Forums
New posts
Search forums
What's new
New posts
New media
New media comments
New profile posts
Latest activity
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Members
Current visitors
New profile posts
Search profile posts
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
New posts
Search forums
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Forums
Nikon DSLR Cameras
D3100
Why am I always underexposing with my D3100
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="WayneF" data-source="post: 315887" data-attributes="member: 12496"><p>I was impressed with your pictures. The scene possibly might not qualify for a National Geographic cover, but it was a difficult high contrast scene, and to me, the meter did an admirable job of capturing it. It comes out as a pretty picture, full range. The light seems great, I see no fault. In fact, I thought it was excellent, and certainly I don't see any inherent exposure defect.</p><p></p><p>But for critical comparisons, we do have to take extra steps to make sure the scenes are exactly the same (a careful tripod, and don't touch the lens zoom), else we are discussing other things than what we think. I do think that effort might have been better this time. <img src="" class="smilie smilie--sprite smilie--sprite1" alt=":)" title="Smile :)" loading="lazy" data-shortname=":)" /></p><p></p><p>But of course, the bigger issue is normally due to reflected meters, just about how light reflects from different scenes. A predominately dark-colored scene (which does not reflect very well) will be overexposed. A predominately bright-colored scene (which reflects very well) will be underexposed. Just how meters work.</p><p></p><p>For example, direct flash will typically see a lot of dark background, beyond flash range, and we can expect frequent overexposure of foreground.</p><p>Or bounce flash indoors often sees a lot of light colored walls, tending to underexposure.</p><p>It is really about what the meter sees, and not about any accuracy problem.</p><p></p><p>So I'm thinking the real idea there actually was, 1) the assumption that the meter ought to always be correct, and 2) then which metering mode can better achieve this always accurate result? But the fallacy is, reflective meters are simply not always correct, simply not how it works. When we actually realize this, then we are way ahead, and then have a good chance to work around it. </p><p></p><p>But if we keep waiting for the camera meter to finally always get it right, it ain't gonna happen. <img src="" class="smilie smilie--sprite smilie--sprite1" alt=":)" title="Smile :)" loading="lazy" data-shortname=":)" /></p><p></p><p>An incident meter can typically do that (a lot better), but in the case of this picture, how do we do that? In which light we we stand and meter it? Sun or shade? Wherever we stand, it will try to put that light around midrange. So again, it is usually up to us to figure out. Metering is a skill we develop. Point&Shoot is a misnomer. <img src="" class="smilie smilie--sprite smilie--sprite1" alt=":)" title="Smile :)" loading="lazy" data-shortname=":)" /></p><p></p><p>For those who may not have seen it, I would offer <a href="http://www.scantips.com/lights/metering.html" target="_blank">How light meters work</a> as a fast example of how reflected meters work. It shows obvious evidence which we simply have to acknowledge exists. This is simply how it works, every time.</p><p></p><p>And at the bottom of that page is a Kodak article about using light meters <a href="http://www.kodak.com/cluster/global/en/consumer/products/techInfo/af9/index.shtml" target="_blank">Accurate Exposure with Your Meter</a> which says the same thing:<p style="margin-left: 20px">"A reflected-light meter reading is influenced by both how much light there is in the scene and how reflective the subject is. The meter will indicate less exposure for a subject that reflects little light, even if the two subject are in the same scene and in the same light. Because reflected-light meters are designed to make all subjects appear average in brightness, the brightness equivalent to medium gray, they suggest camera settings that will overexpose (make too light) very dark subjects and underexpose (make too dark) very light subjects."</p> <p style="margin-left: 20px"></p><p></p><p>Nothing new, this has always been true, since we invented reflective light meters. I know it is a lot of preaching, but the first absolutely necessary step is to understand and believe this is really how it works. The camera does provide the Exposure Compensation menu as the tool to to help work around this fact of life.