Do you always underexpose with the MM?

[snooper]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Yes and no, Jaap: any camera of the world should deliver the same result for a given combination of speed, f stop, and iso. What you suggest means "use the camera normally then move the slider to get something close to your expectations".

 

I don't mind tweaking the slider (which I actually do by setting -2/3) but this is not the point.

 

Once again, the camera is fantastic, the meter seems accurate, we all know since day 1 that we have to be precocious in the highlights... But my question is more "would I be the only one thinking 320 ISO on a MM looks like some 400 ISO on any other camera?".

 

And I add a big humble question mark as I'm no expert, but when I look at my DNGs and when I look at some of the MM photos published here and there, I get this impression that it's often slightly over exposed.

 

Once again, it's not a critic of the pictures. Just like a book can be fantastic, the writer can be a great author, but you still might ask questions about the way the said book was printed.

[Advertisement]

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

[250swb]

I'm sorry but expose to the right is not my devise (with my M9 either) and I really don't get why that would give you the most information. Put the highlights in Zone VI and max VII; this way you'll never loose information. "Expose for the Shadows - Develop for the Highlights" is an analogue devise, more precise for negative film. Digital photography is much more like exposing a slide film.

 

I don't know where 'Expose for the Shadows' comes into the equation (?), but it is a bad idea in this context. Exposing to the right simply means you are exposing to the right of the histogram (the highlight end) as much as is possible, this is the opposite of exposing for the shadows.

 

As for exposing the highlights for Zone VI all you are doing is radically under-exposing the scene. There are two Zones higher than VII before you to get to pure white in Zone X, so use them, increasing exposure so you have a Zone IX tone (if there is one in the scene) will also increase the exposure of the shadows and stop them blocking up.

 

Steve

[elgenper]

....There are two Zones higher than VII before you to get to pure white in Zone X, so use them, increasing exposure so you have a Zone IX tone (if there is one in the scene) will also increase the exposure of the shadows and stop them blocking up.

 

Again, I suggest a look at my results when zone testing my MM. Unless one changes the EV compensation, already Zone VIII is pure white, and Zone VII is dangerously close (would have reduced or clipped details).

 

It is quite possible that it´s just my particular copy that´s a bit off (very common in the days of mechanical cameras and meters), and in the film days, one would simply set the meter to another ISO number and work as usual. With a digital, one would have to use the EV compensation, or just think different when shooting. That´s what I do, and I have no problems in using my MM (at least not this kind of problems...). I´d humbly suggest, however, that anybody who does have problems make a similar test series and get to know his/her particular camera.

[otto.f]

and stop them blocking up.

 

Steve

 

Nearly impossible to block shadows up with the MM.

But it's Ok Steve, we just don't agree

[250swb]

Again, I suggest a look at my results when zone testing my MM. Unless one changes the EV compensation, already Zone VIII is pure white, and Zone VII is dangerously close (would have reduced or clipped details).

 

As we know there is no equivalency in your compressed and theoretical Zone scale of the MM and the Zone System as described for film, which deals with a much wider and subtle dynamic range. You cannot just move the Zone's about as you like, calling Zone VIII pure white is not describing Zone VIII, it is describing your own scale, so call it something else, but it isn't the Zone System and the zone values should not be hijacked.

 

However the Zone scale is useful for describing tone in any sort of photograph. But the reason it is called a 'system' is because it deals in a common language so that if I describe 'Zone VIII' somebody else the other side of the world knows I mean a gray/white where there are details in the highlights, not pure white.

 

Steve

[Jeff S]

The ETTR issue has been rehashed here and elsewhere, with proponents and opponents. Ctein's point in the attached link isn't so much anti-ETTR in principle; rather it's that he doesn't trust cameras or users not to blow highlights, which he thinks is most likely, and more problematic than shadow noise, with today's cameras.

 

Unlike 'film zones', digital files contain more info (bit depth) in the upper zones, so that much has been written about preserving this data….while attempting not to blow highlights. But, as Steve says, a zone is still a zone in terms of describing tonality.

 

In the end, whatever works for you to get the desired result.

 

Jeff

[otto.f]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I also found among colleagues that the 'allergy' for highlights, in the sense that the eye is pulled toward the highlight part of the picture, whether intended or not, knows individual differences.

[elgenper]

As we know there is no equivalency in your compressed and theoretical Zone scale of the MM and the Zone System as described for film, which deals with a much wider and subtle dynamic range. You cannot just move the Zone's about as you like, calling Zone VIII pure white is not describing Zone VIII, it is describing your own scale, so call it something else, but it isn't the Zone System and the zone values should not be hijacked.

