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

[SCoombs]

I generally understand how metering works in cameras broadly speaking, the system's aim for middle gray, etc., and the particular of how it is supposed to work Nikon cameras specifically. I have nevertheless found myself confused as to how my Z8 is metering a lot of the time.

Note that all examples here are using matrix metering with the b4 matrix metering face detection turned on. I have experimented with b4 turned off, as well as with center weighted and spot metering and while they obviously work a bit differently, the general theme is consistent.

For example, from a few weeks ago there is this shot:



You'll notice in the EXIF that this was shot at +2/3 exposure compensation. That is because during this shoot I noticed that it was consistently underexposing by 2/3 to 4/3 stops and I set the EC to mitigate. This photo I post with the exposure slider down 2/3 so we can roughly see how the camera actually metered it.

My first thought when I see something like this is that the bright sky in the background is responsible, so let's examine a shot where that is not really a major factor:



This is also metering around 2/3 of a stop darker than I'd think that it ought to be. Another, this time with no very bright areas in the background:



This one is still bit too dark but is nevertheless better than the first two except that it really is not the way the scene looked. It was to the eye much brighter, more like this:



In fact, all of the shots above looked that way to the naked eye. (By the way, all three of the above were lit by facing a very large, unobstructed, bright overcast sky.

Of course, the way the human eye sees things is not the same way that the camera sees things. Yet the following shots, taken quickly just to provide examples for this post, were in very similar lighting yet metered to almost perfectly match what the naked eye saw:















Obviously these are only six examples, but the bottom line is this: in the year and a half of owning the Z8 and after taking almost 300,000 shots with it, I've had to boost exposure by between 1/2 to a full stop over the way it metered in the vast, vast majority of photos I've taken, across every imaginable combination of colors, shadings, and brightnesses in the foreground, they background, etc. What's the reason for this?

One more somewhat odd thing I've noticed while trying to experiment with the metering: the camera often seems to meter a brighter for narrower apertures than for wider ones. For instance, consider the following two shots taken right back to back in constant lighting:















The shot of the thing in the window may be more difficult to spot the difference in, but it's a lot clearly when you click back and forth between them. The one on the couch is easier to see the difference with, but regardless I have a lot of examples in all sorts of different types of lighting with the same phenomenon.

An interesting thing about these is that if you look at the settings, things actually make sense. In both cases, when the aperture is closed down by 4/3 of a stop the auto-ISO boosted by about 4/3 of a stop - BUT the f2.8 shot is brighter. I have quite a few back-to-back shots of all sorts of different things where the same thing happens moving from f1.8 to f2.8.

Now perhaps part of what is going on is that this lens is more relatively efficient at transmitting light at f2.8 than at f1.8. That would sort of explain things IF were were just talking about someone shooting in full manual and making a four-click adjustment to ISO for a 4 click change in aperture. In that case, if the lens were a bit more efficient at f2.8 then sure, the shot might look brighter.

However in this case it is the camera's metering making the choice of ISO, so it is not just looking at the change in aperture and changing the ISO by the equivalent amount: it is freshly metering the scene in both cases and judging that the exact same scene should be slightly brighter when at f2.8. With auto while balance on, it also consistently chooses a somewhat cooler temperature for the f2.8 shots than the f1.8 shots.

 

[ghostfox_1]

Well, first things first, I'd look at the histograms instead of the image files to see what's going on. You might have ADL enabled, or highlight weighted metering options selected, etc etc. There's other things going on than just what you mentioned.

Besides that, in your last two sets of images, you closed down by 1 stop, ISO went up by one stop (and a third, give or take). This says to me that the scene fell imperfectly between third stops, and it made choices differently based on what it was seeing (again, the histogram would be more informative here). I also don't see any appreciable difference in actual brightness in the last two images, while with the raindrop I see a small different in the edge of the window or whatever that is.

