Underexposure

I know underexposure is talked about regularly with the D750, so please bear with me...

I recently got a pre-loved D750 after a few years enjoying the D7200.

I photograph a lot of aircraft, and I'm fortunate to have a lot of cloudless days.

Photographing jets against a strong blue sky, every frame is underexposed. Here's an example:



This JPG is a RAW file that's gone straight through Capture NX-D with no adjustments other than 'vivid' picture control set on the camera. Matrix metering and ADL off.

I did not have this issue with the D7200. Is the large area of blue sky, or the bright white of the fuselage, throwing the metering in some way?

The answer to your question is, "Yes... Matrix metering averages the entire scene"...

Do I need to try centre-weighted?

You can. Just realize that shooting sky images like airplanes means, depending on which direction and time of day, exposure can change relatively quickly... Being able to assess your conditions, and then adjusting for those conditions is your challenge. There is NO magic bullet.

I always struggled with matrix metering and instead use center weighted metering most of the time (except when I switch to spot metering on rare occasions). No matter whether I'm photographing a bird or a plane, I always override my EV and dial in +0.7. The sky is extremely bright and will heavily influence metering.

Honestly I'm surprised you photographed planes with the D7200 just by using matrix metering and not needing to increase your exposure. It just didn't work for me. You can always keep using matrix metering but try and increase your exposure with the +/- button and see if you will get more consistent exposures.

One more thought...the D7200 is a DX sensor. Perhaps with planes being closer in the DX viewfinder, there might not have been as much sky in those images to influence its sensor?

It's quite confounding. The image below is from the D7200, with matrix metering, and again straight out of Capture NX-D. The only difference is that picture control was set to 'standard'.

In this case, noticeably (though not seriously) overexposed. A different time of day (and a different time of year) may have given me a different colour sky, too.

Just some thought. First to me at a little after five this time of the year the image looks a little yellow. Second if you were using the same lens on the d7200 it would show less vignetting if any and there for brighter.



Just white balanced off top are on plane.

The d750 shot looks like I would expect. I can't explain the d7200 shot. Anyway, I just wanted to share something I have set up. I mostly use matrix metering but I assigned my fn and pv buttons to center and spot metering so I can apply them instantly as needed. Sure I could quickly change modes in the normal way, but I will forget to set it back to matrix almost every time.

The A330 shot was taken late in the afternoon with the sun about to set behind me.

I really like both these cameras but what's surprised me is how different the images are from each.

Steve in Oz said:

The A330 shot was taken late in the afternoon with the sun about to set behind me.

Click to expand...

Could very well represent what you saw. Didn't check sunset time and don't what part of the world you are in.

This is but one reason why I very rarely rely on the camera's meter and just accept what it is telling me. This is a cloudless day, therefore the BSD (Bright Sunny Day, 1/ASA @ f/16) rule would be a good starting point. Because you are shooting into a bright scene, open up ½-¾ stop. This would have most likely nailed the exposure. Even if it slightly overexposed the shot, that is easily corrected in post processing. Digital cameras, as a genera rule, do better with overexposure than with underexposure.

STM said:

This is but one reason why I very rarely rely on the camera's meter and just accept what it is telling me. This is a cloudless day, therefore the BSD (Bright Sunny Day, 1/ASA @ f/16) rule would be a good starting point. Because you are shooting into a bright scene, open up ½-¾ stop. This would have most likely nailed the exposure. Even if it slightly overexposed the shot, that is easily corrected in post processing. Digital cameras, as a genera rule, do better with overexposure than with underexposure.

Click to expand...

I think you mean the opposite. Film does better with Overexposure, digital does better with UnderExposure. When highlights get blown out in digital, data is lost and cannot be recovered. Whereas, underexposed, details are still there and can be recovered in post by increasing the gain... The opposite is true for film.

FredKingston said:

I think you mean the opposite. Film does better with Overexposure, digital does better with UnderExposure. When highlights get blown out in digital, data is lost and cannot be recovered. Whereas, underexposed, details are still there and can be recovered in post by increasing the gain... The opposite is true for film.

Click to expand...

No, I meant what I said. Underexposure in digital leads to reduced dynamic range and increased noise. Slide film does not tolerate overexposure well, because the film will be clear.

Look at the D500 for example. Take an exposure 1 stop over and 1 stop over and adjust them to a normal exposure and look at the quality of the final image.

You contradict what has ever been written on the subject. That's fine.

This whole exposure and metering debate has tempted me to try using a light meter. Does anyone use one these days?

Steve in Oz said:

This whole exposure and metering debate has tempted me to try using a light meter. Does anyone use one these days?

Click to expand...

For photographing planes, I doubt it would do much good - the reason being I'm not sure how you'd accomplish an incident meter reading. Your camera already has the ability to read reflective metering and spot metering which are two of the meter reading abilities on a light meter. With an incident meter reading, you go to where the subject is located and aim the meter back towards the camera.

I have an older Gossen light meter but don't have the optional attachment for spot metering. In the past when I shot film, I made use of the incident meter reading inside my church's Sanctuary and found it worked very well. Since DSLR's allow viewing images on the LCD screen, a light meter really isn't something I use now.

FredKingston said:

You contradict what has ever been written on the subject. That's fine.

Click to expand...

Not wishing to get embroiled but I thought that the advice when looking at the histogram was to expose to the right; which, if I'm not mistaken, is erring on the side of OVER exposure.

Spottydumplings said:

Not wishing to get embroiled but I thought that the advice when looking at the histogram was to expose to the right; which, if I'm not mistaken, is erring on the side of OVER exposure.

Click to expand...

I understand. Exposing to the right, tends to lead to clipping in the highlights. That results in loss of detail. By bringing up the exposure in post we recover detail from underexposed regions. The negative is, it might add a bit of noise. With noise reduction software today, I lean toward exposing to the center, or just left of center, and any added noise is easily eliminated in noise reduction.

Steve in Oz said:

This whole exposure and metering debate has tempted me to try using a light meter. Does anyone use one these days?

Click to expand...

Yes. It is used mostly for off camera flash. Would I go out and buy another most likely not.