Lss
Well-known
Sure, most/all other current cameras feature a much more modern exposure metering. But if you give the exposure any thought at all, they all perform more or less equal. Leica M is very basic, yet perfectly workable thanks to that simplicity.
Pioneer
Veteran
Godfrey, I will certainly work with your exercises to see how they affect my images in the long run.
I do shoot with RAW+JPEG (though I wish Leica gave us a TIFF option instead of JPEG) so I am able to recover the important images from RAW. To date I have just tossed the highlight data in the sky to ensure I was capturing important action data on the ground.
The other day my only battery for the Leica needed charging at an inopportune time (I know, buy another battery.) Instead I took my Pentax K-5iiS instead. I was actually amazed at how much better range I was able to secure with the Pentax in comparison to what I was used to with the Leica. I have no intention of using the Pentax full time because the shutter response with the Leica is miles ahead. But it did get me thinking why I couldn't seem to get that same image response on the Leica.
EDIT - Now...where did I hide that color chart??
I do shoot with RAW+JPEG (though I wish Leica gave us a TIFF option instead of JPEG) so I am able to recover the important images from RAW. To date I have just tossed the highlight data in the sky to ensure I was capturing important action data on the ground.
The other day my only battery for the Leica needed charging at an inopportune time (I know, buy another battery.) Instead I took my Pentax K-5iiS instead. I was actually amazed at how much better range I was able to secure with the Pentax in comparison to what I was used to with the Leica. I have no intention of using the Pentax full time because the shutter response with the Leica is miles ahead. But it did get me thinking why I couldn't seem to get that same image response on the Leica.
EDIT - Now...where did I hide that color chart??
Godfrey
somewhat colored
Yes, the K5IIS sensor has a bit more DR potential, and a more sophisticated, evaluative metering system (like the typ 240 in advanced mode). The sensor difference is on the order of a stop and a half, like the difference between the M262 and SL sensors. That much is just the advances in technologies; the choice of the M262 with its simpler metering system is a buyer choice since the more sophisticated metering system was already in the line.
But it doesn't mean you can't get excellent results out of the M262. You just have to supply the sophistication it lacks. That's what I like about it, frankly. I leave the M-P in classic metering mode 99% of the time.
G
But it doesn't mean you can't get excellent results out of the M262. You just have to supply the sophistication it lacks. That's what I like about it, frankly. I leave the M-P in classic metering mode 99% of the time.
G
True, but blown highlights on film aren't as ugly as on digital... generally speaking.
rogue_designer
Reciprocity Failure
I usually input between -.6 and -1.2 stops of exposure compensation on any digital camera in order to preserve highlight detail. Most modern sensors have good enough low light capabilities that pulling up shadow detail is easier than repairing blown highlight detail. Similar to how we would meter for slide film (but not Kodachrome, that stuff went solid black).
Godfrey
somewhat colored
That's a qualitative judgement I'm not going to get into a discussion about.
Blown highlights are blown highlights in my book.
What I will say is that it is easier to overexpose and ruin highlight detail in digital capture than in film capture, and there are more ways to ameliorate the problem with film. This because of the analog, physical nature of the film capture medium. You can process for a flatter tonal range, or use a reducer to reduce the density, etc. There's information to be had even if some blocking up has occurred.
With a digital capture, a blown highlight is indicative of saturated pixel values: the photosites in that region have reached their energy capacity and can no longer record any differences. Recovery works only if you haven't saturated all channels. Once all photosites in a region are at maximum value, there's no detail data to be had for recovery, or by reducing their values: it has been lost.
So the trick with film is to give it exposure that stays within its relatively short linear range, but your latitude is at both ends where you have soft shoulders on the density curve to work with. You can manipulate the data in terms of density control in processing and with reduction/intensification.
The trick with digital capture is that you have a hard limit at the high limit (saturation) and a soft limit at the low limit (noise threshold). This means proper exposure keeps anything with detail in the 93-94% of saturation range at the high end and you work with image processing to bring the rest of the curve to where you want it for mid-tones and blacks.