I don't really have comments about the first images, because I'd want to see the histograms for them before commenting. I have tended to notice nikon tries to save highlights more across the board, but I haven't noticed a huge under exposure issue with my settings and shooting wildlife in all sorts of conditions (edge cases aside, shooting egrets in bright light with spot metering, etc where I suspect any system would have some sort of tradeoff).

 

[SCoombs]

Well, first things first, I'd look at the histograms instead of the image files to see what's going on. You might have ADL enabled, or highlight weighted metering options selected, etc etc. There's other things going on than just what you mentioned.

No ADL and not highlight weighted. I have messed around with ADL a bit and I go back and forth on it but generally I usually decide after using it that I won't use it again, but then a few months pass and I decide to give it another try, always winding up making the same decision again.

Besides that, in your last two sets of images, you closed down by 1 stop, ISO went up by one stop (and a third, give or take). This says to me that the scene fell imperfectly between third stops, and it made choices differently based on what it was seeing (again, the histogram would be more informative here). I also don't see any appreciable difference in actual brightness in the last two images, while with the raindrop I see a small different in the edge of the window or whatever that is.

f2.8 to f1.8 is not 1 stop. It is 1.3 stops.

Regardless, the difference in brightness is considerable in that shot of the kids. Look especially at the fabric on the couch to the left, where I think it is extremely noticeable.

You can see it in the histograms:

I don't really have comments about the first images, because I'd want to see the histograms for them before commenting. I have tended to notice nikon tries to save highlights more across the board, but I haven't noticed a huge under exposure issue with my settings and shooting wildlife in all sorts of conditions (edge cases aside, shooting egrets in bright light with spot metering, etc where I suspect any system would have some sort of tradeoff).

I can show you the histograms, but keep in mind that I am trying to ask about how the camera is metering things - not how I am adjusting things based on the histogram.

For that very first picture, here is the histogram:



Vs. the histogram after I worked on it:



You can see that the way the camera metered if there was a LOT of headroom on the right hand side of the histogram. To be clear, I'm not talking about the part of the histogram that is very low on the right but still there: I'm talking about the top ~5% of so which has literally nothing on the histogram. Yet this is how the camera metered it in regular matrix metering, no ADL, nothing else special. It metered it in a way that strikes me as even more unusual given the histogram.

Another:



I didn't fully edit this one, but here is the histogram just applying LR's auto and adjusting it to look about where I'd probably start off with editing:



Again, the camera's metering - just regular matrix, no ADL, nothing else out of the ordinary - seems like it's going with a histogram that is not really hitting center the way I'd expect.

Here's another one where it leaves headroom on the right (like above, I don't just mean the very low part on the right, but the in this case I'd say ~7% where there is literally nothing on the right):



And a much more correct looking edit where literally all I have done is increase the exposure by about 1 stop. The histogram looks a lot more correct here, too:



In case anyone asks, the reason LrC has texture and clarity set by default to +8/+4 is that this is its interpretation of Nikon's sharpening.

 

[ghostfox_1]

Besides that, in your last two sets of images, you closed down by 1 stop, ISO went up by one stop (and a third, give or take). This says to me that the scene fell imperfectly between third stops, and it made choices differently based on what it was seeing (again, the histogram would be more informative here). I also don't see any appreciable difference in actual brightness in the last two images, while with the raindrop I see a small different in the edge of the window or whatever that is.

f2.8 to f1.8 is not 1 stop. It is 1.3 stops.

Regardless, the difference in brightness is considerable in that shot of the kids. Look especially at the fabric on the couch to the left, where I think it is extremely noticeable.

You can see it in the histograms:

Yeah, but I don't think the image as a whole is brighter. I think the hand position is allowing more light to be shown on the couch, vs on the hand, but the overall brightness is the same. You can see the dropoff sharpen after the first 'm' in 85 mm, as well as it being decreased as you go to the right. No real difference in total light, as recorded by the raw. Just sharper because the couch was better lit, at the cost of the other areas being less lit. The ISO changes also perfectly matches, so the metering becomes the same.

