Reading mode: Light Dark

GFX100S II Metering

Go to last post
JimKasson said:
I've never seen an AWB algorithm that works anywhere near as well as WB to a gray card.
Click to expand...
That is true but auto WB has improved greatly. Plus, you can do with temp whatever you want in post.

Not many people walk around with a gray card, but yes, if he is being deliberate with the flowers there is nothing hard about placing a card in the scene for a test shot in order to hit it with the temp dropper in LR in post later (or set a custom WB for that scene).

By the way, I know what a gray card looks like, so I sometimes find a portion of the scene that looks like the color of a gray card and hit it with the dropper in LR.
 
Greg7579 said:
JimKasson said:
I've never seen an AWB algorithm that works anywhere near as well as WB to a gray card.
Click to expand...
That is true but auto WB has improved greatly. Plus, you can do with temp whatever you want in post.

Not many people walk around with a gray card, but yes, if he is being deliberate with the flowers there is nothing hard about placing a card in the scene for a test shot in order to hit it with the temp dropper in LR in post later (or set a custom WB for that scene).

By the way, I know what a gray card looks like, so I sometimes find a portion of the scene that looks like the color of a gray card and hit it with the dropper in LR.
Click to expand...
If you can find something you know is neutral in a scene, you're right: you can wb to that.
 
JimKasson said:
Greg7579 said:
JimKasson said:
Greg7579 said:
JimKasson said:
SrMi said:
What is the point of exact metering if you are not shooting JPEGs?

At base ISO, you want to maximize the light hitting the sensor. Metering does not help with that; histogram and clipping help. Some can use their experience with metering data to guestimate the sensor saturation. But that is winging it.

Metering does not matter at higher ISOs: set the maximum exposure possible and lower the ISO to preserve highlights. The most relevant information is whether relevant highlights are clipped.
Click to expand...
What he said...
Click to expand...
You guys make this way too hard.
Click to expand...
What's hard about looking at the histogram?
JimKasson said:
There is zero challenge in getting good exposures in 2024.
Click to expand...
Getting the best exposure is the objective, not just getting one that is acceptable.
JimKasson said:
Anyone can do it 98% of the time, especially with GFX shooting raw.
Click to expand...
Actually, I think it's harder to get the optimal exposure when shooting raw than it is shooting JPEG. At least with JPEG the finder brightness means something.
Click to expand...
That is where you would be incorrect. Tons more latitude with raw. You know this.
Click to expand...
The objective of an optimal exposure is to maximize IQ. The fact that you can recover from underexposure (but not overexposure, except by inventing data) doesn't change that. You need to look at raw file values.
Click to expand...
 
Adam Kingston said:
JimKasson said:
Greg7579 said:
JimKasson said:
Greg7579 said:
JimKasson said:
SrMi said:
What is the point of exact metering if you are not shooting JPEGs?

At base ISO, you want to maximize the light hitting the sensor. Metering does not help with that; histogram and clipping help. Some can use their experience with metering data to guestimate the sensor saturation. But that is winging it.

Metering does not matter at higher ISOs: set the maximum exposure possible and lower the ISO to preserve highlights. The most relevant information is whether relevant highlights are clipped.
Click to expand...
What he said...
Click to expand...
You guys make this way too hard.
Click to expand...
What's hard about looking at the histogram?
Member said:
There is zero challenge in getting good exposures in 2024.
Click to expand...
Getting the best exposure is the objective, not just getting one that is acceptable.
Member said:
Anyone can do it 98% of the time, especially with GFX shooting raw.
Click to expand...
Actually, I think it's harder to get the optimal exposure when shooting raw than it is shooting JPEG. At least with JPEG the finder brightness means something.
Click to expand...
That is where you would be incorrect. Tons more latitude with raw. You know this.
Click to expand...
The objective of an optimal exposure is to maximize IQ. The fact that you can recover from underexposure (but not overexposure, except by inventing data) doesn't change that. You need to look at raw file values.
Click to expand...
So now you're saying the in-camera histogram is no good either?
Click to expand...
It's not no good. It's not a binary situation. It can be made better with user adjustments.

