Pioneer
Veteran
I decided to see if anyone out there has any suggestions for me. My M262 is seriously blowing out the highlights for me. This is fairly obvious whenever the sky is in the image but definitely a pain in the early evening and on.
This has become a big problem. If the sky is right then the ground is so dark that recovery is difficult. If the ground action is right then the sky is completely white. I typically use manual settings but anytime I am using the A setting and I get any sky in my photos then it turns out too dark to see, except for the sky of course. My old, white-haired, Canon 5D is far better than this.
There is a fault somewhere but, if this is the expected behaviour from this sensor, then I have a problem. If not then is this something that can be resolved with menu settings, or something more involved.
Any suggestions are more then welcome and please don't assume I am incapable of making silly, beginner mistakes. At this point any idea is fair game. And, if there is already a thread on this somewhere let me know where it is. I am typically lousy at my attempts to search.
Thanks
This has become a big problem. If the sky is right then the ground is so dark that recovery is difficult. If the ground action is right then the sky is completely white. I typically use manual settings but anytime I am using the A setting and I get any sky in my photos then it turns out too dark to see, except for the sky of course. My old, white-haired, Canon 5D is far better than this.
There is a fault somewhere but, if this is the expected behaviour from this sensor, then I have a problem. If not then is this something that can be resolved with menu settings, or something more involved.
Any suggestions are more then welcome and please don't assume I am incapable of making silly, beginner mistakes. At this point any idea is fair game. And, if there is already a thread on this somewhere let me know where it is. I am typically lousy at my attempts to search.
Thanks
Henry
Well-known
I would call it expected behavior. The recovery range is fairly limited compared to a Nikon d800, but I have found it on par with a 5d3.
The real issue is the limited ability of the metering system, where the adaptive metering available on most DSLR systems is fairly adept at picking good "inbetween" settings to maximize the captured data the center weighted meter in the Leica is less clever at such things (as in, not clever at all).
On the 240 versions with live view the "advanced metering" allows you to approximate the metering method of a DSLR, but I do not think such a setting is available on the live view free 262.
There is no simple answer to your question, unfortunately.
The real issue is the limited ability of the metering system, where the adaptive metering available on most DSLR systems is fairly adept at picking good "inbetween" settings to maximize the captured data the center weighted meter in the Leica is less clever at such things (as in, not clever at all).
On the 240 versions with live view the "advanced metering" allows you to approximate the metering method of a DSLR, but I do not think such a setting is available on the live view free 262.
There is no simple answer to your question, unfortunately.
Henry
Well-known
Additional thought: you may be able to achieve something by metering for the subject and dropping whites and highlights in post, I have done this with success in the past, but it requires some experience in picking exposures for which this will work.
I often need to do some burning/dodging in post to fit the desired range of tones into the image. I have the camera's Exp Comp set to -1 stop in my personal settings. This helps avoid the unrecoverable burnout. Then I see that Lightroom's default initial processing will usually show about a +1.0 exposure adjustment. I may adjust that and go from there to burn in sky or other elements that otherwise would appear excessively bright. Attending to the brightness level, I like to bring the brightest areas down to 98 or less to have at least a hint of texture or tonal variation. The original -1 exposure still has plenty of shadow detail if using moderate ISO settings.
35photo
Well-known
Usually in extreme situations with my M9 I'll meter the bright area and whatever the exposure is I'll open up a stop or 1.5 stops that way I should be able to retain most of my highlights and the shadows are opened up a bit... then if needed you can pull the highlights down and bring the shadows up in post if needed... Are you using the spot metering in the 240? Its the only option in the M9..
Huss
Veteran
A while back I posted a comparison of the M240 (same sensor as yours) with my M-E.
Same subject, same lighting, same lens, same exposure. The M240 blew the highlights, M-E with the CCD sensor did not.
It upset a lot of M240 people....
(and yes, I own an M240)
The way to shoot the M240 is to underexpose, then increase the exposure in post, holding back the highlights and increasing shadow to taste.
Which is exactly why I prefer to shoot film.
Same subject, same lighting, same lens, same exposure. The M240 blew the highlights, M-E with the CCD sensor did not.
