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

[Leonard Shepherd]

Wouldn't metering a single tone result in a value of 46 (18% gray) or something like that? I will have to experiment with that.

Probably not.

In the film era most hand held meters were calibrated to 12 or 14% reflectance - primarily because 18% reflection was less than 3 stops from pure white and negative film could typically record at least 9 stops - meaning 18% was not in the middle.

With current digital often recording 12 or more stops, 18% is further from the middle.

Bear in mind that white, grey or black subjects are each rendered to whatever mid-tone the meter is calibrated for (i.e. not black or white) unless + or - subject compensation is applied to render white as white or black as black.

 

[primeshooter]

If you want your skintones at a certain luminance, get out your light meter and meter off the skin. If you want your skin at 220 or whatever, a lot of skies behind your subject are gonna blow right out - which is not how matrix works. You just need to fine tune your camera to how you want it and use the histogram, and less of the meter because it's right there for you...You seem to know how to use flash too so this should not be difficult. My D810, D800 and Z8 all have about +0.33EV fine tuning for matrix. For manual mode, none of this really matters much, but it does when I use aperture.

Wouldn't metering a single tone result in a value of 46 (18% gray) or something like that? I will have to experiment with that.

No, because the meter now bias' what is under the focal point. Anyhow, you can simply fine tune spot exposure to get skin how you like...

 

[Ken Seals]

Wouldn't metering a single tone result in a value of 46 (18% gray) or something like that? I will have to experiment with that.

Probably not.

In the film era most hand held meters were calibrated to 12 or 14% reflectance - primarily because 18% reflection was less than 3 stops from pure white and negative film could typically record at least 9 stops - meaning 18% was not in the middle.

Yes, I know the actual reflectance was about 12%. I read years ago the 18% value term came about because that was the name/description of the ink used to create gray cards.

With current digital often recording 12 or more stops, 18% is further from the middle.

Bear in mind that white, grey or black subjects are each rendered to whatever mid-tone the meter is calibrated for (i.e. not black or white) unless + or - subject compensation is applied to render white as white or black as black.

That is my entire point.

 

[SCoombs]

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.

I've only really looked at the first image I posted here, but agree that there is more red than there should be. This was edited on an older monitor which was not adequate or I imagine I'd have wound up with less red in the final result.

That being said, just toning that down the way I would do so is really not bringing that 230 down, so I am curious what method you would take if you were adjusting this photo to meet the standards you go by.

Now if I do go ahead and drop the exposure down to get something closer to what you're talking about in both color and BW, I get this:



Now to me, that is too dark but it's too dark to the point that I wouldn't even say that this is a matter of preference - I just think it's objectively too dark. Do you think that this is a more proper exposure? Even so, it's still much brighter than the metered version, which is posted above.

Everything in a scene has a luminance. Each subjects luminance depends how it is lit, and the type of lighting. If you aren't using flash, the subjects skin tones may reside in a lesser exposure zone. E.g. the bright white clouds in a picture are gonna be at the highest zone of exposure, so the skin might only sit down below half = you'll complain it's too dark on the skin. The camera is metering matrix to ensure nothing blows out. If you think this picture is too dull, if it were exposed greater (in matrix), the background behind the subject would be at risk of blowing. In matrix, the meter is very conscious of not doing this, but it is not a mind reader, nor an exact science. If you want your skintones at a certain luminance, get out your light meter and meter off the skin. If you want your skin at 220 or whatever, a lot of skies behind your subject are gonna blow right out - which is not how matrix works. You just need to fine tune your camera to how you want it and use the histogram, and less of the meter because it's right there for you...You seem to know how to use flash too so this should not be difficult. My D810, D800 and Z8 all have about +0.33EV fine tuning for matrix. For manual mode, none of this really matters much, but it does when I use aperture.

Let me clarify something in case it's been missed.

I understand what you're talking about regarding the way the matrix metering is going to work to avoid blowing out the sky, etc. and that this can decrease exposure where I may want it elsewhere. I mentioned this in the original post and a few other times in the thread, though I realize you may not have read through every post.

My most significant confusion here has specifically concerned the fact that if I take all of this into account and put a subject in front of a bright sky or other bright background or if I put them in front of a dark background that the metering is not consistently behaving in a similar way. For instance, I've posted several examples throughout this post of cases where I the same subject in the same location with a bright background actually metered for an exposure that was greater than with a dark background in that same location.

 

[SCoombs]

Me again. Man you write novel length posts.

Here’s what I do with my Z8. I set the meter to whole frame average and then just look at the VF or back screen and just nudge exposure comp in the direction that makes the shot look good to me, usually with a lens control ring programmed to EC or iso depending on mode. I could care less about all the rest. This is the promiss of mirrorless and I just go for it. I think mirrorless has obsoleted matrix metering and even metering in general. If it looks good it is good

Give it a try … don’t over think it. Save the ink

This can work for some subject matter, but for fast paced stuff like sports and candids at events obviously you're usually only getting one shot at a thing and a split second to take it, so even a quick adjustment is not really something there's time for.