I don't really have comments about the first images, because I'd want to see the histograms for them before commenting. I have tended to notice nikon tries to save highlights more across the board, but I haven't noticed a huge under exposure issue with my settings and shooting wildlife in all sorts of conditions (edge cases aside, shooting egrets in bright light with spot metering, etc where I suspect any system would have some sort of tradeoff).

I can show you the histograms, but keep in mind that I am trying to ask about how the camera is metering things - not how I am adjusting things based on the histogram.

Yeah, but the histogram tells us what the camera actually sees, vs a subjective brightness view depending on our individual monitors, settings, etc etc etc. That's why I wanted them.

For that very first picture, here is the histogram:

Looks a little dark, but not egregiously so.

Vs. the histogram after I worked on it:



You can see that the way the camera metered if there was a LOT of headroom on the right hand side of the histogram.

Nikon raws tend to have a stop of headroom in my experience, because the metering in camera is likely based on what would become the jpg (or jpg preview file). Since that usually goes brighter than the raws, it avoids blowing out the highlights in the jpg files. Try setting different picture controls and see what that does. I use flat, I believe, which comes out fairly close to the raws (or close enough for me to not care).

Yet this is how the camera metered it in regular matrix metering, no ADL, nothing else special. It metered it in a way that strikes me as even more unusual given the histogram.

Another:



I didn't fully edit this one, but here is the histogram just applying LR's auto and adjusting it to look about where I'd probably start off with editing:



Again, the camera's metering - just regular matrix, no ADL, nothing else out of the ordinary - seems like it's going with a histogram that is not really hitting center the way I'd expect.

To be honest, the first image looks better to me pre edit. The histogram also looks fine, given her face is fairly bright (relatively, I think that's the spike in the middle? I could be wrong), and the rest is darker (especially immediately around her, and parts of her clothing),

Here's another one where it leaves headroom on the right:



And a much more correct looking edit where literally all I have done is increase the exposure by about 1 stop. The histogram looks a lot more correct here, too:



In case anyone asks, the reason LrC has texture and clarity set by default to +8/+4 is that this is its interpretation of Nikon's sharpening.

Besides my above comment about nikon leaving headroom being fairly consistent, I also feel (in this case) like the first image might be more representative of reality, given my experience with high school gyms and the poor lighting. I agree the edit looks better from an image perspective though.

There's also an option somewhere in the menus for face detection and metering off that somehow, though I forget the exact name and how it works.

 

[SCoombs]

Besides that, in your last two sets of images, you closed down by 1 stop, ISO went up by one stop (and a third, give or take). This says to me that the scene fell imperfectly between third stops, and it made choices differently based on what it was seeing (again, the histogram would be more informative here). I also don't see any appreciable difference in actual brightness in the last two images, while with the raindrop I see a small different in the edge of the window or whatever that is.

f2.8 to f1.8 is not 1 stop. It is 1.3 stops.

Regardless, the difference in brightness is considerable in that shot of the kids. Look especially at the fabric on the couch to the left, where I think it is extremely noticeable.

You can see it in the histograms:

Yeah, but I don't think the image as a whole is brighter. I think the hand position is allowing more light to be shown on the couch, vs on the hand, but the overall brightness is the same. You can see the dropoff sharpen after the first 'm' in 85 mm, as well as it being decreased as you go to the right. No real difference in total light, as recorded by the raw. Just sharper because the couch was better lit, at the cost of the other areas being less lit. The ISO changes also perfectly matches, so the metering becomes the same.

I don't really have comments about the first images, because I'd want to see the histograms for them before commenting. I have tended to notice nikon tries to save highlights more across the board, but I haven't noticed a huge under exposure issue with my settings and shooting wildlife in all sorts of conditions (edge cases aside, shooting egrets in bright light with spot metering, etc where I suspect any system would have some sort of tradeoff).

I can show you the histograms, but keep in mind that I am trying to ask about how the camera is metering things - not how I am adjusting things based on the histogram.

