Matrix metering, point metering, and zone system....who uses what

[JimKasson]

If I want to retain some shadow detail as well as bring down the highlights - depending on what I think is important to me I may well focus on the shadows, accepting that highlights will go wherever they go and manage that as best I can using ND grads

You can't assess shadow detail in a raw file from looking at a histogram derived from the JPEG image.

Sure you can! While it may not be exact, it's close enough.

How can you tell what the raw shadow detail is going to look like when lifted three stops from the JPEG histogram that crams that information into the leftmost few pixels?

Not everything has to be exact, theoretically correct or incorrect, etc. This forum tends to obsess far too much about the technicalities of things, while spending hardly any time at all on practical approaches to getting results. Most photographers are concerned with results, not necessarily whether they are clipping some blacks or blowing out some highlights that we can't see, anyway.

Capturing all of the highlight and shadow detail also means low contrast images that lay flat on the page.

Not necessarily. Depends on the subject, the development, and the photographers intent.

Doing so also ignores how an image is viewed. Very seldom do we need to see into the shadows or want to examine the fine hairline scratches in a piece of stainless steel that's reflecting a beam of sunlight. That's hardly what's important in a photo.

I shoot using Fuji's film simulations. The histograms are perfectly accurate and acceptable, allowing me to capture in-camera exactly what I intended. Obsessing over a little bit of lost shadow or highlight detail is, in my humble opinion, putting focus on exactly the wrong thing.

 

[SrMi]

If I want to retain some shadow detail as well as bring down the highlights - depending on what I think is important to me I may well focus on the shadows, accepting that highlights will go wherever they go and manage that as best I can using ND grads

You can't assess shadow detail in a raw file from looking at a histogram derived from the JPEG image.

Sure you can! While it may not be exact, it's close enough. Not everything has to be exact, theoretically correct or incorrect, etc.

The contrast of current EVFs and LCDs is quite bad. Often, I cannot see any details in deep shadows, but I can extract plenty in the post. I cannot see anything useful about shadows when looking at the histogram.

This forum tends to obsess far too much about the technicalities of things, while spending hardly any time at all on practical approaches to getting results. Most photographers are concerned with results, not necessarily whether they are clipping some blacks or blowing out some highlights that we can't see, anyway.

Blacks do not clip. It has been repeatedly mentioned that only preserving relevant highlights matters.

Capturing all of the highlight and shadow detail also means low contrast images that lay flat on the page. Doing so also ignores how an image is viewed. Very seldom do we need to see into the shadows or want to examine the fine hairline scratches in a piece of stainless steel that's reflecting a beam of sunlight. That's hardly what's important in a photo.

I shoot using Fuji's film simulations. The histograms are perfectly accurate and acceptable, allowing me to capture in-camera exactly what I intended.

Fuji's histograms are acceptable, but certainly not perfectly accurate, unless you are shooting only JPEGs.

Obsessing over a little bit of lost shadow or highlight detail is, in my humble opinion, putting focus on exactly the wrong thing.

The focus in this thread is on how to meter.

 

[GonnaSnap]

If I want to retain some shadow detail as well as bring down the highlights - depending on what I think is important to me I may well focus on the shadows, accepting that highlights will go wherever they go and manage that as best I can using ND grads

You can't assess shadow detail in a raw file from looking at a histogram derived from the JPEG image.

Sure you can! While it may not be exact, it's close enough.

I guess that when you want “close enough” for your own taste and do not care much about clipping blacks or blowing out highlights …then you’re probably right. That’s not everyone’s cup of tea though.

I care about the final product, and the histogram gives me enough information to decide exposure. I don't care about preserving details that don't matter and that nobody will ever see. The histogram and clipping alert get me where I need to be for my work, quickly and easily every time.

If I want to retain some shadow detail as well as bring down the highlights - depending on what I think is important to me I may well focus on the shadows, accepting that highlights will go wherever they go and manage that as best I can using ND grads

You can't assess shadow detail in a raw file from looking at a histogram derived from the JPEG image.

Sure you can! While it may not be exact, it's close enough.

How can you tell what the raw shadow detail is going to look like when lifted three stops from the JPEG histogram that crams that information into the leftmost few pixels?

I have no idea what you are talking about here, and it doesn't matter for my work. I do headshots, portraits, environmental work, street, and never, ever, have I asked myself anything like this. As I said elsewhere, understanding the technicals is important to a point. There is absolutely zero need to ask the above question to achieve great results.

