G1 First Roll: Underexposed?

S

squirrel$$$bandit

Veteran
Local time
1:08 PM
Joined
Mar 8, 2008
Messages
6,249
I shot my first roll on the G1, using the 28mm Biogon and Ilford XP2 ISO400. I had both the AF and AE on. They seem underexposed to me. I probably should have been shooting 800--the weather was overcast, and there are lots of indoor pics--but shouldn't the AE have taken care of that?

http://flickr.com/photos/mabelsound/sets/72157604114519044/

Let me know what you think!
 

Attachments

  • Barn.jpg
    Barn.jpg
    274.7 KB · Views: 0
  • Corner.jpg
    Corner.jpg
    243.3 KB · Views: 0
  • Varna.jpg
    Varna.jpg
    261.8 KB · Views: 0
I'd recommend putting a role of slide film through it - then you'llknow for sure and won't have to question yourslef or the camera anymore. With B&W there are just too many variables to make a definite judgement.
 
With all the bells and whistles this camera has, the meter is still a center-weighed one (the more "traditional" kind). In other words, don't expect Nikon matrix results.

I concur with RF-Addict in that if you really want to know how the meter is doing, run a roll of slide film through the camera. Mine did, ocasionally, a weird shot, but I got perfect exposures 99 % of the time. Don't give up on it. They are cute, efficient cameras! :)
 
I've got some Velvia and Kodachrome coming today, so I'll give it a shot!

Forgive me, I'm new at this--why is B&W so variable? The pics I posted above are only the most underexposed ones...a few others on the flickr link actually look just the way I'd want. Does one have to just "learn" the film and camera and make adjustments?
 
You do seem to be lacking shadow detail. Are you sure the camera was set properly, with the ASA set to DX, or the proper speed to match the film It might have been processing or the kind of film you are using. Are you scanning the film or doing flatbed scans of the prints. I find that photofinishers do not do a good job making B&W prints from a C41 B&W film. If the camera was set to maual your exposures might have also been off. If all the above is good , then maybe you have a problem with your camera. I have G2's and the meters on these cameras are amazing. When traveling I shoot chrome in my cameras, and out of 30 or 40 rolls , I will not have any bad exposures.
 
These three samples are pretty high dynamic range (snow, sky, windows, white walls).

The camera meter is not perfect for every shot; don't put absolute faith in it. It assumes you are pointing it at a flat gray wall (18% gray, as matter of fact). Include a very dark object, or a very bright object (like snow, or the sun behind clouds), and it will try to make them (set the exposure for) gray.

Example: My daughter standing on snow. I would over-expose the image by 1.5, maybe 2 stops beyond what the meter says (because the camera will try to make the white snow gray -- it underexposes it).
 
Last edited:
SolaresLarrave said:
With all the bells and whistles this camera has, the meter is still a center-weighed one (the more "traditional" kind). In other words, don't expect Nikon matrix results.

I concur with RF-Addict in that if you really want to know how the meter is doing, run a roll of slide film through the camera. Mine did, ocasionally, a weird shot, but I got perfect exposures 99 % of the time. Don't give up on it. They are cute, efficient cameras! :)
Click to expand...

Don't worry, there's no chance I'll give up. I love using the camera so far. The AF worked perfectly, the lens is super sharp, and it's small and sturdy.

So for shots where there are vastly different contrasting areas, like landscapes, which the center metering might throw off balance, I perhaps should be manually setting exposure based on where I want the viewer's attention?
 
michaelging said:
You do seem to be lacking shadow detail. Are you sure the camera was set properly, with the ASA set to DX, or the proper speed to match the film It might have been processing or the kind of film you are using. Are you scanning the film or doing flatbed scans of the prints. I find that photofinishers do not do a good job making B&W prints from a C41 B&W film.
Click to expand...

The processing could definitely be the problem. These are the cheapo $3-per-CD scans from my local supermarket. They're a good lab for a grocery store but I don't expect miracles.

I had everything set right and the camera had correctly read the ASA. I'm not terribly worried about the camera, though. If a few more rolls are problematic, I'll try to have it serviced...but by then I'll probably know its quirks better and with any luck will have learned to avoid the problem.
 
I use to own the G1 and a 28 /2.8 Biogon. The lens normally underexposes a tad (especially untill about f/5.6) due to the orthodox symmetrical optical design resulting in more falloff in the corners than your typical semi-retrofocus 28 rf lens on the market. The 45 and 90 on the same body did not display this property. Also, try not to include any bright sky when metering as this only exaggerates the problem.
 
Last edited:
You just found the problem - it's the scans on the CD. They typically are horrible and can not be used to judge the expsoure. Shoot slide film - you will be blown away by the Zeiss lenses on this camera. The slides just pop off the light table. Project them and you'll see detail you never even saw when you took the picture. I honestly think that these G Zeiss lenses are some of the best glass ever made.
 