What's ugly or not depends upon your choices in dealing with either.
G
Henry
Well-known
DNG is actually a sort of tiff evolution, the file formats are inherently related.
ETTR is a fine theory that I find hard to implament in general shooting.
Good luck!
sojournerphoto
Veteran
This reflects poor default auto metering choices by digital camera manufacturers, presumably, or an attempt to coerce a useable image out of poor dynamic range. That may sound extreme, but manufacturers make choices about how much 'highlight dynamic range' they allow for when they define the metering ISO and normal response values. The consequence of giving more highlight range is that, for a given auto exposure, there is more noise and less shadow recoverability. See all the fuss about Fuji ISO values, which appear higher than other manufacturers using the same sensor, as they have chosen to allow more highlight DR. This can then be further augmented using the DR 200% or DR400% settings. Mostly relevant to in-camera jpgs, but useful as a way of getting a useful exposure in the absence of a raw histogram for the rest of us.
As.someone old enough to have used film for longer than digital, lots of blown highlights seem a poor payback for noise free shadows.
Mike
Godfrey
somewhat colored
We're sliding into computer science here. The Digital NeGative (DNG) file format structure is a derivative of Tagged Image File Format (TIFF). DNG is a container format, same as TIFF, with structured data and a way of marking sections of that data.
But DNG format has been formally specified and specialized in terms of what a file needs to contain for sharing raw sensor data, camera metadata (EXIF), and annotation data (IPTC metadata) that describes it. Lots of additiona data types can be encapsulated into DNG files, including TIFF renderings, JPEG renderings, original native raw files, parametric processing settings, etc.
Related yes, but a DNG file is not a TIFF file.
In practice, there's very little difference between a highest quality, full resolution JPEG file and an 8-bit TIFF file ... They're about as lossy relative to the raw data as each other, and the JPEG file takes up typically 60-70% less space on the card. Used in an image processing environment like Lightroom, where the JPEG original is simply read into memory and promoted to 16bit per component with ProPhoto RGB colorspace, you would not find much if any difference and no image degradation.
G
Naturally different camera brands will have different metering arrangements... When my Pentax K-1 arrived I defaulted to -1 compensation but quickly found I was underexposing too much, and 0 comp is better for my taste! Still, some burn/dodge in post is often helpful.
Henry
Well-known
Totally true. and I actually apologize for dragging the conversation off topic.
To people suggesting negative exposure compensation, though: that seems inherently very risky in general, though probably fine for specific situations. My pet theory (nothing to back it up) is that the trend towards higher exposure with the 240 line is to push us towards ETTR for more situations. Perhaps I'm wrong, but I'll probably never know.
shimokita
白黒
"The Leica M8, M8.2 and M9 are the only cameras that I am aware of that bases their raw histograms on an internal interpretation of the raw file rather than on a JPG." by Michael Reichmann - Luminous Landscape (13-Jan-2009)
I understand that some of the digital Ms have implemented "Raw" histograms, the monochrome for example... not sure which others and/or the cameras under discussion.
Of course one could argue about the quality of such raw histograms...
Gregm61
Well-known
I set my M262 to expose as close to the right-hand side of the histogram as possible, knowing there's some leeway there, but bunches on the underexposure side.
You also have to pay attention where you are pointing the center-weighted metering pattern before locking the exposure. If I'm looking at a particularly wide gamut of light, I'll swing the camera up and down to get the approximate range of shutter speeds for the aperture in use and lock the exposure somewhere close to the mid-range of those speeds. As long as I am paying attention to what I am doing, I've yet to be disappointed in the results.
You also have to pay attention where you are pointing the center-weighted metering pattern before locking the exposure. If I'm looking at a particularly wide gamut of light, I'll swing the camera up and down to get the approximate range of shutter speeds for the aperture in use and lock the exposure somewhere close to the mid-range of those speeds. As long as I am paying attention to what I am doing, I've yet to be disappointed in the results.