If I want to retain some shadow detail as well as bring down the highlights - depending on what I think is important to me I may well focus on the shadows, accepting that highlights will go wherever they go and manage that as best I can using ND grads

You can't assess shadow detail in a raw file from looking at a histogram derived from the JPEG image.

Sure you can! While it may not be exact, it's close enough. Not everything has to be exact, theoretically correct or incorrect, etc.

The contrast of current EVFs and LCDs is quite bad. Often, I cannot see any details in deep shadows, but I can extract plenty in the post. I cannot see anything useful about shadows when looking at the histogram.

Shadows are meant to be... Shadows! What happens there happens. Make a decision on what's most important - overall exposure, preserving highlights, or shadows, and then shoot appropriately.

In my case, if I have to limit anything, it's usually highlights. Shadows fall where they do. They are shadows, after all. If I want to look into the shadows, or expose for the shadows, well, then I meter for that. It's very easy to see that in the histogram.

This forum tends to obsess far too much about the technicalities of things, while spending hardly any time at all on practical approaches to getting results. Most photographers are concerned with results, not necessarily whether they are clipping some blacks or blowing out some highlights that we can't see, anyway.

Blacks do not clip. It has been repeatedly mentioned that only preserving relevant highlights matters.

What is relevant and whom are we speaking about matters in context.

Capturing all of the highlight and shadow detail also means low contrast images that lay flat on the page. Doing so also ignores how an image is viewed. Very seldom do we need to see into the shadows or want to examine the fine hairline scratches in a piece of stainless steel that's reflecting a beam of sunlight. That's hardly what's important in a photo.

I shoot using Fuji's film simulations. The histograms are perfectly accurate and acceptable, allowing me to capture in-camera exactly what I intended.

Fuji's histograms are acceptable, but certainly not perfectly accurate, unless you are shooting only JPEGs.

One doesn't need perfect accuracy to create art. One might argue the opposite.

Obsessing over a little bit of lost shadow or highlight detail is, in my humble opinion, putting focus on exactly the wrong thing.

The focus in this thread is on how to meter.

Thank you for the reminder. I'm discussing how I meter using the histogram, and what is relevant and important to my work. I believe that is within the scope of this discussion. Metering doesn't need to be as complicated as some make it out to be.

 

[SrMi]

If I want to retain some shadow detail as well as bring down the highlights - depending on what I think is important to me I may well focus on the shadows, accepting that highlights will go wherever they go and manage that as best I can using ND grads

You can't assess shadow detail in a raw file from looking at a histogram derived from the JPEG image.

Sure you can! While it may not be exact, it's close enough.

I guess that when you want “close enough” for your own taste and do not care much about clipping blacks or blowing out highlights …then you’re probably right. That’s not everyone’s cup of tea though.

I care about the final product, and the histogram gives me enough information to decide exposure. I don't care about preserving details that don't matter and that nobody will ever see. The histogram and clipping alert get me where I need to be for my work, quickly and easily every time.

If I want to retain some shadow detail as well as bring down the highlights - depending on what I think is important to me I may well focus on the shadows, accepting that highlights will go wherever they go and manage that as best I can using ND grads

You can't assess shadow detail in a raw file from looking at a histogram derived from the JPEG image.

Sure you can! While it may not be exact, it's close enough.

How can you tell what the raw shadow detail is going to look like when lifted three stops from the JPEG histogram that crams that information into the leftmost few pixels?

I have no idea what you are talking about here, and it doesn't matter for my work. I do headshots, portraits, environmental work, street, and never, ever, have I asked myself anything like this. As I said elsewhere, understanding the technicals is important to a point. There is absolutely zero need to ask the above question to achieve great results.

What did you then mean with "Sure you can?"

If I want to retain some shadow detail as well as bring down the highlights - depending on what I think is important to me I may well focus on the shadows, accepting that highlights will go wherever they go and manage that as best I can using ND grads

You can't assess shadow detail in a raw file from looking at a histogram derived from the JPEG image.

Sure you can! While it may not be exact, it's close enough. Not everything has to be exact, theoretically correct or incorrect, etc.

The contrast of current EVFs and LCDs is quite bad. Often, I cannot see any details in deep shadows, but I can extract plenty in the post. I cannot see anything useful about shadows when looking at the histogram.

Shadows are meant to be... Shadows! What happens there happens. Make a decision on what's most important - overall exposure, preserving highlights, or shadows, and then shoot appropriately.