Issy said:
These three samples are pretty high dynamic range (snow, sky, windows, white walls).
Click to expand...

I think that this is the likely culprit. Many of the photos have a lot of sky and/or snow which causes the meter to underexpose the darker subject matter. I didn't notice any problem with exposure at all in the high school window shot. If there were a fault in the camera, that photo would have been underexposed as well. Also, the Olin Library shot shows perfect detail in the vents(?). If the camera were underexposing, those would all be large solid black rectangles. Be assured that you have a fantasic new camera - go shoot some more film!
 
I agree about the lack of shadow detail in these images, but you need to judge the cause by studying the negative directly with a lupe, as your scanning may be contributing.

It's not really a question of right or wrong settings at the camera. You have to learn what ISO or exposure compensation to set depending on (a) the type of subjects you habitually take; (b) how you meter the light, including what you point the meter at; (c) how you develop the film; (d) how you produce a positive from the negative. Only experience will really tell you. On top of that, you have to learn how to adapt your exposure technique to suit unusual subjects.

Metering properly is a pain, and for all people may say I'm willing to bet that most of us use either meter-guided guesswork or guesswork-guided metering!
 
Ariya said:
Also, the Olin Library shot shows perfect detail in the vents(?). If the camera were underexposing, those would all be large solid black rectangles. Be assured that you have a fantasic new camera - go shoot some more film!
Click to expand...

I think you're right--like I said, some of these look really good to me, even with the cheap-ass supermarket scans. I'm definitely falling in love with this lens! I'll shoot a few more rolls--slide film this time--and see where it gets me.

I have a lot to learn I'm afraid--I'm accustomed to the elaborate AF and metering on my Canon 40D, which does all the work for me. I'm eager to actually know what the hell I'm doing.
 
I looked at your roll on Flickr: you have chosen very hard to capture high contrast scenes: bright sky, black earth.

The camera is only human and does what you show her. Adding 1-2 stops of exposure would have given more shadow detail, but at the cost of wiped out white mushy skies. So, choose your poison carefully and do not expect your camera to guess correctly for you.

Incidentally setting ISO to 200 for a 400 film would mean more exposure (instead of the 800 you mention in the first post). Careful! I find it easier to dial in a plus .. stop myself than to mess up ISO readings.

Secondly, have you looked at your developed film? Are there details in the shadow?

I would like to bet they are there; just the scanner could not hold the contrast well enough. So, do learn to judge the film before you complain about the camera and the printer/scanner ...
 
mabelsound said:
I shot my first roll on the G1, using the 28mm Biogon and Ilford XP2 ISO400. I had both the AF and AE on. They seem underexposed to me. I probably should have been shooting 800--the weather was overcast, and there are lots of indoor pics--but shouldn't the AE have taken care of that?

http://flickr.com/photos/mabelsound/sets/72157604114519044/

Let me know what you think!
Click to expand...

Hi John,

if I hold my G1 in landscape, the light meter reads essentailly the central third of the frame only, and is extremely insensitive to the left-hand-side and right-hand-side of the frame. But it reads to the top and bottom of the frame.

Looking the samples you provide, many of them are of the kind you would expect the meter to go wrong with out intervention (to much white in the frame). So I wouldn't be to worried yet. You have another camera/lightmeter, which you trust? You could compare the two on an evenly lit surface and see whether they agree. I think expecting an agreement better than 1/2 stop is unreasonable.

Concerning XP2, many people recommend using it at ISO 320 to get a bit more shadow detail. As others said, judging exposure from negative film is tricky.
 
uhligfd said:
Incidentally setting ISO to 200 for a 400 film would mean more exposure (instead of the 800 you mention in the first post). Careful! I find it easier to dial in a plus .. stop myself than to mess up ISO readings.

Secondly, have you looked at your developed film? Are there details in the shadow
Click to expand...

I didn't mean changing the ISO setting to 800...I meant using ISO800 film! I do like the idea of setting it to 320 for more shadow detail though...I may try that.

I HAVE looked at the negs and yes, there is more shadow detail evident there than in the cheapo scans. I suspect with a really good scan, I'd be able to pull plenty of detail out of the landscape using The GIMP. (I'm on Linux.) I realize this is kind of a challenging collection of images to attempt for my first roll on this camera...let alone in B&W...but that's what my town looks like at this time of year, c'est la vie...

BTW, everyone seems to be assuming I'm worried about the camera. I'm not. The problem is obviously me, and my technique...I was just looking for advice on how to master the G1--and that is exactly what you all are giving me, thank you!
 
Hey, a quick update...I just checked out the flickr set on my wife's computer...mine is a laptop...they actually look much better than I thought. I've gotta try to recalibrate my monitor, i think.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom