Your camera may be lying to you!

Chris Dodkin

West Coast Correspondent
You've spent a small, or even a large fortune on your camera, it's state of the art, has bells, whistles, and even built-in metering.

You head-out to take photos, secure in the knowledge that some boffin engineers have programmed your camera's metering system to give you perfect exposure every time.

You set up your shot - choose your aperture, and click - the camera has chosen a shutter speed and your shot is in the bag.

Here's what my X-Pro1 came up with:

8126608673_fa1bc887f0_o.jpg


1/160 f/8 ISO200


But what if this exposure wasn't 'correct', or I should say optimal.....

How else could we judge the correct exposure for this scene?


You can use a hand-held light meter to set your exposure - an incident meter measures the light falling on it, and gives you an exposure value

L758DR1500X400.jpg


It has a little white dome which you point at your light source - in this case the Sun, and you can set ISO and in this case f/8 for aperture, and the meter provides an optimal value for shutter speed.

My meter in full Sun gave me a value of 1/500 f/8 ISO200

I set my X-Pro1 to those settings and got this shot:

8126634012_b3cb33375c_o.jpg


As you'd expect, the change in shutter speed has produced a darker image - the colors are more saturated, the highlights are muted, and the shadows are deep black.

If you compare detail from the camera exposure and incident exposure, you can really see the difference.

8126633452_42d8d2e5fb_o.jpg

8126608857_182f5a08be_o.jpg


The rocks in full sun are now better exposed, as you;d expect because you took a meter reading of full sun.

But the shadows are now so dark that you've lost a lot of detail in those areas.


So what other options do you have?

This is where you can use a spot meter to help you gauge the optimal exposure.

A spot meter measures exposure from reflected light off of the subject - rather than the incident lighting we measured with the meter before.

It has a small viewfinder through which you see a highly magnified section of the scene, usually representing just 1 degree field of view.

spot.jpg


Using a spot meter I can look at my scene and select a precise area to meter from.

But which area do I use?

If I point at the pillar in the sun, I get a reading of 1/1000. But if I point at the area of shade under the porch I get a reading of 1/60! :(

In fact, as I point it around the scene I get a whole load of different readings, depending on what I'm pointing at.

8126634484_3a56a6bd61_o.jpg


The results vary because different objects reflect different amounts of light - so how do I get to the 'optimal' setting?

This is where a spot meter can be useful - you put each reading into memory, selecting the brightest area in the shot, the darkest, and some in between.

Then you ask the meter to find the average exposure - it comes up with a value which is bang in the middle of the values you've put into memory.

That's cool - I could plug this into my camera and shoot - but hold on a minute!

What happens if the difference between that value and say the darkest area, was more than my camera could cope with?

What if the dynamic range of my film or sensor couldn't cope with that big a difference? Same goes for the brightest area.

A good meter will show you the spread of readings on an analogue scale to give you an idea.

p_f_L-758DR-9._V387522747_.jpg


And of even more use is a feature where you can look through the viewfinder on the spot meter, and pan around your scene, and the meter will tell you how far over or under that point is, compared to the average value you're proposing to use for exposure.

So the dark areas will be a -EV reading, i.e. darker than the average, and the lightest areas will have a +EV reading, as they are brighter than the average reading.

As long as your Ev reading stay within the dynamic range of your film or sensor, you're golden!

+/- 2 for slide film is safe, +/- 2.5 for print film, +/- 3 or more for digital.

Here's what we get from our sample points in this scene:

8126609255_735b8c0c13_o.jpg


The grass is at 0 EV - this is a confirmation of a tip on metering - if you have nothing else to check exposure, set it for a piece of green grass - seems to hold true!

The pillar is at EV +1.9, the shadow area in the porch is at EV -2.8 etc etc.

So you get a feel for where various objects will fall in the way of dark/light shading - and whether they are going to fit within the dynamic range of your film/sensor.

My max Ev difference is 2.8, so I'm good for digital (but would be unable to capture this full range on slide film)

I set my X-Pro1 to the calculated average spot value from my meter - which is 1/250 f/8 ISO200 - and take a shot:

8126633248_aa44489f43_o.jpg


As calculated, the highlights are clean without being blown out, and there's still detail in the shadows.

If you look at that detail view of the average exposure, you can clearly see how it differs from the Camera Exposure and the Incident Exposure.

8126608049_772def4f1e_o.jpg


It sounds way more complicated than it is - and it really doesn't take a whole lot of effort to do when shooting from a tripod.