In my case, if I have to limit anything, it's usually highlights. Shadows fall where they do. They are shadows, after all. If I want to look into the shadows, or expose for the shadows, well, then I meter for that. It's very easy to see that in the histogram.

That is the opposite of what you wrote above ("Sure you can").

This forum tends to obsess far too much about the technicalities of things, while spending hardly any time at all on practical approaches to getting results. Most photographers are concerned with results, not necessarily whether they are clipping some blacks or blowing out some highlights that we can't see, anyway.

Blacks do not clip. It has been repeatedly mentioned that only preserving relevant highlights matters.

What is relevant and whom are we speaking about matters in context.

That sentence is a non sequitur.

Capturing all of the highlight and shadow detail also means low contrast images that lay flat on the page. Doing so also ignores how an image is viewed. Very seldom do we need to see into the shadows or want to examine the fine hairline scratches in a piece of stainless steel that's reflecting a beam of sunlight. That's hardly what's important in a photo.

I shoot using Fuji's film simulations. The histograms are perfectly accurate and acceptable, allowing me to capture in-camera exactly what I intended.

Fuji's histograms are acceptable, but certainly not perfectly accurate, unless you are shooting only JPEGs.

One doesn't need perfect accuracy to create art. One might argue the opposite.

Yes, but you wrote that the histograms are perfectly accurate, which is false.

Obsessing over a little bit of lost shadow or highlight detail is, in my humble opinion, putting focus on exactly the wrong thing.

The focus in this thread is on how to meter.

Thank you for the reminder. I'm discussing how I meter using the histogram, and what is relevant and important to my work. I believe that is within the scope of this discussion. Metering doesn't need to be as complicated as some make it out to be.

Metering couldn't be simpler: you increase exposure until relevant blinkies (at base ISO).

 

[ampimagedotcom]

I would nearly always shoot tethered to either a computer or a laptop when using the Hasselblad system - so I would make 'the call' about the exposure and things like that, after the first image appeared on screen...


Capture-196721

.. then I'd tweak the lighting and take another...


Capture-196727

.. tweak the lighting again and take another...


Capture-196743

.. over and over again...


Capture-196771

.. until I felt it looked right...


Capture-196791

.. or natural - since that is usually the goal when trying to make the whole thing look believable, i.e. make it look like I didn't do anything at all.

-
Creating images to tell a story... just for you!
Cheers,
Ashley.

 

[mujana]

If I want to retain some shadow detail as well as bring down the highlights - depending on what I think is important to me I may well focus on the shadows, accepting that highlights will go wherever they go and manage that as best I can using ND grads

You can't assess shadow detail in a raw file from looking at a histogram derived from the JPEG image.

Sure you can! While it may not be exact, it's close enough.

I guess that when you want “close enough” for your own taste and do not care much about clipping blacks or blowing out highlights …then you’re probably right. That’s not everyone’s cup of tea though.

I care about the final product, and the histogram gives me enough information to decide exposure. I don't care about preserving details that don't matter and that nobody will ever see.

Sometimes I don’t want details in shadows. But, I like to have a choice there. I can only choose for either details or no details, when I can see those details before I decide what to do with them. Even when I expose for highlights.
And sometimes totally black with no details is fine for me….if I want to.

If I want to retain some shadow detail as well as bring down the highlights - depending on what I think is important to me I may well focus on the shadows, accepting that highlights will go wherever they go and manage that as best I can using ND grads

You can't assess shadow detail in a raw file from looking at a histogram derived from the JPEG image.

Sure you can! While it may not be exact, it's close enough.

How can you tell what the raw shadow detail is going to look like when lifted three stops from the JPEG histogram that crams that information into the leftmost few pixels?

I have no idea what you are talking about here, and it doesn't matter for my work. I do headshots, portraits, environmental work, street, and never, ever, have I asked myself anything like this. As I said elsewhere, understanding the technicals is important to a point. There is absolutely zero need to ask the above question to achieve great results.
Maybe you should try first to understand what Jim is talking about. If you don't know, then you are hardly in a position to state it doesn't matter to you. It might matter a lot. You do shoot and use raw? Or jpeg?
You seem very happy with your results. Good for you and no problem. Can you imagine someone else wants it different?