It upset a lot of M240 people....
(and yes, I own an M240)
The way to shoot the M240 is to underexpose, then increase the exposure in post, holding back the highlights and increasing shadow to taste.
Which is exactly why I prefer to shoot film.
Henry
Well-known
i think the 240 does tend more towards overexposure. It seems a fundamental calibration issue.
However, I'm not sure it's that cut and dry, I think the m9 engine clipped highlights just as poorly in situations with backlighting. Neither camera handles it even remotely well.
There is more data in the highlights for most digital cameras though, so be wary of underxposure if you are going to do any post processing.
However, I'm not sure it's that cut and dry, I think the m9 engine clipped highlights just as poorly in situations with backlighting. Neither camera handles it even remotely well.
There is more data in the highlights for most digital cameras though, so be wary of underxposure if you are going to do any post processing.
user237428934
User deletion pending
Strange. In this case I see that reality matches the DXOmark scores for M240 and M9. The M240 handles extreme DR situations better than the M9. Just my observation.
Ronald M
Veteran
Shoot raw, you do not say what you use. If JPEG, turn the contrast down.
My solution to blown skies is to meter the underside of clouds, usually medium grey, or find the brightest spot and overexpose 1.5 stops. Then bring up shadows to taste.
You need a spot meter.
Every digi camera blows skies, so deal with it. Nikons do it with overcast all the time. My solution is also as above. Nikons fancy metering can not handle it either.
Recovery of whites is poor, so expose for it and bring up shadows.
My solution to blown skies is to meter the underside of clouds, usually medium grey, or find the brightest spot and overexpose 1.5 stops. Then bring up shadows to taste.
You need a spot meter.
Every digi camera blows skies, so deal with it. Nikons do it with overcast all the time. My solution is also as above. Nikons fancy metering can not handle it either.
Recovery of whites is poor, so expose for it and bring up shadows.
willie_901
Veteran
- shot raw
- acknowledge the fact that the metered exposure is only an estimate
- accept that your experience and knowledge must be applied to each exposure
- in dynamic, volitile situations, use exposure compensation to minimize the risk of over exposure
- OR send the camera back to have the meter calibration checked by Leica
Godfrey
somewhat colored
Test the camera with a gray card, tri-tone (black, white, gray), step-wedge, and/or color chart exposure under even lighting to determine the dynamic range at all ISO settings.
Once you get a feel for the dynamic range, test a range of exposures on your problem situation: expose for the highlights and determine how much latitude you have to pull up shadow areas while retaining quality.
Capturing raw exposures will net you in the range of 3-5 stops of shadow latitude, capturing JPEG exposures only will net typically about half that.
I do these tests with every digital camera; with film cameras, I do them for every film and processing workflow. They tell me how to bias exposure properly when setting exposure manually as well as how to manipulate Exposure Compensation when using autoexposure. They also tell me what to expect when faced with very contrasty lighting circumstances, and how to gauge what I need to lose.
G
Once you get a feel for the dynamic range, test a range of exposures on your problem situation: expose for the highlights and determine how much latitude you have to pull up shadow areas while retaining quality.
Capturing raw exposures will net you in the range of 3-5 stops of shadow latitude, capturing JPEG exposures only will net typically about half that.
I do these tests with every digital camera; with film cameras, I do them for every film and processing workflow. They tell me how to bias exposure properly when setting exposure manually as well as how to manipulate Exposure Compensation when using autoexposure. They also tell me what to expect when faced with very contrasty lighting circumstances, and how to gauge what I need to lose.
G
With digital, I expose for the highlights and then stop down even more (manually or exp comp)... then I recover the shadows in post. The M262's sensor may not allow for as much recovery as other modern CMOS sensors, but it is certainly better than the M9.
rscheffler
Well-known
My experience with the M240 and M9 is the M240 has the ability to record a wider dynamic range (about 1.5 stops more than the M9). But, while you can underexpose M240 images and push them in post, just as you would the M9, in order to avoid highlight clipping, if time allows, you're best off to set an exposure that will be on the hot side and very near highlight clipping.
Basically this is expose to the right technique (ETTR).
