Please help: M9 Exposure Problems

[parasko]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Hi all,

 

This is my first weekend with the M9 and I'm having problems with my exposures: either over or under...I just can't seem to get it right!! This happens mostly in contrasting light...think harsh Australian sun..strong shadows and highlights.

 

Usually I'm spot-on with this aspect of photography and I use slide film (Provia 100) with an M7..no problems at all!! I have even previously used a Canon 1Ds with no problems.

 

I recall reading that some of you factor in -1/3 to overcome blown highlights. I tried this but I lose all detail in the shadows and the image simply looks underexposed! I've tried exposing to the right of the histogram for the highlights and this isn't really working for me either! Hence, my images are hit and miss re: exposure.

 

Can anyone guide me to a previous thread where this has been discussed in detail so I can experiment a little more. Or could any of you offer advice?

 

FWIW, I'm shooting DNG uncompressed files using CS4. Does Lightroom make a difference in this regard?

 

Any advice is appreciated as this is very frustrating and I'm starting to think this was not 8K plus well-spent.

 

Cheers,

[Advertisement]

The Leica Q3 is available for pre-order at B&H Photo Video and Adorama

[250swb]

If you can make a correct exposure with the M7 then there's no reason not to do the same with an M9. So that would perhaps leave your experience with processing RAW/.dng files as the problem??

 

Don't ever judge a .dng file as 'the photo', you have to do something to it or they will most often look dull and underexposed. As they came from the camera they have all the information, but not necessarilyarranged in the way you want it. The first thing you could do is press the 'Auto' button in Lightroom's 'Develop' window and see where that gets you. If you don't like that use the sliders to brighten the image while keeping an eye on the histogram. Equally you can play with the shadows and lighten or darken them. The .dng file will most probably have far more information in it than you think, including the shadow detail you think you have lost. A good idea may be to shoot .dng and JPEG for a while. The JPEG should show you how the camera processes the information, then you can see how to match it, then exceed it, using the .dng file.

 

Steve

[wattsy]

In my experience, M9 default RAW conversions are very contrasty - more so than the M8 (and most probably your 1DS) and exposure can thus seem quite unforgiving. There is, however, a lot of information that can be brought out by tweaking the DNG conversion (especially at the shadow end). That said, I do believe in getting a 'good' exposure when I take the shot. My own approach is to be wary of the highlights but, if lighting is particularly contrasty, to not obsess about losing highlight detail (photos to me usually look better if they are exposed more 'naturally' - with some given highlight loss - than if deliberately underexposed and later 're-exposed' in post). I never dial in any permanent exposure compensation but I do tend to compensate by choosing a manual exposure reading that is not 'bang on' according to the meter (i. e. I rarely choose the reading with just the central dot showing). It's difficult to explain but I tend to expose by 'feel' - making an intuitive judgement about how much off of 'bang on' I need to be.

[Marty]

[thread=113535]Here[/thread] is a previous recent discussion.

 

It is true that auto exposure is very tricky in extreme contrast situations, especially when there is the risk of losing detail completely. Even if you know exactly where the histogram should be in those situations it can be difficult to nail it. Once you do, manual mode will keep you consistent.

 

Then of course there are other aids such as ND grads and HDR. And nothing is stopping you from using a lightmeter! In the right hands the latter can outdo even the matrix meters of today.

[ChristopherGrant]

parasko,

 

If it's any consolation, I'm having similar difficulties.

 

Have been using my M9 for a few days now and am slowly getting it under control. I can't offer any advice other than already mentioned, but only say that the processing of the M9 files differ almost radically compared to my Canon bodies.

 

My results after about 1000 exposures are getting better though, as I (re)learn how to process and edit the files.

 

Luck!

Christopher

[neli]

I had the same experience re. processing DNG's.