Yeah, but the histogram tells us what the camera actually sees, vs a subjective brightness view depending on our individual monitors, settings, etc etc etc. That's why I wanted them.

For that very first picture, here is the histogram:

Looks a little dark, but not egregiously so.

Vs. the histogram after I worked on it:



You can see that the way the camera metered if there was a LOT of headroom on the right hand side of the histogram.

Nikon raws tend to have a stop of headroom in my experience, because the metering in camera is likely based on what would become the jpg (or jpg preview file). Since that usually goes brighter than the raws, it avoids blowing out the highlights in the jpg files. Try setting different picture controls and see what that does. I use flat, I believe, which comes out fairly close to the raws (or close enough for me to not care).

Yet this is how the camera metered it in regular matrix metering, no ADL, nothing else special. It metered it in a way that strikes me as even more unusual given the histogram.

Another:



I didn't fully edit this one, but here is the histogram just applying LR's auto and adjusting it to look about where I'd probably start off with editing:



Again, the camera's metering - just regular matrix, no ADL, nothing else out of the ordinary - seems like it's going with a histogram that is not really hitting center the way I'd expect.

To be honest, the first image looks better to me pre edit. The histogram also looks fine, given her face is fairly bright (relatively, I think that's the spike in the middle? I could be wrong), and the rest is darker (especially immediately around her, and parts of her clothing),

Here's another one where it leaves headroom on the right:



And a much more correct looking edit where literally all I have done is increase the exposure by about 1 stop. The histogram looks a lot more correct here, too:



In case anyone asks, the reason LrC has texture and clarity set by default to +8/+4 is that this is its interpretation of Nikon's sharpening.

Besides my above comment about nikon leaving headroom being fairly consistent, I also feel (in this case) like the first image might be more representative of reality, given my experience with high school gyms and the poor lighting. I agree the edit looks better from an image perspective though.

I would say that in all of the cases I've posted the edits look much closer to what things really looked like. For instance I've spent a very large amount of time in that particular gym and am very familiar with it. It looks MUCH closer to the "edited" version than the metered one. For instance, here's a photo from something in that same gym but where they had half the lights turned off to try to create a certain atmosphere:



This is as metered and it looks slightly darker than the reality, but not much. It's pretty close - yet everything here looks honestly better lit than the Volleyball game since the game had at least twice as much light on PLUS all of the highlight reflective wood uncovered. In other words, we can see from this comparison that there's no way the gym should look as dark as in that photo fully lit and I agree from my many, many, many hours there that it really does not look that dark. I know what you mean because I have been in some HS gyms that DO look as dark as that Volleyball shot, but this isn't one of them.

One thing I did when playing around with all of this was to do a series of shots in different places/lighting with the camera and then with my cell phone. Now of course I understand that the cell phone does a lot of computational stuff to the photos before you ever see it, but that was sort of the point: they usually wind up looking relatively close to reality - or at least mine does. Mine is a pretty old Samsung Galaxy S10 or something so it isn't new enough to be totally changing the results to look as portrait-like as possible - it is just generally good at essentially doing its own version of Active D-Lighting to get things looking pretty close to the naked eye's vision.

When I took these I was also very mindful of very, very purposefully paying attention to what each scene looked like and comparing the photo to it right away to judge how the photo compared to reality.



I think it overbrightened her a bit, but relatively close to what it really looked like to my eye. Here is a look at what I'd say it looked like to my eye:



Here is the way it metered it:

There's also an option somewhere in the menus for face detection and metering off that somehow, though I forget the exact name and how it works.

I mentioned this in my original post and that I have tried with that on and off. From what I can tell it boosts exposure a bit if it detects a face in a scene where going by the standard matrix metering the face would wind up badly underexposed. Basically, if I turn it off, shots like most of the examples I am posting would wind up looking a little bit darker since the face detection for matrix metering (it's setting b4) is acting like a slight positive exposure compensation.