Using in-camera histograms for ETTR - the last word

If you're interested in the whole topic, it's probably a good idea to read each section in order. If you just want to do the calibration and have access to Rawdigger, Photoshop, and Excel, read this: Preparing for monitor-based UniWB and do this: A one-step UniWB procedure. Acknowledgments Why...
blog.kasson.com blog.kasson.com

These techniques have been around since the aughts.
 
Adam Kingston said:
JimKasson said:
Greg7579 said:
JimKasson said:
Greg7579 said:
JimKasson said:
SrMi said:
What is the point of exact metering if you are not shooting JPEGs?

At base ISO, you want to maximize the light hitting the sensor. Metering does not help with that; histogram and clipping help. Some can use their experience with metering data to guestimate the sensor saturation. But that is winging it.

Metering does not matter at higher ISOs: set the maximum exposure possible and lower the ISO to preserve highlights. The most relevant information is whether relevant highlights are clipped.
Click to expand...
What he said...
Click to expand...
You guys make this way too hard.
Click to expand...
What's hard about looking at the histogram?
Member said:
There is zero challenge in getting good exposures in 2024.
Click to expand...
Getting the best exposure is the objective, not just getting one that is acceptable.
Member said:
Anyone can do it 98% of the time, especially with GFX shooting raw.
Click to expand...
Actually, I think it's harder to get the optimal exposure when shooting raw than it is shooting JPEG. At least with JPEG the finder brightness means something.
Click to expand...
That is where you would be incorrect. Tons more latitude with raw. You know this.
Click to expand...
The objective of an optimal exposure is to maximize IQ. The fact that you can recover from underexposure (but not overexposure, except by inventing data) doesn't change that. You need to look at raw file values.
Click to expand...
So now you're saying the in-camera histogram is no good either?
Click to expand...
It is a jpeg histo of whatever film sim you are using. Not raw. But Jim has seen enough raw histo's in Raw Digger of those shots after seeing the jpeg in camera histo to know how to use the jpeg histo to get a good indication of the best exposure.

And then there is the histo in LR.....
 
Greg7579 said:
It is a jpeg histo of whatever film sim you are using. Not raw. But Jim has seen enough raw histo's in Raw Digger of those shots after seeing the jpeg in camera histo to know how to use the jpeg histo to get a good indication of the best exposure.
Click to expand...
Righto.
Greg7579 said:
And then there is the histo in LR.....
Click to expand...
Which is the source of much confusion...
 
JimKasson said:
Greg7579 said:
It is a jpeg histo of whatever film sim you are using. Not raw. But Jim has seen enough raw histo's in Raw Digger of those shots after seeing the jpeg in camera histo to know how to use the jpeg histo to get a good indication of the best exposure.
Click to expand...
Righto.
JimKasson said:
And then there is the histo in LR.....
Click to expand...
Which is the source of much confusion...
Click to expand...
All of this brings me back to one of my pet peeves. We pay multiple thousands of dollars for very capable digital cameras. That shoot raw. That have increasingly good dynamic range. (Don’t get me started on mostly useless video capability.) And yet they cannot give us an accurate, raw-based histogram? Arrrghhh…..

Jim, is there some technical reason for this “lack?” Or, are digital camera mfgs. just obtuse.

Rand
 
Rand 47 said:
JimKasson said:
Greg7579 said:
It is a jpeg histo of whatever film sim you are using. Not raw. But Jim has seen enough raw histo's in Raw Digger of those shots after seeing the jpeg in camera histo to know how to use the jpeg histo to get a good indication of the best exposure.
Click to expand...
Righto.
Rand 47 said:
And then there is the histo in LR.....
Click to expand...
Which is the source of much confusion...
Click to expand...
All of this brings me back to one of my pet peeves. We pay multiple thousands of dollars for very capable digital cameras. That shoot raw. That have increasingly good dynamic range. (Don’t get me started on mostly useless video capability.) And yet they cannot give us an accurate, raw-based histogram? Arrrghhh…..