Coming from the Nikon D3/D700 it's changed a lot. I hardly need to sharpen anymore, which was the step on the NEF files; tend to have to deal with moiré every so often, which simply never turned up on the Nikon system; WB has become a non-issue when I use my the x-rite passport, again the Nikon system didn't warrant using it very often. I have yet to have to increase contrast or saturate an image, which is something I had to do on the Nikon files or it all looked a little dull unless the light was juuuust right.

But this is me, ymmv.

 

enjoy relearning the process, all in all i have halved my computer time using the M9, which is almost as joyful as carrying a quarter of the weight.

 

best

 

cornelius

[diogenis]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Don't worry about shadows. Your camera is more sensitive to shadows: it has a couple of stops more in dynamic range than what it's got for highlights. Therefore if your exposure is real close to burning highlights (the red areas in your histograms, you have to turn this on via a menu option), means if you can still see some very few red spots, then your photo is correct. Maybe a little bit of recovering light in the shadows in pp (cs, lr or other) and you are done.

If you use it in auto, you might need to underexpose in more than 1 stops and not just 1/3 via the EV compensation button. If you use it manual, it seems like an EV15 (sunny 16 rule) level, so you can easily choose your under stops via speed or aperture rings

[lars_bergquist]

A hand-held incident light meter (or a ExpoDisc held to the lens and used with the whole camera as a hand-held meter) will absolutely nail the diffuse highlights, and thereby also the midtones. (Specular highlights are a different matter; they are mirror images of the Big Light Source up there in the sky, so they should burn out -- we always printed them paper white.)

 

If the DNG files confuse you, shoot JPG, or maybe JPG and DNG in parallel, for a time. If the JPGs turn out right, you have learned exposure.

 

The old man from the Age of Correct Exposure

[PetersDreams]

Hey there

I'm am newbie to the M9 too (came from 1ds and D3). Usually I use -0.7 ev and then do the rest in Lightroom / Capture One. It's really easier to do it there than in Photoshop in my opinion (Auto feature in Lightroom is right about 50% of the time ...) . I also use the "show the clipped highlights in red" feature, which avoids overexposing accidentally. In my view the M9 is great in the shadow areas but much less so in the highlights (very much like the original 1ds, but it far exceeds the 1ds overall). So you have to go back to exposing for the highlights (again much the same way as in the orginal 1ds)

 

So in essence - and as others mentioned - you have to do more exposure adjustment in Lightroom than with a D3, but the results you get are really worth it.

 

Cheers

Peter

[Jamie Roberts]

Expose for the most significant highlights and let the rest blow out. What does this mean on an M9? Point the meter at the highlights you want to keep, and set the arrow key so that it's just past the center point (IOW on the verge of overexposure). You have at least a stop over neutral gray (which is what the meter thinks your highlight is ) so you should have no problem. The M9, like the M8, is very strongly center-weighted and coming from a Canon matrix meter that's pretty confusing (or, for me, refreshing, because I know absolutely what the meter is doing )

 

Next, try C1 with the M9 and use the shadow recovery. LR and CS are doing something funky with the way they calculate blackpoint with the M9, and I don't like it (it's worse than the M8 with LR in my opinion). I'm sure they will fix this in their next LR release (the beta seems a lot better) but right now I get better results out of Capture One.

[nryn]

I had an M8 since the month it was released, and I have to say the M9 is a very different beast. I'm still trying to become familiar with the way it meters. It's much more of a spot meter, it seems, than the M8, and for some reason I haven't yet been able to rewire my brain to expose that way.

 

But as others have mentioned, there is a lot of exposure latitude in M9 RAW files. Even ones up to ISO 1250.

 

I'm also having a bear of a time getting decent color out of the M9, but I think my brain is also having to adjust to the way Aperture 3 does color (as opposed to A2).