 

[SCoombs]

By the way, I am going to try for a little bit setting the "adjust optimal exposure" setting - kind of like a fine tuning for metering - to +1/2 a stop. I have read over the years a person or two who have said they usually keep that set to +2/3 stop, which is interesting since it's about on average what I'm finding the underexposure being. I don't necessarily like this idea because there are definitely times it gets it right and I don't want to wind up losing highlights because of it, but I will see how it goes.

 

[michaeladawson]

By the way, I am going to try for a little bit setting the "adjust optimal exposure" setting - kind of like a fine tuning for metering - to +1/2 a stop. I have read over the years a person or two who have said they usually keep that set to +2/3 stop, which is interesting since it's about on average what I'm finding the underexposure being. I don't necessarily like this idea because there are definitely times it gets it right and I don't want to wind up losing highlights because of it, but I will see how it goes.

You can’t have it both ways. The camera will never get it right 100% of the time. If you find that out of 300,000 shots the camera is underexposing by about 2/3 stop most of the time then either send it in and have it checked out or adjust the camera to correct by 2/3 stop in camera. And yes, as a result sometimes you will get blown highlights. What else would you expect?

 

[SCoombs]

By the way, I am going to try for a little bit setting the "adjust optimal exposure" setting - kind of like a fine tuning for metering - to +1/2 a stop. I have read over the years a person or two who have said they usually keep that set to +2/3 stop, which is interesting since it's about on average what I'm finding the underexposure being. I don't necessarily like this idea because there are definitely times it gets it right and I don't want to wind up losing highlights because of it, but I will see how it goes.

You can’t have it both ways. The camera will never get it right 100% of the time. If you find that out of 300,000 shots the camera is underexposing by about 2/3 stop most of the time then either send it in and have it checked out or adjust the camera to correct by 2/3 stop in camera. And yes, as a result sometimes you will get blown highlights. What else would you expect?

I wouldn't expect anything else, if this is the route that I ultimately find most effective.

 

[Leonard Shepherd]

broadly speaking, the system's aim for middle gray, etc., a

Background First.

Do they?

First - to the best of my knowledge "systems" do not and never have used "middle great" if by "middle gray" you mean an 18% Kodak Gray Card - which Kodak said is not a middle grey :-O

Coming to Nikon; matrix analyses a scene and comes up with a result that depends on what the scene consists of, including the colour make up of the scene, the contrast in the scene and the mix of highlights and shadows in the scene - and often biases the result toward what is under the active AF point.

Usually but not always IME it gets exposure close to good or exactly right.

It is no surprise to me that matrix can produce results a little different to spot or centre weighted metering - where the photographer usually has to apply exposure compensation based on the photographers experience to hopefully get a "technically correct" exposure.

Nikon used to provide some information on how matrix interpreted the components of a scene in the DSLR era. As far as I know they provide no detail for the Z ML system

One solution

I suggest learning when Matrix does not produce the exact exposure you want and applying exposure compensation for this type of subject.

I find for landscapes matrix can provide a balance that slight underexposes the land to preserve detail in clouds in the sky. As I shoot RAW I can usually "get away" with slight plus exposure for the land and then adjust the sky using quick to do layers in Lightroom.

Slightly off topic Lightroom and some other systems can use AI to accurately identify a sky near instantly ready for a sky only adjustment.

--
Leonard Shepherd
In lots of ways good photography is similar to learning to play a piano - it takes practice to develop skill in either activity.

 

[mrbr]

broadly speaking, the system's aim for middle gray, etc., a

Background First.

Do they?

First - to the best of my knowledge "systems" do not and never have used "middle great" if by "middle gray" you mean an 18% Kodak Gray Card - which Kodak said is not a middle grey :-O

Coming to Nikon; matrix analyses a scene and comes up with a result that depends on what the scene consists of, including the colour make up of the scene, the contrast in the scene and the mix of highlights and shadows in the scene - and often biases the result toward what is under the active AF point.