Jim, is there some technical reason for this “lack?”
Click to expand...
Not a big one.
Rand 47 said:
Or, are digital camera mfgs. just obtuse.
Click to expand...
I'll bet the engineers would love to implement that feature if the product managers declared it a priority.
 
JimKasson said:
Rand 47 said:
JimKasson said:
Greg7579 said:
It is a jpeg histo of whatever film sim you are using. Not raw. But Jim has seen enough raw histo's in Raw Digger of those shots after seeing the jpeg in camera histo to know how to use the jpeg histo to get a good indication of the best exposure.
Click to expand...
Righto.
JimKasson said:
And then there is the histo in LR.....
Click to expand...
Which is the source of much confusion...
Click to expand...
All of this brings me back to one of my pet peeves. We pay multiple thousands of dollars for very capable digital cameras. That shoot raw. That have increasingly good dynamic range. (Don’t get me started on mostly useless video capability.) And yet they cannot give us an accurate, raw-based histogram? Arrrghhh…..

Jim, is there some technical reason for this “lack?”
Click to expand...
Not a big one.
JimKasson said:
Or, are digital camera mfgs. just obtuse.
Click to expand...
I'll bet the engineers would love to implement that feature if the product managers declared it a priority.
Click to expand...
Product managers recognize that only a few use histograms to set the exposure. Most use automatic metering and EVF brightness instead. ;-)
 
SrMi said:
JimKasson said:
Rand 47 said:
JimKasson said:
Greg7579 said:
It is a jpeg histo of whatever film sim you are using. Not raw. But Jim has seen enough raw histo's in Raw Digger of those shots after seeing the jpeg in camera histo to know how to use the jpeg histo to get a good indication of the best exposure.
Click to expand...
Righto.
SrMi said:
And then there is the histo in LR.....
Click to expand...
Which is the source of much confusion...
Click to expand...
All of this brings me back to one of my pet peeves. We pay multiple thousands of dollars for very capable digital cameras. That shoot raw. That have increasingly good dynamic range. (Don’t get me started on mostly useless video capability.) And yet they cannot give us an accurate, raw-based histogram? Arrrghhh…..

Jim, is there some technical reason for this “lack?”
Click to expand...
Not a big one.
SrMi said:
Or, are digital camera mfgs. just obtuse.
Click to expand...
I'll bet the engineers would love to implement that feature if the product managers declared it a priority.
Click to expand...
Product managers recognize that only a few use histograms to set the exposure. Most use automatic metering and EVF brightness instead. ;-)
Click to expand...
LOL, good one! And I would respond with, “Yeah, because the bastages won’t give me a real histogram! So we have to cobble together what we can to get close.”

Made my day…. LOL

Rand
 
Rand 47 said:
JimKasson said:
Greg7579 said:
It is a jpeg histo of whatever film sim you are using. Not raw. But Jim has seen enough raw histo's in Raw Digger of those shots after seeing the jpeg in camera histo to know how to use the jpeg histo to get a good indication of the best exposure.
Click to expand...
Righto.
Rand 47 said:
And then there is the histo in LR.....
Click to expand...
Which is the source of much confusion...
Click to expand...
All of this brings me back to one of my pet peeves. We pay multiple thousands of dollars for very capable digital cameras. That shoot raw. That have increasingly good dynamic range. (Don’t get me started on mostly useless video capability.) And yet they cannot give us an accurate, raw-based histogram? Arrrghhh…..

Jim, is there some technical reason for this “lack?” Or, are digital camera mfgs. just obtuse.

Rand
Click to expand...
We have had this discussion for years and my rants four years ago were legendary. The inventor of Raw Digger came on here one time and explained why he thinks we don't have actual raw histos in camera.

Some of it has to do with the fact that we like to have a pretty developed jpeg to look at in our EVF while we compose and shoot vs what a flat unprocessed raw looks like and the work it would take to display it in camera.
 