The M240 benefits from this by putting more light into the shadow areas, meaning they don't need to be pushed as much as an underexposed image. And, this avoids the 'green shadow' tint problem that plagues M240 DNGs, at least if made between ISO 200-1000.
If you're unfamiliar with the green shadows problem, see some examples here:
http://blog.kasson.com/?p=3223
http://blog.kasson.com/?p=6717
If the green shadow problem didn't exist, I would say push in post as much as you want, though you're still best off if you can get as much light on the sensor as possible without clipping highlights.
The problems explained by the OP are in-camera exposure metering problems. Unfortunately the M series ‘classic’ center-metering is very apt to sudden exposure swings because it sees a rather tight, concentrated central area of the scene. It is very prone to incorrect exposure due to small bright light sources or dark central areas. If the situation allows, you’re much better to make an initial test exposure to determine what the meter sees, check the histogram, determine the needed adjustments and set the exposure manually.
In practice, my technique with M cameras in constant/consistent light situations is to initially establish the correct exposure with a couple test shots, then leave it set manually and make final exposure adjustments (+/- one stop on average) in post. Granted, this doesn't always work in dynamic situations...
Basically this is expose to the right technique (ETTR).
The M240 benefits from this by putting more light into the shadow areas, meaning they don't need to be pushed as much as an underexposed image. And, this avoids the 'green shadow' tint problem that plagues M240 DNGs, at least if made between ISO 200-1000.
If you're unfamiliar with the green shadows problem, see some examples here:
http://blog.kasson.com/?p=3223
http://blog.kasson.com/?p=6717
If the green shadow problem didn't exist, I would say push in post as much as you want, though you're still best off if you can get as much light on the sensor as possible without clipping highlights.
The problems explained by the OP are in-camera exposure metering problems. Unfortunately the M series ‘classic’ center-metering is very apt to sudden exposure swings because it sees a rather tight, concentrated central area of the scene. It is very prone to incorrect exposure due to small bright light sources or dark central areas. If the situation allows, you’re much better to make an initial test exposure to determine what the meter sees, check the histogram, determine the needed adjustments and set the exposure manually.
In practice, my technique with M cameras in constant/consistent light situations is to initially establish the correct exposure with a couple test shots, then leave it set manually and make final exposure adjustments (+/- one stop on average) in post. Granted, this doesn't always work in dynamic situations...
muser53
MUSER53
+1 for what what Godfrey recommended.
user237428934
User deletion pending
That sounds so easy but most people fail to find the proper "right". Problem is, that all the histograms on the cameras are calculated from the internal jpg image. So if I see some clipping in the histogram then it does not mean that already some data went over board. You still have quite a lot of latitude to the right in the raw (depending on the camera).
If you expose to the right according to the jpg histogram then you give away latitude and risk some shadow problems.
You can optimize the data recording of the camera if you have a feeling for the histogram and how much you can stretch the clipping warning on the right.
borge
Established
I usually shoot the M240 with -0.3 or -0.7 exposure compensation to avoid burnt highlights. Especially with wide lenses (35 and wider) with high contrast.
Also - the camera has a much higher tendancy to over-expose when you shoot vertically (portrait mode). Be sure to meter on the highlights in the scene when shooting vertically, or the result will usually be very over-exposed.
Digital cameras needs to be shot as slide film in regards to highlights. The benefit of digital is that you can recover a good amount of shadow. Not so much on slide film...
I do prefer shooting C41 color negative due to the latitude however. Just over-expose a stop or three - no problem!
Also - the camera has a much higher tendancy to over-expose when you shoot vertically (portrait mode). Be sure to meter on the highlights in the scene when shooting vertically, or the result will usually be very over-exposed.
Digital cameras needs to be shot as slide film in regards to highlights. The benefit of digital is that you can recover a good amount of shadow. Not so much on slide film...
I do prefer shooting C41 color negative due to the latitude however. Just over-expose a stop or three - no problem!
Pioneer
Veteran
Thanks everyone.
I had read that the M240 (and M262) was much better at handling high dynamic range situations but obviously my experience with this camera doesn't seem to show that to be any greater than it was on my M9.
