picked overexposes the counter and underexposes the detail in the cup.

If we were in the film era, I'd tell you to study Ansel Adams' Zone System, which was how he came to grips with the problem you're not quite understanding here.

I'll tell a story about my late mentor, Galen Rowell, that relates. When NatGeo originally wanted to do a story about these California climbers that were doing something no one had heard about before (climbing El Capitan, North Dome, etc.), they first tried to get one of the contract pros to do the story. When he figured out what was involved in hanging off a cliff to get the photos necessary, he declined. NatGeo eventually hired one of the climbers, Galen, to take photos.

When he submitted them, he got roasted, badly, by the photo editors. For the very same things you're not seeing here: variable contrast with different lighting sources. Some of the sunlit rock was blown out. The shadow side of the climbers was underexposed. The list went on.

This experience led Galen to come up with things to solve his exposure issues. First, fill flash (his famous -1.7EV fill setting). Later graduated ND filters (Singh-Ray Galen Rowell series).

In other words, he controlled what the light was doing vis-a-vis his subjects (even if they were a mountain).

Thom Hogan · Jan 15, 2024

Oricoh said:
Thom Hogan said:

Oricoh said:

I am happy to provide evidence tomorrow during day time if the light conditions are similar, if people are not bored of this thread already... but I did provide an iso 1600 image that is significantly higher than 100, and I still got a very dark photo.

Click to expand...

No, you haven't. You've supplied a photo of the back of the camera. I'm starting to wonder about that. You have yet to supply an actual photo taken by the camera. One where we can look at the EXIF data and see what the camera actually says is happening.

Click to expand...

What?? https://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/67473112

One of the problems with the forum threads is that you can't work your way through them linearly, which in a deep thread like this leads to discontinuity of posts. I'll get to that one eventually ;~)

Thom Hogan · Jan 15, 2024

Oricoh said:
As requested I took a few similar photos today for comparison, with the same settings as yesterday.

And I'm going to skip over those because they show me a camera that is working correctly. Since your original complaint was that your camera didn't seem to be working properly, I believe we've moved past that now.

Oricoh said:
LCD:

LCD Today

What I saw yesterday on the LCD:

LCD Yesterday

I'm not sure what you're taking the back-of-camera photos with, but they tell me that the light was not at all the same between yesterday and today.
--
Thom Hogan
author, Complete Guides to Nikon bodies
bythom.com dslrbodies.com sansmirror.com zsystemuser.com

WWeber · Jan 15, 2024

I think, the title should read "photographer gone mad"

I'm very impressed by the patience especially of Thom.

john isaacs · Jan 15, 2024

Oricoh said:
Hey, today I have been trying to take some photos indoor (Z6ii in manual mode), and everything turns out extremely dark. Then I noticed that the exposure compensation is all the way at the bottom (-), its daylight, there is plenty of light in the room btw.

I manually changed it back to 0 and then it jumps back to the bottom max. As if it's doing auto exposure compensation (?) and doing it completely wrong...

P.s ignore the 1/60, it does the same thing with 1/400 or more.

Why is this happening?

I've read few most of the responses. These are my thoughts:

First, 1/60 f7.1 ISO 100 is very close to daylight exposure. That's very bright. Our eyes can decieve us. My suggestion below, but first a few other issues:

1. If EC was applied in camera, the EC symbol would be showing next to the ISO, and the EC applied would be showing in the top LCD. This is a straight exposure, which I get in my office even though I have a strong halogen light turned up high on the corner. It's not daylight level, unless I point the camera at the light.

2. Check whether the menu item "Apply Settings to live view" is ON or OFF. Try setting it to OFF, which will cause the camera to increase brightness to the level of a proper exposure. This could be the reason you see different results on the LCD from one day to the next.

3. You have already checked that there is no filter on the lens. You could also check a different lens, just to see if the aperture is broken.

My suggestion: get an app for your phone that measures LUX. This will be an independent assessment of the light level in your office.

I use Cine Meter II on my iPhone. It will use the camera as a spot meter and give you both a LUX level and let you set shutter and ISO and display corresponding aperture.