SrMi said:
JimKasson said:
Rand 47 said:
JimKasson said:
Greg7579 said:
It is a jpeg histo of whatever film sim you are using. Not raw. But Jim has seen enough raw histo's in Raw Digger of those shots after seeing the jpeg in camera histo to know how to use the jpeg histo to get a good indication of the best exposure.
Click to expand...
Righto.
SrMi said:
And then there is the histo in LR.....
Click to expand...
Which is the source of much confusion...
Click to expand...
All of this brings me back to one of my pet peeves. We pay multiple thousands of dollars for very capable digital cameras. That shoot raw. That have increasingly good dynamic range. (Don’t get me started on mostly useless video capability.) And yet they cannot give us an accurate, raw-based histogram? Arrrghhh…..

Jim, is there some technical reason for this “lack?”
Click to expand...
Not a big one.
SrMi said:
Or, are digital camera mfgs. just obtuse.
Click to expand...
I'll bet the engineers would love to implement that feature if the product managers declared it a priority.
Click to expand...
Product managers recognize that only a few use histograms to set the exposure. Most use automatic metering and EVF brightness instead. ;-)
Click to expand...
Well, two people do. Jim and Bayonet. LOL. But they use the "metering" to get it close, and if they used the "evaluative meter" 95% of their shots would be very nicely exposed and 100% with a little EC.
 
Greg7579 said:
JimKasson said:
I've never seen an AWB algorithm that works anywhere near as well as WB to a gray card.
Click to expand...
That is true but auto WB has improved greatly. Plus, you can do with temp whatever you want in post.

Not many people walk around with a gray card, but yes, if he is being deliberate with the flowers there is nothing hard about placing a card in the scene for a test shot in order to hit it with the temp dropper in LR in post later (or set a custom WB for that scene).

By the way, I know what a gray card looks like, so I sometimes find a portion of the scene that looks like the color of a gray card and hit it with the dropper in LR.
Click to expand...
Determining correct exposure and White Balance is pretty easy in this particular shooting situation - I have the orchid right in front of me. I have hundreds of orchid shots taken over many years, with a number of different cameras. As I mentioned, when I started I had problems getting accurate colors for the orchids - I solved that by measuring my light color temp and setting WB to that value. On occasion, I have forgotten to set the WB and the camera used Auto WB - and the results were still accurate - so I think cameras have gotten better.

The other WB issue was shooting snowy scenes. (I live on the west side of Las Vegas, and yes, we do actually get snow sometimes!). My older cameras consistently failed to get this right with Auto WB - my newer cameras don't seem to have that problem any more.

David
 
David Redfearn said:
Greg7579 said:
JimKasson said:
I've never seen an AWB algorithm that works anywhere near as well as WB to a gray card.
Click to expand...
That is true but auto WB has improved greatly. Plus, you can do with temp whatever you want in post.

Not many people walk around with a gray card, but yes, if he is being deliberate with the flowers there is nothing hard about placing a card in the scene for a test shot in order to hit it with the temp dropper in LR in post later (or set a custom WB for that scene).

By the way, I know what a gray card looks like, so I sometimes find a portion of the scene that looks like the color of a gray card and hit it with the dropper in LR.
Click to expand...
Determining correct exposure and White Balance is pretty easy in this particular shooting situation -
Click to expand...
Exactly. That is what I was thinking throughout this entire thread. Same with determining EV - no longer much of a challenge, especially for people on this forum, no matter how you do it - the hard way or my way. 😁

David Redfearn said:
I have the orchid right in front of me. I have hundreds of orchid shots taken over many years, with a number of different cameras. As I mentioned, when I started I had problems getting accurate colors for the orchids - I solved that by measuring my light color temp and setting WB to that value. On occasion, I have forgotten to set the WB and the camera used Auto WB - and the results were still accurate - so I think cameras have gotten better.
Click to expand...
They have in every way, including computational power and its algorithms (Auto WB & Evaluative Metering).
David Redfearn said:
The other WB issue was shooting snowy scenes. (I live on the west side of Las Vegas, and yes, we do actually get snow sometimes!). My older cameras consistently failed to get this right with Auto WB - my newer cameras don't seem to have that problem any more.
Click to expand...
The snow and white on dark WB thing was fixed in Fuji cameras (and others) 4 years ago and it was never a problem anyway because it was instantly fixed in LR in about 2 seconds.
David Redfearn said:
David
Click to expand...
 