[diogenis]

One more thing about separate light meters:

Obviously they are designed to meter correct any diffuse lights, and therefore are very good to that, but don't forget that your camera has something that is even better. That's the end result, or the histogram which can clearly show you highlights. When one learns the relevance of his (camera's) lightmeter and its output (the histograms/clips) he will then know how to nail exposure. Separate lightmeters are great, but they all add another step of complexity while trying to compose.

Not a bad choice to get an expodisk however for the tough cases, where you really can't "nail" the exposure (actually this simply can't exist, because you can always check your highlights and compensate) but it all is also a matter of convenience and speed.

[diogenis]

And for the folk that use a perma -.7 EV:

 

Hey there

I'm am newbie to the M9 too (came from 1ds and D3). Usually I use -0.7 ev ....

 

0.7 ev is like real close to a full stop. This will eventually get you into trouble when you really want to shoot with low available light in the dark. Underexposing so much might result in shaken shots. Leaving a permanent -2/3 underexposure also means that your camera's light meter is off by that and need recalibration, but I doubt that there is such a case. You can adjust for a tough situation for sure, but this is like crippling the camera (well, sortof...)

[Jamie Roberts]

One more thing about separate light meters:

Obviously they are designed to meter correct any diffuse lights, and therefore are very good to that, but don't forget that your camera has something that is even better. That's the end result, or the histogram which can clearly show you highlights. When one learns the relevance of his (camera's) lightmeter and its output (the histograms/clips) he will then know how to nail exposure. Separate lightmeters are great, but they all add another step of complexity while trying to compose.

Not a bad choice to get an expodisk however for the tough cases, where you really can't "nail" the exposure (actually this simply can't exist, because you can always check your highlights and compensate) but it all is also a matter of convenience and speed.

 

Yeah, but...I honestly couldn't care less what a histogram says... because:

 

1) a histogram only shows you highlights, and not whether they're significant or not... which means you might be holding speculars and other junk you don't want or need to hold. Same goes for shadows.

 

2) the histogram measures JPEG response not raw. So in fact the M9 has a ton of latitude; I've pushed ISO 1600 to a veritable ISO 5000 (by metering) and printed the results and they're great. The histogram is a lie, in other words.

 

3) Expodisc is kind of overrated for exposure. A true incident meter is much easier to use in tricky light because the light falling on your subject is more important generally (95% of the time) than the light reflected by your subject. The histogram is not nearly as important as understanding that, IMO.

 

4)you can calibrate your camera to the meter with studio lights so you're never guessing again You need to understand what illumination will give a measures RGB highlight of about 242/242/242 from the raw file and then compensate for the difference.

 

But all that is pretty complex for the weekend shooter.

 

So my advice? ignore the histogram because it lies; get an incident meter and use it till you get the light OR just point your M9 meter at the most significant highlight you want to hold and overexpose +-1-2 clicks of the shutter or aperture. Sometimes that thing you're pointing to is not "white," remember, but it often is .

 

Don't change the exposure again till 1) the light changes or 2) you want a different interpretation of the subject or have a different subject

 

Your shadows will fall where they fall, but they can usually be retrieved in post (of course when you're shooting ISO 2500 in very low light that's not going to be the case )

[yanidel]

when I read that thread, I feel I am doing something wrong. I tend to use +1/3 or +2/3 on my M9 because otherwise I feel it underexposes a lot.

I find highlights recovery capability much better than on the M8, yet lightening up the darks brings up noise quite quickly.

So I wonder why some use -2/3, while others +2/3. Maybe down to technique ?

[parasko]

Wow! A wealth of information! Thanks you guys!

 

Some things to mention...I only ever use Aperture-Priority and I work too fast to use a hand-held meter for street shooting...just one extra gadget I don't want to think about..

 

..but adding +1 exposure and metering for the highlights sounds like a sensible workable solution...I am concerned about how this will affect the noise levels in the shadows, but I'll give it a go this weekend and experiment further in post-processing...

 

you have all at least encouraged me not to sell the damn thing just yet ....geez...so much work for an 8K camera...makes shooting with slide film a walk in the park!