In my office, I meter the white wall behind me and get 1/60 f/8 ISO 1600. With my lamp turned up all the way.

If you do this, and do not get agreement with your camera, then yes, something is wrong.

Mach Schnell · Jan 15, 2024

This is a great example of why it makes no sense to use exposure compensation when shooting in manual exposure.

michaeladawson · Jan 15, 2024

Thom Hogan said:
Thom Hogan wrote:I'm not sure what you're taking the back-of-camera photos with, but they tell me that the light was not at all the same between yesterday and today.

Well, it's clearly an iPhone as shown in the info when you hover over the photo.

But I agree. The camera with the LCD displayed is clearly getting direct sun from the window in today's photo. The camera from yesterday's photo does not display any sun.

Oricoh · Jan 15, 2024

Thom Hogan said:
Oricoh said:

1, This is a grey metal office drawer cabinet, very ugly and should get rid of it, but it's very grey, not white.

Click to expand...

I think we're getting to the heart of your misunderstanding. You appear to think that at any given camera exposure everything should be rendered correctly. In that backlit scene, it absolutely will not be, because some of it is being directly lit, some not lit at all except by ambient bounce. The exposure the camera (or you) picked overexposes the counter and underexposes the detail in the cup.

If we were in the film era, I'd tell you to study Ansel Adams' Zone System, which was how he came to grips with the problem you're not quite understanding here.

I'll tell a story about my late mentor, Galen Rowell, that relates. When NatGeo originally wanted to do a story about these California climbers that were doing something no one had heard about before (climbing El Capitan, North Dome, etc.), they first tried to get one of the contract pros to do the story. When he figured out what was involved in hanging off a cliff to get the photos necessary, he declined. NatGeo eventually hired one of the climbers, Galen, to take photos.

When he submitted them, he got roasted, badly, by the photo editors. For the very same things you're not seeing here: variable contrast with different lighting sources. Some of the sunlit rock was blown out. The shadow side of the climbers was underexposed. The list went on.

This experience led Galen to come up with things to solve his exposure issues. First, fill flash (his famous -1.7EV fill setting). Later graduated ND filters (Singh-Ray Galen Rowell series).

In other words, he controlled what the light was doing vis-a-vis his subjects (even if they were a mountain).

Thanks, this are good stories/example, and I love Ansel Adams.

I think this thread is interesting but can be a bit confusing and went a bit sideways, I'll try to explain:

My initial post was about an error I made reading the UI on the LCD that shows over/under exposure. In other modes I am used to it showing the amount of exposure compensation that me the user sets. I was on manual mode and I didn't understand why its disobeying me.... i.e the UI was all the way at the bottom, and the image was totally dark, so I was trying to bring it up to 0 and then it kept jumping back to the bottom.

I thought this was the problem with the camera. And people pointed out that in manual mode it's not showing the exposure compensation but the later.

Then this thread became a discussion about how much I think the light in my room is correct vs. what the camera is telling... so the discussion is become a bit of a mix between the two topics.

to conclude: I realise I didn't know how to read the UI in manual mode, its my mistake. I also felt that the camera is somehow misreading the light in my room and I thought there might have been some deep setting that I messed up, but apparently the camera is correct.

Anyway I apologise for the mixture of two related topics that can cause this misunderstandings.

Oricoh · Jan 15, 2024

WWeber said:
I think, the title should read "photographer gone mad"

I'm very impressed by the patience especially of Thom.

Many thanks for your contribution, was waiting for someone like you to jump in

Oricoh · Jan 15, 2024

Mach Schnell said:
This is a great example of why it makes no sense to use exposure compensation when shooting in manual exposure.

Hi Mach, check out my reply here to explain what happened here, the thread went sideways because it forked the discussion in different ways: https://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/67473430

WWeber · Jan 15, 2024

Oricoh said:
WWeber said:

I think, the title should read "photographer gone mad"

I'm very impressed by the patience especially of Thom.

Click to expand...

Many thanks for your contribution, was waiting for someone like you to jump in

Sorry, but I can't understand why you are constantly refusing that not the camera but you are in error about the correct exposure. Many contributors have repeated, that the exposure you expect isn't applicable to the situation.