</p><p></p><p>My own preference is Center Metering (easier to understand and predict), and I mostly use camera Manual mode only for indoor flash (when no one centers the meter), and I normally use camera A mode for outdoor snapshots. Because, the only advantage I can see for otherwise using camera Manual, and centering the meter manually myself, is that Compensation can be easily done that way, by not quite centering the meter. That seems a preference, and is easy, and a fine goal. But if we are always going to center the meter, it seems convenient to just let the automation do it. <img src="" class="smilie smilie--sprite smilie--sprite1" alt=":)" title="Smile :)" loading="lazy" data-shortname=":)" /></p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="WayneF, post: 315887, member: 12496"] I was impressed with your pictures. The scene possibly might not qualify for a National Geographic cover, but it was a difficult high contrast scene, and to me, the meter did an admirable job of capturing it. It comes out as a pretty picture, full range. The light seems great, I see no fault. In fact, I thought it was excellent, and certainly I don't see any inherent exposure defect. But for critical comparisons, we do have to take extra steps to make sure the scenes are exactly the same (a careful tripod, and don't touch the lens zoom), else we are discussing other things than what we think. I do think that effort might have been better this time. :) But of course, the bigger issue is normally due to reflected meters, just about how light reflects from different scenes. A predominately dark-colored scene (which does not reflect very well) will be overexposed. A predominately bright-colored scene (which reflects very well) will be underexposed. Just how meters work. For example, direct flash will typically see a lot of dark background, beyond flash range, and we can expect frequent overexposure of foreground. Or bounce flash indoors often sees a lot of light colored walls, tending to underexposure. It is really about what the meter sees, and not about any accuracy problem. So I'm thinking the real idea there actually was, 1) the assumption that the meter ought to always be correct, and 2) then which metering mode can better achieve this always accurate result? But the fallacy is, reflective meters are simply not always correct, simply not how it works. When we actually realize this, then we are way ahead, and then have a good chance to work around it. But if we keep waiting for the camera meter to finally always get it right, it ain't gonna happen. :) An incident meter can typically do that (a lot better), but in the case of this picture, how do we do that? In which light we we stand and meter it? Sun or shade? Wherever we stand, it will try to put that light around midrange. So again, it is usually up to us to figure out. Metering is a skill we develop. Point&Shoot is a misnomer. :) For those who may not have seen it, I would offer [URL="http://www.scantips.com/lights/metering.html"]How light meters work[/URL] as a fast example of how reflected meters work. It shows obvious evidence which we simply have to acknowledge exists. This is simply how it works, every time. And at the bottom of that page is a Kodak article about using light meters [URL="http://www.kodak.com/cluster/global/en/consumer/products/techInfo/af9/index.shtml"]Accurate Exposure with Your Meter[/URL] which says the same thing:[INDENT]"A reflected-light meter reading is influenced by both how much light there is in the scene and how reflective the subject is. The meter will indicate less exposure for a subject that reflects little light, even if the two subject are in the same scene and in the same light. Because reflected-light meters are designed to make all subjects appear average in brightness, the brightness equivalent to medium gray, they suggest camera settings that will overexpose (make too light) very dark subjects and underexpose (make too dark) very light subjects." [/INDENT] Nothing new, this has always been true, since we invented reflective light meters. I know it is a lot of preaching, but the first absolutely necessary step is to understand and believe this is really how it works. The camera does provide the Exposure Compensation menu as the tool to to help work around this fact of life. My own preference is Center Metering (easier to understand and predict), and I mostly use camera Manual mode only for indoor flash (when no one centers the meter), and I normally use camera A mode for outdoor snapshots. Because, the only advantage I can see for otherwise using camera Manual, and centering the meter manually myself, is that Compensation can be easily done that way, by not quite centering the meter. That seems a preference, and is easy, and a fine goal. But if we are always going to center the meter, it seems convenient to just let the automation do it. :) [/QUOTE]
Verification
Post reply
Forums
Nikon DSLR Cameras
D3100
Why am I always underexposing with my D3100
Top