You can take it further, and convert the various exposure levels into Zones, as used by Ansel Adams et al - very useful for B&W exposure.

There's another whole book on that - suggest you read Ansel Admas The Negative

The Negative (Ansel Adams Photography,Book 2): Ansel Adams,Robert Baker: 9780821221860: Amazon.com: Books

519MOpKdIzL._SL500_.jpg


Hopefully you can see how using the meter and some basic logic has enabled the capture of a better image in-camera - leading to potentially better image quality all the way through post processing.

Sure there's a lot you can do with digital these days to 'fix' exposure - but getting it right in camera is preferable, and with slide film it's critical.

So now you know - your camera has been lying to you all this time.. :p
 
Last edited:
Nice write up Chris, it shows the value of using the meter which was something I have wondered about but never figured out, not that I wasted too much brain power on it. I like the idea of being able accurately spot an area with the monocular sight. A while ago I wrote a tutorial for RPF about exposure that explains how to modify the zone method for digital cameras (I think we are still waiting for someone to publish it on the website)! I stuck in on my very stagnant website Exposure
Basically you decide what part of the scene is an area of highlight but still have details visible and you spot meter it then increase your exposure by 2 stops. Sometimes you have to reduce this slightly as many digital cameras don't have enough range to cope with this though.
 
Very nice write up Chris, thanks. Some spot meters even have Zone readouts to help you leverage that system more.

Another useful extension to measuring the dynamic range of your scene (and making decisions about what you want in the final image) is that you can optimise a digital capture even further by ensuring you have the maximum information in your raw file by exploiting the concept of Expose To The Right (ETTR). A great explanation of this and how it acts to increase the information about tonal values is described by Jeff Schewe on his site (ETTR). He also has a new book out on exposure and LR/PS (The Digital Negative: Raw Image Processing in Lightroom, Camera Raw, and Photoshop: Amazon.co.uk: Jeff Schewe: Books).
 
Brilliant post supported by excellent, relevant examples. Given all the technology in a decent digital camera including zone metering capabilities, I find it really annoying that they do not give you anything like the information you are getting from the Sekonic, or even explain the logic applied to their algorithms. They have been too busy adding Smile Detection and a 101 different Scene options that are just too fussy to use. You have really got me thinking here, and I have ordered Adams' book. Thank you Chris.
 
Exposing to the right is quite easy if your camera has highlight over exposure warning. This is a flashing warning on the parts of your image that are overexposed when you look at the review image after taking the photo. You decide what highlights you want to have detail in (letting any fiercely lit parts get overblown if you wish) and just modify exposure until these parts just show the onset of clipping signified by the flashing warning. However, I have found that exposing to the right and then changing the exposure value in PP doesn't always yield the same result than exposing normally which can seem to give better colours and tones. I guess this could be camera specific and not universal to all cameras?
 
No warning on my Sony A35, but at least the histogram is easy to switch on.
 
I find that the MULTI metering mode on the Fuji does ETTR well - I suspect this is because the exposure calculation uses the actual image data on the sensor, rather than the more limited exposure data available from fixed points in a traditional DSLR.

This is a potential HUGE advantage for mirror-less systems over DSLRs - and something that used to bother me when comparing my Canon 5DII ETTL metering versus it's 'Live View' metering from the sensor.

On Fuji images I find I have to add back 'black' during PP, as the data is well to the right, with no/minimal clipped highlights, but is somewhat lacking in true blacks.

This is an acceptable compromise - but I am always keen to explore getting better IQ, especially when new toys are involved! :D
 
Paul - just published your excellent exposure write-up
 
Cheers Chris!

- - - Updated - - -

Cheers Chris! It does need an edit though, I wrote that when using the zone method you reduce exposure by 2 stops, it should say increase by 2 stops. How can I edit the published version? I have some images too.
 
i have un published it Paul, you can edit it where it is in the forum ...

Chris, this is very good!

It is also the 1000th article of RPF ;)
 
Very interesting stuff for sure!

Me? I'd just bracket and pick the best one :)
 
Get a Nex or Pen already ... with their liveview changing when aperture and or shutter changed need nowt of this lark :rolleyes:

(really enjoyed reading ... clear & fun).
 
Very good write up Chris. It does often as most things end up as a compromise. Often looked into getting a good light meter and found myself getting the new lens instead. I do like the idea of slowing down and taking more time which a meter helps with.
 
Thanks Ahmad and Julian
 
Back
Top