Blinkies latitude

[Woodstock]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I am surprised that there seems not to be any official reference to the exposure level at which blinkies appear with the Q3. I am aware that there is no general standardisation in this regard, some manufacturers setting the level at 100% sensor saturation, others lower, and some allowing a degree of user adjustment. Searching this forum also suggests variability in practical approach, with many suggesting that with the exception of specular highlights etc, blinkies should be avoided, whilst others state that there is an expectation that some exposure headroom still exists despite their appearance.

 

As a fairly rough and ready test, I took a series of landscape type images (my main genre) using a standard methodology (DNG, aperture priority, ISO 200, standard film style), setting exposure at the level immediately below that at which blinkies appear, and then increasing at 1/3rd stop increments for a further two stops. After viewing in DxO Photolab 8 I found that in all cases I was able to over expose by at least one stop before clipping, and in some cases somewhat more. All the images were pretty overcast (usual Cornish June weather!) but I would not expect that this should significantly affect the findings.

 

I am sure that this general trend reflects other users results, but for those who, like me, have always intended to get round to testing but, at least until today, haven’t yet done so, I hope it may be of use. I would also be interested to hear whether anyone has found that some types of images may present different metering challenges.

[Advertisement]

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

[bobtodrick]

I kinda agree with their conclusion…not something I’m going to spend time worrying about

https://petapixel.com/what-are-blinkies-in-photography/

[LocalHero1953]

I've never tested, but I have just got used to treating blinkiess as a sign that I'm approaching overexposure in some parts of the image - if it's just a little bit, I don't worry, if it's a lot, I compensate. Before doing anything I look at the histogram to see what the overall pattern is.

But neither blinkies nor histogram will help you with blown sparkly bits on tiny detail (skin texture, some dappled foliage, some rippled water), where blown spots are too small to show as blinkies at yet can spoil an image in post processing, where they are impossible to recover. What looks like just an over-lit cheek can never be toned down to show the actual skin colour. I've just got used to under-exposing if I think this is likely - it's much easier to recover shadows.

[SrMi]

On 6/13/2025 at 8:33 PM, Woodstock said:

I am aware that there is no general standardisation in this regard, some manufacturers setting the level at 100% sensor saturation, others lower, and some allowing a degree of user adjustment.

No manufacturer sets blinkies based on sensor saturation (raw data), as the blinkies are computed from the generated JPEGs. This means that the blinking point depends on the JPEG mode, the highlight clipping setting (if available), and the scene. The best way to use blinkies is to apply your experience with how the camera handles highlight clipping warnings.

 

On 6/13/2025 at 8:33 PM, Woodstock said:

After viewing in DxO Photolab 8 I found that in all cases I was able to over expose by at least one stop before clipping

DxO Photolab (and most other post processors) cannot show you whether you are clipping in raw, but whether you are clipping in what you see on the screen after the post-processor's initial modifications have been applied. You need a tool like RawDIgger to determine the clipping point in raw data.

Many post-processors have something called highlight recovery. When one channel is clipped, the unclipped channels are used to reconstruct the missing data. Sometimes it works, but sometimes detail and color are lost.

With highlight clipping, it is always best to be on the safe side.

Edited June 15 by SrMi

[Woodstock]

Thanks both for your comments, and let me say straight away that I agree with everything you have mentioned. That said, I hope you will forgive me saying SrMi, that I think you may have slightly misinterpreted the context in which I posted.

 

I agree that I should have used the term “sensor saturation” in inverted commas, to make it clear that I was using that simply as shorthand for the situation where a sensor is exposed to so much incident light that, for normal practical purposes, it is impossible that any meaningful information other than gross over-exposure of that part of the sensor so affected can be retrieved from the Raw file.

 

I am of course aware that blinkies are, in the vast majority of cases, related to the generated jpg image rather than the Raw data (the M9 Monochrom is said to be one exception). Some suggest that in the Q3 this may depend on the set film style even when the camera is not set to save a separate jpg. My point about the relative exposure level at which blinkies appear was not related to what one might term true raw clipping, but to the practical EVF/LCD demonstration of an impending level of over exposure; this does appear to be set at differing levels by different manufacturers. I also accept that Raw processors have been reported as having differing abilities in terms of many properties, including highlight recovery. It was for these reasons that I took care to be clear about the methodology that I employed.

 

You will note that I said “as a fairly rough and ready test”, and that to avoid concerns about generalisation I was specific about the genre, shooting and post-processing parameters that I normally employ. My intention was to unravel the uncertainty that exists as to whether in those circumstances there is any useable exposure latitude above the point at which the blinkies appear, the answer to which, given the parameters that I normally use, is yes.

 

For those who do not make use of them I accept that such knowledge will be entirely irrelevant, but for those who do, it may provide a useful adjunct to the histogram and a starting point for further experiment; no more, no less.