By the way, what are you talking about when you say "whole frame average," which you've mentioned in this post and in another? You seem to distinguish this from matrix, but matrix metering is really the only option that could remotely be considered to be any kind of average. Are you shooting on a different system that has different options? I don't know that Nikon has anything like this.

That gym you shot in has fixed, constant lighting. Just take a couple of test shots at the shutter speeds you want to use and keep in in manual mode the entire time...ML literally has a big histogram available on the screen at all times, you don't even need the meter.

I understand that this is how it should theoretically work and I have tried handling it that way in that gym a few times, but when doing so I wind up getting significantly different brightness levels. I am not sure if this is because of different reflectivity in different surfaces - e.g., sometimes the large white wall is reflecting light onto the subject, sometimes the floor is, which is reflective in a different way, sometimes a darker wall or a much less reflective crowd is the main source of secondary lighting, etc., or if it is something else, but when I have tried that I will almost always get the camera set so that a shot of one player or area looks good and then when I go to photograph a different player or area it might be borderline blown out or it might be much too dark.

 

[Leonard Shepherd]

My most significant confusion here has specifically concerned the fact that if I take all of this into account and put a subject in front of a bright sky or other bright background or if I put them in front of a dark background that the metering is not consistently behaving in a similar way.

EXACTLY

Matrix works by analysing many components in an image and coming up with a reasonable compromise for maybe 20 different exposure factors to be considered.

As you want a consistent precise metering result one option is to spot meter of the face combined with knowing how much exposure compensation to apply to the spot metering to get precisely the result you want.

Digression 1 - on my calibrated monitor the girl is correctly exposed

Digression 2 - you have captured the subject and pose to a good profession standard. However the light blue sky being brighter than the light blue of the Childs dress competes strongly for attention. Darkening parts of the background in post would make a stronger portrait image.





--
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.

 

[SCoombs]

My most significant confusion here has specifically concerned the fact that if I take all of this into account and put a subject in front of a bright sky or other bright background or if I put them in front of a dark background that the metering is not consistently behaving in a similar way.

EXACTLY

Matrix works by analysing many components in an image and coming up with a reasonable compromise for maybe 20 different exposure factors to be considered.

As you want a consistent precise metering result one option is to spot meter of the face combined with knowing how much exposure compensation to apply to the spot metering to get precisely the result you want.

Digression 1 - on my calibrated monitor the girl is correctly exposed

Digression 2 - you have captured the subject and pose to a good profession standard. However the light blue sky being brighter than the light blue of the Childs dress competes strongly for attention. Darkening parts of the background in post would make a stronger portrait image.

I agree with #2. This is something I will frequently do. In this case my primary reason for taking the photo was to experiment/practice with natural lighting scenarios for my own evaluation and so in editing it I was trying to maintain a more "natural" look to it so that when going back and studying the photo I can get a better sense of the "raw" (not RAW) look of it in that particular lighting.

If using the photo for something else I would likely do something closer to this:



(Though I see now that I have apparently posted a variant here rather than the exact photo you quoted from before).

By the way, one other comment on the exposure that occurs to me: I wonder if some of the disagreement over the exposure here comes down to the fact that I know that her skin tone is not especially rich, does not have a lot of deep orangey/reddish browns or tans to it, etc., so the level of exposure that several people have said looks right to them looks very, very wrong to me. It looks like what she looks like in relatively poor lighting, not what she looks like in better lighting. The somewhat brighter edits I have said I prefer look much, much closer to her natural skin tone. That can be contrasted with the volleyball player I posted who I also happen to run into with some regularity and whose skin tones ARE naturally much richer and so look much more correct to me with the lower highlights as posted here.

 

[primeshooter]

Me again. Man you write novel length posts.

Here’s what I do with my Z8. I set the meter to whole frame average and then just look at the VF or back screen and just nudge exposure comp in the direction that makes the shot look good to me, usually with a lens control ring programmed to EC or iso depending on mode. I could care less about all the rest. This is the promiss of mirrorless and I just go for it. I think mirrorless has obsoleted matrix metering and even metering in general. If it looks good it is good

Give it a try … don’t over think it. Save the ink

This can work for some subject matter, but for fast paced stuff like sports and candids at events obviously you're usually only getting one shot at a thing and a split second to take it, so even a quick adjustment is not really something there's time for.

By the way, what are you talking about when you say "whole frame average," which you've mentioned in this post and in another? You seem to distinguish this from matrix, but matrix metering is really the only option that could remotely be considered to be any kind of average. Are you shooting on a different system that has different options? I don't know that Nikon has anything like this.