And the photo with auto exposure you provided proofs, that the camera got it right.

In the software development we often say, the problem ist located in front of the keyboard most of the time.

Thom Hogan · Jan 15, 2024

Oricoh said:
Anyway I apologise for the mixture of two related topics that can cause this misunderstandings.

No need to apologize.

Perhaps it is my Silicon Valley perspective, but failure is always good, at least if you learn from it. I look at everything I do as a learning experience, period. I learned from this set of threads, too.

Long, long ago I made it a practice to not enter contests or accept awards. This is the corollary of my failure comment: success is not always good, particularly because it makes people believe that they are always doing the right thing.

Oricoh · Jan 15, 2024

WWeber said:
Oricoh said:

WWeber said:

I think, the title should read "photographer gone mad"

I'm very impressed by the patience especially of Thom.

Click to expand...

Many thanks for your contribution, was waiting for someone like you to jump in

Click to expand...

Sorry, but I can't understand why you are constantly refusing that not the camera but you are in error about the correct exposure. Many contributors have repeated, that the exposure you expect isn't applicable to the situation.

And the photo with auto exposure you provided proofs, that the camera got it right.

In the software development we often say, the problem ist located in front of the keyboard most of the time.

I am not, and obviously you didn't read the whole thread. But I don't blame you because the topic started as something and turned into a completely different (although related) discussion.

It started because I misunderstood the UI of over/under exposure in manual mode. In other modes it's showing exposure compensation, but in manual its showing the camera's reading of over/under exposure. I thought there is a problem with the camera that is reducing exposure compensation all the way down and ignoring my instruction to bring it up to 0. I thought this is the reason why my image is dark.

This spun a whole new discussion whether I know how to read the light, and who is correct, me or the camera. And because it's a long thread some people (like you) do not follow the context. I also loose track who I am answering to, so it makes a mess.

I hope this is clear now.

michaeladawson · Jan 15, 2024

Mach Schnell said:
This is a great example of why it makes no sense to use exposure compensation when shooting in manual exposure.

Just to be totally clear... I would amend what you say to read "in full manual exposure". That leaves no doubt as to whether one is using auto ISO. I say that only because I think some people still talk about being in manual mode even though they have auto ISO set. Manual mode is used in this sense to indicate that they photographer is choosing both aperture and priority.

But I do agree with you. However, for the OCD inclined, who must have the "0" point show when they have achieved the exposure they are after, exposure compensation in full manual mode serves the purpose of intentionally biasing the exposure to plus or minus. It can also help those photographers who want to bias the exposure, but don't have the muscle memory to quickly remember which way to turn the dials or get confused as to whether the scale reading means more exposure or less exposure is needed.

buildingsights · Jan 15, 2024

michaeladawson said:
Mach Schnell said:

This is a great example of why it makes no sense to use exposure compensation when shooting in manual exposure.

Click to expand...

Just to be totally clear... I would amend what you say to read "in full manual exposure". That leaves no doubt as to whether one is using auto ISO. I say that only because I think some people still talk about being in manual mode even though they have auto ISO set. Manual mode is used in this sense to indicate that they photographer is choosing both aperture and priority.

But I do agree with you. However, for the OCD inclined, who must have the "0" point show when they have achieved the exposure they are after, exposure compensation in full manual mode serves the purpose of intentionally biasing the exposure to plus or minus. It can also help those photographers who want to bias the exposure, but don't have the muscle memory to quickly remember which way to turn the dials or get confused as to whether the scale reading means more exposure or less exposure is needed.

if one were to use 'full manual' and choose the correct exposure by selecting the aperture, the shutter speed and the ISO (i.e. not auto ISO), in this case Exposure Compensation has no influence/effect on the exposure that you chose.

Exposure compensation gone mad ?

Active member

Forum Pro

Forum Pro

Active member

Forum Pro

Active member

Forum Pro

Forum Pro

Forum Pro

Forum Enthusiast

Forum Pro

Senior Member

Forum Pro

Active member

Active member

Active member

Forum Enthusiast

Forum Pro

Active member

Forum Pro

Leading Member

Similar threads

Keyboard shortcuts