 

However the Zone scale is useful for describing tone in any sort of photograph. But the reason it is called a 'system' is because it deals in a common language so that if I describe 'Zone VIII' somebody else the other side of the world knows I mean a gray/white where there are details in the highlights, not pure white.

 

Steve

 

Sure, one cannot use the complete ZS concept for digital, and that´s not what I did, either. What I did use was the initial ´place´ part: if one meters a grey surface and expose it as metered, it is ´placed´ in Zone V. If one opens up three stops from the metered value, that surface is ´placed´ in Zone VIII. How that surface is finally ´rendered´ is a function of both placement and post processing, but that´s another thing. What I found was that already the ´placing´of anything in Zone VIII makes it irretrievably clipped to pure white (call it a built-in N+2 development if you want, but there it is), and is thus not a good idea for, say sunlit snow or a whitewashed wall where one wants texture.

 

Again, it might be just my specimen of the MM, but it is a fact for my workflow. The good thing is, the effect shows up in the histogram and the clipping indicators, so still one does know what really happens - if there´s time to consult the histogram....

[250swb]

I can see Zone VIII values in my MM files, what I'm not doing is kidding myself or anybody else they are Zone VII or Zone VI just because the dynamic range of the MM is narrower than film. If you want to make the Zone system the equivalent of 30 inches to the yard create your own system, name it, and give a reason it is better, you never know we may all adopt it.

 

Steve

[david strachan]

Expose for the image, the parts you want exposed!

The rest is dodging and burning.

cheers Dave S

[jaapv]

I can see Zone VIII values in my MM files, what I'm not doing is kidding myself or anybody else they are Zone VII or Zone VI just because the dynamic range of the MM is narrower than film. If you want to make the Zone system the equivalent of 30 inches to the yard create your own system, name it, and give a reason it is better, you never know we may all adopt it.

 

Steve

If you consider the ten steps, the Zone System itself is narrower than (modern) film. And than the Monochrom...

[J M Hughes]

In my experience, virtually all digital cameras (regardless of brand) benefit from a degree of under-exposure - say, -1/3 or -2/3 EV - in order to reduce the risk of highlight burnout.

However, I find the Monochrom to be an exception to this rule. Typically, its rendition seems to be on the dark side of neutral. That being the case, I would rarely ever want or need use it with minus exposure compensation.

I'd always assumed Leica made the MM this way because the amount of highlight detail one can claw back in RAW is limited compared to a colour camera. So, I'm intrigued you find your MM over-exposes ; That hasn't been my experience at all - and I've tested dozens of these cameras.

Have you ever compared your MM against another sample? Might be interesting!

[davidbaddley]

There seems to be some variation in this conversation about what a "zone" is. For many of us that used the zone system regularly long before digital came along, a zone was not a particular shade of gray (these could easily be altered while printing), but a variation of one stop in exposure (per zone) and the detail captured as a result. Putting expansion (N+) and contraction (N-) development aside for the moment, zone VII meant 2 stops more exposure than middle gray, and about as far as you could go and still expect full detail and texture without risking "blown" highlights. Likewise, zone III meant 2 stops less exposure than middle gray, and about as far as you could go into the shadows without risking some loss (of course there are many ways to alter these limits).

 

In other words, film's response to light is fairly symmetrical, full capture from 2 stops above middle gray to 2 stops below middle gray. The MM, however, is very different. Its highlights blow out as quickly as film (maybe even more quickly), but it reaches many stops more deeply into the shadows (yes, the MM has a much larger range than film, but it's all in the shadows).

 

When shooting negative film, we prioritized the placement of zone III because shadow detail is placed by exposure, while the placement of the highlight (zone VII) can be manipulated by development. Shooting the MM is exactly the opposite, exposure determines the limits of the highlights, while the shadow is easily placed when processing.

 

I've heard many complaints about M9/MM images looking too flat or too dark or too light or whatever coming out of the camera. I think this is a non-issue. It's more important to capture a full range of usable detail, and I think the M9 and the MM do this really well, as long as you pay attention to the highlights. The image shouldn't look great coming out of the camera, it should contain the information to look great after processing.