Pioneer
Veteran
Very, very nice photos Gregm61. Thanks for sharing them.
Whenever I have the time to evaluate the full dynamic range of the subject being captured I can usually work my way around a histogram reasonably well.
Where I get in trouble is when I am playing Weegee and am trying to get it all right in camera with seconds to work, with the smallest amount of post processing I can get away with on the opposite end. Kind of like shoot, develop and print.
Come to think of it maybe pulling out the old flashgun may help.
Whenever I have the time to evaluate the full dynamic range of the subject being captured I can usually work my way around a histogram reasonably well.
Where I get in trouble is when I am playing Weegee and am trying to get it all right in camera with seconds to work, with the smallest amount of post processing I can get away with on the opposite end. Kind of like shoot, develop and print.
Come to think of it maybe pulling out the old flashgun may help.
rbelyell
Well-known
seems to me one shouldnt need an engineering degree to achieve proper results from a $5000 camera. from what i read, OP found the m9 ccd sensor delivered better dynamic range. he felt that was also true with his 5d and pentax 5iis, which costs about $600. OP brought his same 'skill set' as a photographer to each camera. to say the issue he presents is one of 'skill' or 'metering' seems to me misplaced and to entirely miss the very simple and obvious point of fact, which is about dynamic range capability. horses for courses. admit the horse cant run in the mud and act accordingly.
sojournerphoto
Veteran
Blowing of highlights is a metering issue, given the later comment about when working quickly. However, you're correct that if holding sky means shadows aren't recoverable then there is a lack of dynamic range.
I've only ever used a 262 once, but I understand the 240 and 262 have more DR than the m9.
Mime
Gregm61
Well-known
Like any center-weighted metering system, the one in the M262 has to be used with some amount of care to get the best possible result. That the camera does not use some form of gradation-pulling or pushing in the shadows and highlights is a nice change in my opinion. I keep those features turned off in my cameras that do offer it with JPEGs, shoot raw and am better off doing so.
I used to buy a lot of classic equipment from Eddie Tillis at Woodmere Camera. He always had a section in his Shutterbug ads titled "PHD- Point Here Dummy- cameras". The M262 is no PHD camera, by a long shot.
I used to buy a lot of classic equipment from Eddie Tillis at Woodmere Camera. He always had a section in his Shutterbug ads titled "PHD- Point Here Dummy- cameras". The M262 is no PHD camera, by a long shot.
airfrogusmc
Veteran
I have an original MM where there really is not highlight recovery of raw/dng in post. I tend to expose the same way with my 262 and have not had really issues. I do find there is more room in the shoulder with the 262 than my original MM.
I convert from dng/raw to tiffs. Why not just shoot raw and convert?
I convert from dng/raw to tiffs. Why not just shoot raw and convert?
Pioneer
Veteran
This is not intended as film vs digital nor is it a Leica vs the world thread. My need to work quickly is not a put down of the camera, only an acknowledgment of the challenge involved. I don't see many cameramen/women on the sidelines of the major sports events I watch using Leica cameras. Actually, I don't think I have ever seen any. I am pushing my skills to the edge of what I can do.
But that does not mean it is impossible; only that it requires more practice. So I come here for thoughts and advice about problems I am having and continue to work on the technique that helps me do what I want as fast as I can.
But that does not mean it is impossible; only that it requires more practice. So I come here for thoughts and advice about problems I am having and continue to work on the technique that helps me do what I want as fast as I can.
Pioneer
Veteran
I know I am odd but I do not use Lightroom, so the first step in my workflow before I even download my images is to scan through them using Photo Viewer and scrapping those that I do not want to waste any of my time on. That is why I want the JPEG.
I am not a fast learner and it took me two semesters in junior college to learn Photoshop. It works and I will continue to use it until I absolutely cannot any longer.
(This is actually my biggest pet peeve about digital imaging. At least with film I am not forced to ride the continual upgrade carnival ride.)