 

Cheers.

[diogenis]

Oops I made a mistake as well:

.... Underexposing so much might result in shaken shots....

 

Obviously, when you permanent underexpose all the time you risk losing shadows, not shaking pics. Sorry 'bout that

[diogenis]

Yeah, but...I honestly couldn't care less what a histogram says... because:

 

1) a histogram only shows you highlights, and not whether they're significant or not... which means you might be holding speculars and other junk you don't want or need to hold. Same goes for shadows.

 

2) the histogram measures JPEG response not raw. So in fact the M9 has a ton of latitude; I've pushed ISO 1600 to a veritable ISO 5000 (by metering) and printed the results and they're great. The histogram is a lie, in other words.

 

3) Expodisc is kind of overrated for exposure. A true incident meter is much easier to use in tricky light because the light falling on your subject is more important generally (95% of the time) than the light reflected by your subject. The histogram is not nearly as important as understanding that, IMO.

 

4)you can calibrate your camera to the meter with studio lights so you're never guessing again You need to understand what illumination will give a measures RGB highlight of about 242/242/242 from the raw file and then compensate for the difference.

 

But all that is pretty complex for the weekend shooter.

 

So my advice? ignore the histogram because it lies; get an incident meter and use it till you get the light OR just point your M9 meter at the most significant highlight you want to hold and overexpose +-1-2 clicks of the shutter or aperture. Sometimes that thing you're pointing to is not "white," remember, but it often is .

 

Don't change the exposure again till 1) the light changes or 2) you want a different interpretation of the subject or have a different subject

 

Your shadows will fall where they fall, but they can usually be retrieved in post (of course when you're shooting ISO 2500 in very low light that's not going to be the case )

 

Jamie, I agree completely with all.

But

When I find the mood, I will simply printout wikipedia's EV table Exposure value - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia and calibrate the exposure using it instead and not getting fooled by either the picky light meter and/or histograms, or, even better relate all these 3 instruments together and see which one helps more.

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica M

[jonoslack]

So I wonder why some use -2/3, while others +2/3. Maybe down to technique ?

 

Well - it could be meter accuracy, but it's more likely to be whether one is focusing on blown highlights or noisy shadows . . . . different strokes for different folks, and of course for different scenes.

I have one of my M9's on -1/3, and the other on 0. Works for me, but it's more by instinct than by scientific investigation

[Jamie Roberts]

Wow! A wealth of information! Thanks you guys!

 

Some things to mention...I only ever use Aperture-Priority and I work too fast to use a hand-held meter for street shooting...just one extra gadget I don't want to think about..

 

..but adding +1 exposure and metering for the highlights sounds like a sensible workable solution...I am concerned about how this will affect the noise levels in the shadows, but I'll give it a go this weekend and experiment further in post-processing...

 

you have all at least encouraged me not to sell the damn thing just yet ....geez...so much work for an 8K camera...makes shooting with slide film a walk in the park!

 

Cheers.

 

LOL! I work too fast for aperture priority, because the auto-fool in the camera has no idea what is grey or not, but thinks everything is. Manual, even with a meter, is much faster and means less post production.

 

You really should try an incident meter. Meter once; shoot away, as long as the light doesn't change (and it doesn't that much; you'd be surprised) you don't change your exposure.

 

Anyway, placing the values you want with the M9 meter will absolutely not affect noise levels that much in normal ISO ranges from 80 to 2000 on the m9.

 

Remember, don't try to hold speculars or other useless highlights or you're underexposing; only meter for the ones you care about and place them above grey.

 

The meter trick works for making shadows dark too; if you want to preserve the effect of shadow then meter the shadows and pull the exposure down.

 

The auto-meter gets this "wrong" by design...it's designed to be great if you're shooting a grey card

 

PS--all the $8K plus cameras require a lot of work. The difference is, they repay the work with results