AndyGordon, post: 68387830, member: 2331098"]
If I want to retain some shadow detail as well as bring down the highlights - depending on what I think is important to me I may well focus on the shadows, accepting that highlights will go wherever they go and manage that as best I can using ND grads

You can't assess shadow detail in a raw file from looking at a histogram derived from the JPEG image.

Sure you can! While it may not be exact, it's close enough. Not everything has to be exact, theoretically correct or incorrect, etc.

The contrast of current EVFs and LCDs is quite bad. Often, I cannot see any details in deep shadows, but I can extract plenty in the post. I cannot see anything useful about shadows when looking at the histogram.

Shadows are meant to be... Shadows!

Right…shadows are dark….with details….or not…or..(you get the idea)

What happens there happens. Make a decision on what's most important - overall exposure, preserving highlights, or shadows, and then shoot appropriately.

In my case, if I have to limit anything, it's usually highlights. Shadows fall where they do. They are shadows, after all.

If I want to look into the shadows, or expose for the shadows, well, then I meter for that. It's very easy to see that in the histogram.

in general I use spot metering and sometimes expose for highlights or preferably something in between brightest and darkest part of a scene.
More or less evenly lit scenes, matrix works fine.

This forum tends to obsess far too much about the technicalities of things, while spending hardly any time at all on practical approaches to getting results. Most photographers are concerned with results, not necessarily whether they are clipping some blacks or blowing out some highlights that we can't see, anyway.

Blacks do not clip. It has been repeatedly mentioned that only preserving relevant highlights matters.

What is relevant and whom are we speaking about matters in context.

Capturing all of the highlight and shadow detail also means low contrast images that lay flat on the page. Doing so also ignores how an image is viewed. Very seldom do we need to see into the shadows or want to examine the fine hairline scratches in a piece of stainless steel that's reflecting a beam of sunlight. That's hardly what's important in a photo.

I shoot using Fuji's film simulations. The histograms are perfectly accurate and acceptable, allowing me to capture in-camera exactly what I intended.

Fuji's histograms are acceptable, but certainly not perfectly accurate, unless you are shooting only JPEGs.

One doesn't need perfect accuracy to create art. One might argue the opposite.

Correct again. But perfect accuracy doesn’t exclude art. Good to have a choice and not be forced into limitations.

Obsessing over a little bit of lost shadow or highlight detail is, in my humble opinion, putting focus on exactly the wrong thing.

The focus in this thread is on how to meter.

Thank you for the reminder. I'm discussing how I meter using the histogram, and what is relevant and important to my work. I believe that is within the scope of this discussion. Metering doesn't need to be as complicated as some make it out to be.

[/QUOTE]

 

[paulraphael]

One of the top buttons on my GFX 100S is set to turn on the 3-channel histogram. It's the only thing I ever use for metering, unless doing casual handheld stuff.

The histogram, used in the usual way (just below clipping) is good enough. But I still find it maddening that Fuji and everyone else refuse to give us raw histograms. They must think we're children.

With black and white large format I used the zone system all day. Generally a quite streamlined version that worked without much thinking or wasted time.

I don't see any reason you couldn't adapt it for a digital camera. You'd just have rethink what the zones are. Black and white film works with 10 zones, because we've arbitrarily decided that 10 stops from black to white is useful for normal development, and we tailored our development to achieve this. Expanded and contracted development give us more or less. With digital we'd want to flip things around (expose for the highlights, "develop" for the shadows), and decide how many stops we have before noise is unacceptable.

I can't think of a reason anyone would bother with this, but it should be possible.

 

[GonnaSnap]

If I want to retain some shadow detail as well as bring down the highlights - depending on what I think is important to me I may well focus on the shadows, accepting that highlights will go wherever they go and manage that as best I can using ND grads

You can't assess shadow detail in a raw file from looking at a histogram derived from the JPEG image.

Sure you can! While it may not be exact, it's close enough.

I guess that when you want “close enough” for your own taste and do not care much about clipping blacks or blowing out highlights …then you’re probably right. That’s not everyone’s cup of tea though.

I care about the final product, and the histogram gives me enough information to decide exposure. I don't care about preserving details that don't matter and that nobody will ever see. The histogram and clipping alert get me where I need to be for my work, quickly and easily every time.

If I want to retain some shadow detail as well as bring down the highlights - depending on what I think is important to me I may well focus on the shadows, accepting that highlights will go wherever they go and manage that as best I can using ND grads

You can't assess shadow detail in a raw file from looking at a histogram derived from the JPEG image.

Sure you can! While it may not be exact, it's close enough.