I am the OP for this thread. It is very interesting how this thread got wider and deeper as the discussion proceeded. I found the discussion very informative. I can say, however, that I won't be converting to manual exposure control!

In following the discussion I didn't see any mention of using the camera exposure bracketing function (maybe I missed it). If I was using the camera AE function (e.g., Matrix Metering) and I was uncertain about whether the camera had exposed correctly I would likely turn to AE bracketing as a backup. The camera options are extensive: 3, 5, 7, or 9 +/- or 2 or 3 under or over - with step sizes from 1/3 to 3 EV. I might use 1/3 EV with 3 shots as "insurance". This is another example where camera automation can help.

I'm wondering now if any of the MF masters here use this function. Obviously not if you expose manually!

David
 
David Redfearn said:
I am the OP for this thread. It is very interesting how this thread got wider and deeper as the discussion proceeded. I found the discussion very informative. I can say, however, that I won't be converting to manual exposure control!

In following the discussion I didn't see any mention of using the camera exposure bracketing function (maybe I missed it). If I was using the camera AE function (e.g., Matrix Metering) and I was uncertain about whether the camera had exposed correctly I would likely turn to AE bracketing as a backup. The camera options are extensive: 3, 5, 7, or 9 +/- or 2 or 3 under or over - with step sizes from 1/3 to 3 EV. I might use 1/3 EV with 3 shots as "insurance". This is another example where camera automation can help.

I'm wondering now if any of the MF masters here use this function. Obviously not if you expose manually!
Click to expand...
I am not a fan of exposure bracketing. I find that, outside the studio, even if the scene appears static, it's not really that way, and bracketing increases the probability that the best image except for exposure will not have the right exposure.

Jim
 
David Redfearn said:
I am the OP for this thread. It is very interesting how this thread got wider and deeper as the discussion proceeded. I found the discussion very informative. I can say, however, that I won't be converting to manual exposure control!

In following the discussion I didn't see any mention of using the camera exposure bracketing function (maybe I missed it). If I was using the camera AE function (e.g., Matrix Metering) and I was uncertain about whether the camera had exposed correctly I would likely turn to AE bracketing as a backup. The camera options are extensive: 3, 5, 7, or 9 +/- or 2 or 3 under or over - with step sizes from 1/3 to 3 EV. I might use 1/3 EV with 3 shots as "insurance". This is another example where camera automation can help.

I'm wondering now if any of the MF masters here use this function. Obviously not if you expose manually!

David
Click to expand...
I have used bracketing on a multi shot HDR (which I don't do anymore with GFX).

I would not use bracketing in a normal single shot shooting as insurance because with the multi meter, it would be rare to be more than a full stop off in a situation where you have a whole lot of white or black in the frame (which is the only situation that can really fool that multi setting and throw it off a stop). But sometimes when I'm in doubt I'll take an insurance shot with EC Plus or Minus as I see fit. I'm looking at the histo in those situations.

Now, having said that, if I'm on a tripod indoors or in steady light, I might bracket. Why not? You can use it later for HDR merging if you want or pick the best one to work as a single shot.

--
Greg Johnson, San Antonio, Texas
https://www.flickr.com/photos/139148982@N02/albums
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Keyboard shortcuts

f
Forum
m
My threads
Mobile site
About
Editorial content
Cameras & Lenses
Community
All content, design, and layout are Copyright © 1998–2025 Digital Photography Review All Rights Reserved.
Reproduction in whole or part in any form or medium without specific written permission is prohibited.
When you use DPReview links to buy products, the site may earn a commission.
©GPS Media - Guides, Products, Services.
Back
Top