[pgk]

Exposure with ANY camera needs to take into account a whole range of variables including post processing preferences for a particular subject under specific lighting conditions. This IMO includes digital. Assuming all camera's metering systems to be the same and yield identical results ignores the sensor's capabilities and post processing desires. If you want to reproduce an 18% reflectance grey card as a print then this will require a (potentially default though certainly not always) exposure/post processing combination than will say a high contrast contre jour scene. I don't have an MM but I have no doubt that its characteristics need 'learning' and it needs to be set up to work as desired and not as it appears out of the box.

 

FWIW I have experimented extensively with my M9 and only rely on its meter as an indication of the exposure that I desire. I generally shoot in manual and view the (admittedly in camera jpeg derived) histogram before settling on my exposure. I also accept underexposure more than many from what I read and rely on boosting gain in software rather than in camera. But each to their own. [FWIW I would suggest that many digital cameras do tend to yield too light an image if adjusted to their suggested settings].

 

IMO exposure is a fairly fluid concept these days (within limits obviously) and depends on a whole host of variables many of which are (in general photography) quite subjective. And we do though have a tendency to rely on numbers and figures rather than objective testing of what suits our own requirements.

[MarkP]

I've heard many complaints about M9/MM images looking too flat or too dark or too light or whatever coming out of the camera. I think this is a non-issue. It's more important to capture a full range of usable detail, and I think the M9 and the MM do this really well, as long as you pay attention to the highlights. The image shouldn't look great coming out of the camera, it should contain the information to look great after processing.

 

Thank you David. We discussed these extensively here in the Forum when the Monochrom was first released.

You are spot on.

Edited December 27, 2014 by MarkP

[jaapv]

There seems to be some variation in this conversation about what a "zone" is. For many of us that used the zone system regularly long before digital came along, a zone was not a particular shade of gray (these could easily be altered while printing), but a variation of one stop in exposure (per zone) and the detail captured as a result. Putting expansion (N+) and contraction (N-) development aside for the moment, zone VII meant 2 stops more exposure than middle gray, and about as far as you could go and still expect full detail and texture without risking "blown" highlights. Likewise, zone III meant 2 stops less exposure than middle gray, and about as far as you could go into the shadows without risking some loss (of course there are many ways to alter these limits).

 

In other words, film's response to light is fairly symmetrical, full capture from 2 stops above middle gray to 2 stops below middle gray. The MM, however, is very different. Its highlights blow out as quickly as film (maybe even more quickly), but it reaches many stops more deeply into the shadows (yes, the MM has a much larger range than film, but it's all in the shadows).

 

When shooting negative film, we prioritized the placement of zone III because shadow detail is placed by exposure, while the placement of the highlight (zone VII) can be manipulated by development. Shooting the MM is exactly the opposite, exposure determines the limits of the highlights, while the shadow is easily placed when processing.

 

I've heard many complaints about M9/MM images looking too flat or too dark or too light or whatever coming out of the camera. I think this is a non-issue. It's more important to capture a full range of usable detail, and I think the M9 and the MM do this really well, as long as you pay attention to the highlights. The image shouldn't look great coming out of the camera, it should contain the information to look great after processing.

Which is true, and the “Zone System” histogram is non-linear or that reason.

[250swb]

For anybody not up to speed with 'zones'

Welcome, dear visitor! As registered member you'd see an image here…

Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members!

[davidbaddley]

Keep in mind that the illustration above is an oversimplification based on film, and that with film, each of these shades is exactly one stop apart. This predictability was important and made the zone system usable, since there is no chimping with film.

 

If you accept that a zone is a particular shade of gray, then the variation between these shades of gray (and therefore a zone) is no longer exactly one stop with the MM.

 

If, however, you accept that each zone is a variation of exactly one stop in exposure, then these shades of gray (and the detail captured) probably don't look like this with the MM.

 

I'm in the latter camp myself. Tonalities of a print can easily be manipulated both in the darkroom and when processing on a computer. The zone system was about optimizing information at capture, to provide as much detail as possible.

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica M

[jaapv]

But the further processing to print which is the core of the Zone System can be duplicated in post-processing. In fact, it is not a bad idea to do so as the MM files are so rich in shades of grey that one can get pretty good results that way.

[250swb]

Keep in mind that the illustration above is an oversimplification based on film,

 

The illustration above is to ensure everybody talks the same language, and that Zone VIII can't be in two places at the same time.

 

The first thing I learned in photography happened to be the Zone System, so in right at the deep end, and yes anything regarding digital is a skewed view of it or compromised in the interpretation. But the least we can do is agree on the description of the tonal values even if they are not the conventional one stop apart and even if they are not linear at all.

 

Steve