How can you tell what the raw shadow detail is going to look like when lifted three stops from the JPEG histogram that crams that information into the leftmost few pixels?

I have no idea what you are talking about here, and it doesn't matter for my work. I do headshots, portraits, environmental work, street, and never, ever, have I asked myself anything like this. As I said elsewhere, understanding the technicals is important to a point. There is absolutely zero need to ask the above question to achieve great results.

What did you then mean with "Sure you can?"

It's pretty self-explanatory. I am perfectly happy with the shadow and highlight detail I get when shooting according to a histogram. Whether it's based on raw or jpeg data I don't care. My results look great. My methods (and opinions) don't need to fit within your paradigm.

If I want to retain some shadow detail as well as bring down the highlights - depending on what I think is important to me I may well focus on the shadows, accepting that highlights will go wherever they go and manage that as best I can using ND grads

You can't assess shadow detail in a raw file from looking at a histogram derived from the JPEG image.

Sure you can! While it may not be exact, it's close enough. Not everything has to be exact, theoretically correct or incorrect, etc.

The contrast of current EVFs and LCDs is quite bad. Often, I cannot see any details in deep shadows, but I can extract plenty in the post. I cannot see anything useful about shadows when looking at the histogram.

Shadows are meant to be... Shadows! What happens there happens. Make a decision on what's most important - overall exposure, preserving highlights, or shadows, and then shoot appropriately.

In my case, if I have to limit anything, it's usually highlights. Shadows fall where they do. They are shadows, after all. If I want to look into the shadows, or expose for the shadows, well, then I meter for that. It's very easy to see that in the histogram.

That is the opposite of what you wrote above ("Sure you can").

No, not at all. Sorry you don't understand.

This forum tends to obsess far too much about the technicalities of things, while spending hardly any time at all on practical approaches to getting results. Most photographers are concerned with results, not necessarily whether they are clipping some blacks or blowing out some highlights that we can't see, anyway.

Blacks do not clip. It has been repeatedly mentioned that only preserving relevant highlights matters.

What is relevant and whom are we speaking about matters in context.

That sentence is a non sequitur.

Life is full of non-sequiturs. I'm sorry that bugs you so much.

Capturing all of the highlight and shadow detail also means low contrast images that lay flat on the page. Doing so also ignores how an image is viewed. Very seldom do we need to see into the shadows or want to examine the fine hairline scratches in a piece of stainless steel that's reflecting a beam of sunlight. That's hardly what's important in a photo.

I shoot using Fuji's film simulations. The histograms are perfectly accurate and acceptable, allowing me to capture in-camera exactly what I intended.

Fuji's histograms are acceptable, but certainly not perfectly accurate, unless you are shooting only JPEGs.

One doesn't need perfect accuracy to create art. One might argue the opposite.

Yes, but you wrote that the histograms are perfectly accurate, which is false.

They ARE perfectly accurate because accuracy means different things to different people, depending on what they are trying to accomplish. What you consider to be accurate and important is not the same as me. And I'm fine with that. Because everything I say applies to me, and is stated from my POV. Not yours.

Obsessing over a little bit of lost shadow or highlight detail is, in my humble opinion, putting focus on exactly the wrong thing.

The focus in this thread is on how to meter.

Thank you for the reminder. I'm discussing how I meter using the histogram, and what is relevant and important to my work. I believe that is within the scope of this discussion. Metering doesn't need to be as complicated as some make it out to be.

Metering couldn't be simpler: you increase exposure until relevant blinkies (at base ISO).

If the "focus in this thread is on how to meter", as you stated, yet "metering couldn't be simpler", as you stated again, it's funny to me that the thread even exists and is as long as it is. Apparently, it's not as simple as you suggest. Everyone meters differently. There is no single way. That's my point. The excruciatingly technical details don't really matter to many, like myself, and don't get in the way of creating great captures.

Photography should be fun, and I'm very happy to have found a happy medium that works for me. That means I don't need to understand all the technical details. It's freeing, liberating, and lets me focus on what I do best. That is just my way.

Wish you the best.

 

[Michel van Lint]

Have not read all of the replies, but ever since I started relying on the histogram and the blinkies, my raw files are no longer underexposed. I push the histogram to the far right and correct for "overexposure" (meaning: want to see details in the bright areas) if necessary when editing.

If the scene offers too much contrast, I bring out the tripod and expose for the dark areas in one photo and the bright areas in another photo.