That gym you shot in has fixed, constant lighting. Just take a couple of test shots at the shutter speeds you want to use and keep in in manual mode the entire time...ML literally has a big histogram available on the screen at all times, you don't even need the meter.

I understand that this is how it should theoretically work and I have tried handling it that way in that gym a few times, but when doing so I wind up getting significantly different brightness levels. I am not sure if this is because of different reflectivity in different surfaces - e.g., sometimes the large white wall is reflecting light onto the subject, sometimes the floor is, which is reflective in a different way, sometimes a darker wall or a much less reflective crowd is the main source of secondary lighting, etc., or if it is something else, but when I have tried that I will almost always get the camera set so that a shot of one player or area looks good and then when I go to photograph a different player or area it might be borderline blown out or it might be much too dark.

Yes it'll only work if your facing same direction from a sort of 'fixed' position etc.

 

[primeshooter]

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 get you. But I want to know which mode you used? This is a posed portrait. Why aren't you just in manual, base iso and then just rotate the shutter speed dial to make the histogram right and take the shot? That will nail it and will take less than a second to do if your practiced which you are.

 

[primeshooter]

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.

I've only really looked at the first image I posted here, but agree that there is more red than there should be. This was edited on an older monitor which was not adequate or I imagine I'd have wound up with less red in the final result.

That being said, just toning that down the way I would do so is really not bringing that 230 down, so I am curious what method you would take if you were adjusting this photo to meet the standards you go by.

Now if I do go ahead and drop the exposure down to get something closer to what you're talking about in both color and BW, I get this:



Now to me, that is too dark but it's too dark to the point that I wouldn't even say that this is a matter of preference - I just think it's objectively too dark. Do you think that this is a more proper exposure? Even so, it's still much brighter than the metered version, which is posted above.

Everything in a scene has a luminance. Each subjects luminance depends how it is lit, and the type of lighting. If you aren't using flash, the subjects skin tones may reside in a lesser exposure zone. E.g. the bright white clouds in a picture are gonna be at the highest zone of exposure, so the skin might only sit down below half = you'll complain it's too dark on the skin. The camera is metering matrix to ensure nothing blows out. If you think this picture is too dull, if it were exposed greater (in matrix), the background behind the subject would be at risk of blowing. In matrix, the meter is very conscious of not doing this, but it is not a mind reader, nor an exact science. If you want your skintones at a certain luminance, get out your light meter and meter off the skin. If you want your skin at 220 or whatever, a lot of skies behind your subject are gonna blow right out - which is not how matrix works. You just need to fine tune your camera to how you want it and use the histogram, and less of the meter because it's right there for you...You seem to know how to use flash too so this should not be difficult. My D810, D800 and Z8 all have about +0.33EV fine tuning for matrix. For manual mode, none of this really matters much, but it does when I use aperture.

Let me clarify something in case it's been missed.

I understand what you're talking about regarding the way the matrix metering is going to work to avoid blowing out the sky, etc. and that this can decrease exposure where I may want it elsewhere. I mentioned this in the original post and a few other times in the thread, though I realize you may not have read through every post.

My most significant confusion here has specifically concerned the fact that if I take all of this into account and put a subject in front of a bright sky or other bright background or if I put them in front of a dark background that the metering is not consistently behaving in a similar way. For instance, I've posted several examples throughout this post of cases where I the same subject in the same location with a bright background actually metered for an exposure that was greater than with a dark background in that same location.

For me personally; the D700 metered more closely to how I like a camera to meter. This means when shooting weddings, I had very little work to do, exposure compensation style. The more modern cameras seem to be tuned to protect highlights and are very zealous of doing so. Probably because nikon knows shadows can be pulled however once highlights are gone they are gone.

That said, with that caveat, my best advice is to go into the menu as I believe you have done and tune up to where you want it to be. As I've said, in ML metering is almost redundant even in fast paced matters it's easy to just adjust or stay in matrix if you want and ride the exp comp dials. As I said I prefer my exposures a bit hotter ala the d700. If I worked for Nikon I'd be adjusting it upward a tad for thr d800, 810 and 850 / Z8. There is highlight metering to protect all those things IMO.

Big scenes (esp wide ones) with a lot of sky around a subject or anything like that require attention from the photographer. Tune your average exposure up, and learn how to spot meter with some bias which is always scene dependent. For static scenes and posed, don't bother with metering. You have a live histogram! Use it.

 

[SCoombs]

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.

A few months of messing around later, I am wonder what value people might see as a reasonable target for caucasian skin if we are talking not about the RGB values, but the lab L value. I have found looking at that R value and getting it in the ~215 range to be a generally good guide over the last few months, but wonder if using the lab L value would be better since it may be more generalizable across people with different natural complexions.