Usually but not always IME it gets exposure close to good or exactly right.

It is no surprise to me that matrix can produce results a little different to spot or centre weighted metering - where the photographer usually has to apply exposure compensation based on the photographers experience to hopefully get a "technically correct" exposure.

Nikon used to provide some information on how matrix interpreted the components of a scene in the DSLR era. As far as I know they provide no detail for the Z ML system

In Thom Hogan's Z6/7 e-guide there are several pages interesting information regarding the matrix metering behaviour, but Thom also writes :

QUOTE (p304)

The complexity of the matrix metering system is beyond the ability
of Nikon (or me, or anyone else) to fully describe, as the
combinations and permutations of the data it manages have
expanded incredibly from earlier versions of the system dating back
to the film days.

UNQUOTE

QUOTE (p313)

Bottom line: matrix metering is the preferred choice on the Z series
cameras. The only way you’re going to beat the camera’s choice of
exposure is to be a very disciplined shooter that carefully meters
and monitors each scene.

That said, you do have to be on the lookout for how focus choice
impacts the exposure, and specular highlight blowout is more likely
on the Z6 and Z7 than it is on the D850 and the other recent
DSLRs.

UNQUOTE

I cannot check in the z8 e-guide ( i don't have it ) , but i suppose the matrix metering is in this guide also described by Thom.

For me personally shooting raw and using matrix metering combined with the live view wysiwyg and the histogram makes it easy to apply EC ( or adjust exposure for ETTR ! ) and fine tune exposure in post processing if needed. In post processing it is also possible to locally change exposure ( and other settings ) to change things to our "subjective" wishes.

One solution

I suggest learning when Matrix does not produce the exact exposure you want and applying exposure compensation for this type of subject.

I find for landscapes matrix can provide a balance that slight underexposes the land to preserve detail in clouds in the sky. As I shoot RAW I can usually "get away" with slight plus exposure for the land and then adjust the sky using quick to do layers in Lightroom.

Slightly off topic Lightroom and some other systems can use AI to accurately identify a sky near instantly ready for a sky only adjustment.

--
Greetings,
Marc

 

[Bob A L]

Your photos look great, why worry or have concerns about the way your camera works?

Make photos, enjoy photos, have fun. You are the only one that will even notice the tiny little differences in metering or skin tones. No one in your audience will ever question it.

 

[SCoombs]

Your photos look great, why worry or have concerns about the way your camera works?

Make photos, enjoy photos, have fun. You are the only one that will even notice the tiny little differences in metering or skin tones. No one in your audience will ever question it.

Well, many of them are taking substantial effort in editing to get the good looking results, and in a good number of cases the final quality is hampered by having to boost exposure considerably and so missing on details and emphasizing a lot more noise than if I got the correct exposure at first.

 

[j_photo]

I've been following this thread. Barring some odd setting (like active-d lighting, which you say you have already checked, for example), I agree with you that you images seem generally underexposed. Of course, there is room for subjective differences in judgment as well. But the histograms in your images appear to me consistently further to the left than what I am accustomed to with my Z cameras. (I don't shoot with the Z8 though.)

If I were in your shoes, I would either dial in some permanent bias to the meter, or more likely, send the camera to Nikon for a checkup. It's clearly bothering you. Why have such an expensive, high-performance piece of gear and constantly be wondering if something is not working properly? Good luck.

Edit: Or perhaps you have a lens that is not stopping down aperture accurately? Just a thought...

 

[mrbr]

Your photos look great, why worry or have concerns about the way your camera works?

Make photos, enjoy photos, have fun. You are the only one that will even notice the tiny little differences in metering or skin tones. No one in your audience will ever question it.

Well, many of them are taking substantial effort in editing to get the good looking results, and in a good number of cases the final quality is hampered by having to boost exposure considerably and so missing on details and emphasizing a lot more noise than if I got the correct exposure at first.

I understand your point of view, but no metering system is perfect .

