Nikon D850: Images constantly under exposed

Thanks. Here are the images again:

Matrix Metering
View attachment 268151

Matrix Metering
View attachment 268152

Center Weighted
View attachment 268153

Matrix Metering
View attachment 268154

In conclusion, the issue is with the user. Not the camera.

BR,
Taha


Much better. hovering over the photos gives all the info we need. Matrix metering is not really the best metering mode. It is looking at the sky in these shots and averaging it into the metering. Makes it underexposed on the main subject. Go to center averaging, not spot metering. this is look at the subject and expose for that. The sky will lose exposure but that is not what you are taking a photo of. A polarizer might help when you are shooting outside like this.
 

Horoscope Fish

Senior Member
And after a light touch of post-processing, you can't really tell the difference...
.....
0975:
0975-2.jpg

.....
.....
.....
0976:
0976-2.jpg

.....
 

spb_stan

Senior Member
Look at a scene and notice whether is has a wide range between bright and dark or a narrow range. If a wide range, it is likely the metering in matrix will be a very good job of finding the mid point that is how you expect. If a narrow range, like these scenes, which are on the brighter end of the spectrum...bright cloudy sky and light colored buildings, the meter assumes the mid point of bright and darkest is supposed to look grey in black/white balance. So seeing that scene before even looking through the camera VF, one would assume the image would exposed as mostly grey brightness level. If there was a large dark object in the frame, the range would be wider between the bright sky and the darkest elements so exposure would probably be exactly how you expected.
Since there is no dark portion of the scene we know it is going to be under exposed to make the bright areas closer to that 18% grey. Dialing in 1.5 stops of positive exposure compensation before taking the shot would have made it look like you wanted it.
If you were filling the frame with a black cat, the range of brightness would be limited and low but the camera thinks the mid point between the brightest and darkest is 18% grey, the black cat would be overexposed and dialing in 1-2 stops of negative exposure compensation would make the scene look as you intended. This difference between expected and and results happens when the brightness range is narrow, and when wider, the meter will be much closer to what you see with your eyes. The camera has an Ez-Compensation function that allows the command wheels on the right be used for quick exposure compensation. You generally do not need it with most scenes that have both bright and dark elements.
 

mikew_RIP

Senior Member
Not saying this to defend Nikon but i do wonder if its wrong or just different,when people like the Camera store ( who i enjoy watching) have such a problem i wonder if its because of how many different cameras they use so they never get to grips with an individual camera,you need more feed back from owners to be sure its a camera fault.
If it is ime sure the reports will come in and i guess it can be sorted with a firmware update.
 

spb_stan

Senior Member
Have you taken any photos which had a wider luminosity range? You showed examples of grey mid tone background and foreground and expect it to be bright. Post some photos of normal scenes with contrast and more than just midtones and see if there really is a problem. I hope you are not judging based on those images, there must be others that are a better test.
Besides, you have full control of exposure and exposure bias beside exposure compensation.If all images, even those of scene with high and low tones are biased to the low, just adjust the exposure metering bias, that is what it is for. But I suggest not making any changes until you determine whether all scenes too dark. There has not been enough information posted so far to make any conclusion.
 

Blade Canyon

Senior Member
Ok, so it seems I am not the only one facing this "under exposure" issue. Here is the review from TheCameraStoreTV on YouTube: https://youtu.be/A_OMIRHXynQ?t=261. Have a look.

Here's where I differ from some standard viewpoints about exposure. The guy on that video took a picture of a grayish/brown board with a dark background. There was nothing white in the photograph, but he added exposure to "fill up the histogram."

I have the same bias in post but have started questioning my behavior. I adjust levels so that the brightest point in the photograph is peak white and the lowest is darkest black, even if there's NOTHING in the actual shot that is total white or total black. It does make the shot look better, but not necessarily realistic.

Now consider this: you do all of your post processing to make the histogram go edge-to-edge, but then you decide to crop. Now on the cropped shot, your histogram isn't filling the box any more. Maybe you cropped out the brightest or darkest part of the pic. Do you re-adjust levels so the cropped shot covers all black to all white?

Later in the weekend I'll try to post some example shots.
 
Last edited:

Horoscope Fish

Senior Member
Here's where I differ from some standard viewpoints about exposure. The guy on that video took a picture of a grayish/brown board with a dark background. There was nothing white in the photograph, but he added exposure to "fill up the histogram."

I have the same bias in post but have started questioning my behavior. I adjust levels so that the brightest point in the photograph is peak white and the lowest is darkest black, even if there's NOTHING in the actual shot that is total white or total black. It does make the shot look better, but not necessarily realistic.