And thank you for reminding me to meter the highlights. Having worked with a lot of film lately that little tidbit had somehow slipped below the surface of my aging mind. Likewise the hint to photograph with a negative one exposure adjustment dialed in.
I will say, though I love working with my Leica, a lot of other digital cameras are far better at nailing this metering thing without requiring that the photographer give it much thought. I actually like it until I am just grabbing snapshots.
Again, thanks for your time and willingness to share your expertise. It is much appreciated. Enjoy the Light!
I had read that the M240 (and M262) was much better at handling high dynamic range situations but obviously my experience with this camera doesn't seem to show that to be any greater than it was on my M9.
And thank you for reminding me to meter the highlights. Having worked with a lot of film lately that little tidbit had somehow slipped below the surface of my aging mind. Likewise the hint to photograph with a negative one exposure adjustment dialed in.
I will say, though I love working with my Leica, a lot of other digital cameras are far better at nailing this metering thing without requiring that the photographer give it much thought. I actually like it until I am just grabbing snapshots.
Again, thanks for your time and willingness to share your expertise. It is much appreciated. Enjoy the Light!
Godfrey
somewhat colored
It's not just a fact of digital capture. Film has its dynamic range limits too.
The whole point of the exercise is to understand the capture medium's limits and be able to relate it to exposure for scenes as the camera meters them. This gives you the measure of control needed to get the results you want. Yes, there are some scenes that have dynamic range beyond what the capture medium offers ... you have to choose the correct exposure to get the results you want, and inevitably something is going to be lost in doing that.
The point is to understand this, know what to expect, and make exposure decisions accordingly. Said another way, "Know the limits of the recording medium, know how the metering system responds to inputs from the scenes, and adjust settings to suit."
Why this would "not matter much" is a mystery to me. It's how I choose good exposures, have been choosing good exposures, for the past fifty-some-odd years.
G
Godfrey
somewhat colored
You're welcome.
Oh, the typ 240/262 cameras are much better at this than the M9, really they are, but they are a completely different camera with a different sensor and metering system. The point of the exercise I suggested is to learn the sensor and camera meter so that you know what to expect and then make the right decisions.
If you're capturing raw, always shooting with a negative exposure compensation setting is inavoidably reducing the dynamic range you have to work with. With the M-P typ 240, I always capture JPEG+raw and am most often exposing with EC set to +.3 to +.7. Of course, I'm also pretty careful to observe the dynamic range of my scenes and manipulate settings accordingly.
Inevitably, however, inky shadows and bright skies collide when making exposure decisions. This is where gradient ND filters when capturing and/or bracketed exposures combined with blending and compositing in post processing enable you to realize your vision despite the limitations of sensors and exposure meters.
(Shooting with the latest Impossible 600 B&W 2.0 film brings this problem to the forefront. The film is quite contrasty with very little latitude so to get the full range of tones in a contrasty situation, exposure must be right on the money, with little room for error... and no real post-processing or multi-exposure compositing possible. It makes anything digital look luxuriously replete with vast overhead... ! )
G
Pioneer
Veteran
Thanks Jim. I had noticed the green shadows when I tried to make large exposure adjustments on my RAW files, which was another thought in the back of my mind regarding adjusting for blown highlights.
Someone also mentioned adjusting things so that your histogram shows that you are exposed as far as possible to the right. This is certainly a great idea but when you shoot a lot of children playing sports there is always a time crunch so you do the best you can. If I am doing landscape work then I do work with the histogram but I tend to forget about it when shooting action. To be truthful I just shut my display screen of entirely when photographing sports as I have missed some great action shots when tempted to chimp. Maybe I will have to play with the histogram a bit during slow periods to see if using it will improve things or just complicate them.
Someone also mentioned adjusting things so that your histogram shows that you are exposed as far as possible to the right. This is certainly a great idea but when you shoot a lot of children playing sports there is always a time crunch so you do the best you can. If I am doing landscape work then I do work with the histogram but I tend to forget about it when shooting action. To be truthful I just shut my display screen of entirely when photographing sports as I have missed some great action shots when tempted to chimp. Maybe I will have to play with the histogram a bit during slow periods to see if using it will improve things or just complicate them.