IMO when using the live histogram together with the live wysiwig view it should in a lot of situations be possible to recognise underexpodure and boost exposure while preparing to take the picture (s) and to reduce post processing efforts.

To minimise noise shooting raw and using ETTR techniques is IMO indispensable. Also there are very good denoising sw tools available .... but i agree this will make more effort during post processing necessary.

--
Greetings,
Marc

 

[Ken Seals]

I think you already have it figured out. In my experience with the Z 8 and Z 9 for the last 2+ years, I see that even though the matrix metering is very smart, when there are large bright or dark areas in the frame, exposure compensation is necessary. Large bright areas will result in underexposure of the subject. I some extreme cases, I need more than +1 EC. The opposite is true when there are large dark areas in the frame. A lot of minus EC will be necessary to correctly expose the subject. For example, a performer on stage in the spotlight and large dark areas around and behind the subject.

For "normal" scenes, without large dark or bright areas, using Raw Digger, I have come up with +.66 EC as my standard setting in camera. This of course requires an approximate - 2/3 adjustment of the exposure slider in LrC to look correct, but the noise in the shadows is lessened.

 

[SCoombs]

Your photos look great, why worry or have concerns about the way your camera works?

Make photos, enjoy photos, have fun. You are the only one that will even notice the tiny little differences in metering or skin tones. No one in your audience will ever question it.

Well, many of them are taking substantial effort in editing to get the good looking results, and in a good number of cases the final quality is hampered by having to boost exposure considerably and so missing on details and emphasizing a lot more noise than if I got the correct exposure at first.

I understand your point of view, but no metering system is perfect .

IMO when using the live histogram together with the live wysiwig view it should in a lot of situations be possible to recognise underexpodure and boost exposure while preparing to take the picture (s) and to reduce post processing efforts.

To minimise noise shooting raw and using ETTR techniques is IMO indispensable. Also there are very good denoising sw tools available .... but i agree this will make more effort during post processing necessary.

When I am doing something very static like a sports team coming in assembly line style I get the histogram right at the beginning, but when I'm doing something that involves more moving around or especially something fast paced like a sporting event I obviously don't have as much of a chance to try to keep adjusting to ETTR for everything and have to rely on the meter more.

 

[SCoombs]

I think you already have it figured out. In my experience with the Z 8 and Z 9 for the last 2+ years, I see that even though the matrix metering is very smart, when there are large bright or dark areas in the frame, exposure compensation is necessary. Large bright areas will result in underexposure of the subject. I some extreme cases, I need more than +1 EC. The opposite is true when there are large dark areas in the frame. A lot of minus EC will be necessary to correctly expose the subject. For example, a performer on stage in the spotlight and large dark areas around and behind the subject.

For "normal" scenes, without large dark or bright areas, using Raw Digger, I have come up with +.66 EC as my standard setting in camera. This of course requires an approximate - 2/3 adjustment of the exposure slider in LrC to look correct, but the noise in the shadows is lessened.

For whatever reason, it seems to metering those more challenging situations like a concert with crazy lighting much more consistently, and also tends to get any auto white balance *much* more consistently correct in those more wild situations.

For instance, for the photos seen here I had to make very little adjustments. The camera just gets irlt right without much trouble in these situations: https://www.facebook.com/share/p/19Zj1vbdgh/

 

[Bob A L]

Maybe you have a faulty camera. I have several Nikon digital cameras and have never had any problem with the metering on any of them. It has always been 100%. I may occasionally tweak a photo's shadows or highlights before sharing, but it's minimal at most. Maybe you could send your camera in to Nikon and have it checked and/or calibrated. Today's cameras are just too good to need a whole lot of fixing in post.

 

[Bob A L]

Also, have you tried to have your computer checked out to make sure it is not part of your problem? If it is not accurately displaying lightness and darkness of your photos they would appear to be underexposed or overexposed.

You just should not have this bad a problem with a Z8. Something is wrong.

 

[michaeladawson]

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.