Now consider this: you do all of your post processing to make the histogram go edge-to-edge, but then you decide to crop. Now on the cropped shot, your histogram isn't filling the box any more. Maybe you cropped out the brightest or darkest part of the pic. Do you re-adjust levels so the cropped shot covers all black to all white?

Later in the weekend I'll try to post some example shots.
I know exactly what you're talking about here and I too will typically pull-in the Black and White set-points on a Levels Adjustment layer on a shot. All that does though is redistribute the tonal values of your image. If you move your Black set-point from its default of "0" to "5", you're telling Photoshop to map the tonal values in the image that register as "5" and lower, to a new value of "0". if you pull the White-point to a level of say, 240 for instance, Photoshop maps all pixels at level 240 and higher to a new of level 255. This compresses the tonal range of the shot and increases Contrast which, typically looks good... Right up until it doesn't any more.

Cropping the image after making these adjustments won't do anything to the tonal value of your image. Cropping removes pixels, obviously, but the White-point and Black-point are still where you set them (either by default or at the new settings you chose by applying the Levels Adjustment layer) and those values will not change unless set new White/Black points, or adjust the Contrast or do something else that directly affects tonal values. So the answer to your question, "Do you re-adjust levels so the cropped shot covers all black to all white?" is, no... You would not need to because the Tonal range you set when you moved the Black/White Point sliders was not modified by cropping.

That's MY understanding but I'm certainly willing to listen if someone wants to tell me I'm all wet!
 
Last edited:

Blade Canyon

Senior Member
Maybe this needs a new thread, but here's my point. If the histogram accurately shows what light levels were in the actual shot, then you don't need a full histogram no matter how many youtube videos tell you that's what you should be trying to get. The histogram for a sleeping black cat on a black velvet pillow should be skewed way to the left, even though everyone says your exposure should be set so that the histograms are biased toward the right. The histogram on the original photo should show you what the scene really looked like.

My point about cropping was that the initial desire to move the sliders in so they are touching all the data (which is what I do all the time!!) is not necessarily accurate, regardless of whether you do it with a whole photo or just a cropped portion. But it can make the photo look better than the actual scene. The guy in the Youtube video wants the board to look nice and bright, even though it probably did not look that way in real life.

A photography teacher once taught me that the right side of the histogram contains more bits of data, so maybe it's better to be biased right initially and then correct in post.
 
Last edited:

RocketCowboy

Senior Member
A photography teacher once taught me that the right side of the histogram contains more bits of data, so maybe it's better to be biased right initially and then correct in post.

I think thats the religious belief. Rather than getting it right SOOC, capture the most data to do something with it in post.

For your black cat example, shooting the histogram to the right is all about capturing the shadows. If you aren't clipping whites, why not try to get as much black detail as possible.

The example I've heard though, is are you a photographer or a graphic designer? Or put differently, do you want to do the bulk of your work with the camera, or with the computer? Not that a photographer today doesn't use a computer too, but it's where you put the attention.



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 

Blade Canyon

Senior Member
Or put differently, do you want to do the bulk of your work with the camera, or with the computer?

I went to a class with the famous wedding photographer Jerry Ghionis, and he said he doesn't know how to use Photoshop. As much as possible his work is done in camera, and at the class he was shooting tethered and the shots he was getting looked fantastic SOOC.
 

RocketCowboy

Senior Member
I went to a class with the famous wedding photographer Jerry Ghionis, and he said he doesn't know how to use Photoshop. As much as possible his work is done in camera, and at the class he was shooting tethered and the shots he was getting looked fantastic SOOC.

Jerry is no doubt an expert. Love his work.

But was he recommending shooting the histogram to the right, or getting the exposure right from the start?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 

Blade Canyon

Senior Member
Jerry is no doubt an expert. Love his work.

But was he recommending shooting the histogram to the right, or getting the exposure right from the start?

He talked only about posing, lighting, and creativity. In about 10 hours of class he never once mentioned his camera settings or histograms. The only exception was a shot he did of a model in front of some Christmas lights and he talked about using a small depth of field to get the lights to look blurry.

So I think his point about not knowing Photoshop was just that the picture should look right when it comes out of the camera and not rely on any post processing.

And to be honest, the two models he brought along for the class were so smoking hot it was difficult to listen to everything he said.
 

Woodyg3

Senior Member
Contributor
I have no doubt that the D850 tends to expose a tad to the dark side. When I got my D500, one of the first things I noticed was that it tended to expose a little darker than my D7200 or 7100 did. Many people have reported that the D850 exposes a little darker, as well. Perhaps this is a tweak in the matrix metering that Nikon has incorporated into its later models.
 

Bikerbrent

Senior Member
Welcome aboard. Enjoy the ride.
We look forward to seeing more posts and samples of your work.

The consensus of this thread from 2017 is that a little underexposure is normal for this camera.
 
Top