RichardJ
Member
After many years of denial I reluctantly have to admit that "digital" might be okay. I have just received my RD1 and my steadfast film-phile tendancies are begining to waver. This is a seriously good camera and all those of you out there still toying with the idea should go and get yourselves one.
I do, however, have a question to those of you experienced with the RD1. All of my images so far seem to be under-exposed by between a half and one full stop.
The details:
Images captured in raw/jpeg.
Camera set for monchrome with no filter.
Highest quality res set.
EV dial set at 0 (obviously).
Lens used Summilux Asph 35mm 1.4.
This issue is not a problem as such because raw conversion allows me to add up to 2 full stops of exposure but I need to know if this is a quirk or a fault. If it's a quirk is it recomended that I compensate with the EV dial or just make adjustments in PS. (Or would it make little difference?)
I attach an image taken with the 35mm Summilux. (my Daughter and her friend)
Approx f4 at 1/200.
This is about 40% full frame
1 stop of exp added in PS plug in.
Thanks for any help on this.
Richard
I do, however, have a question to those of you experienced with the RD1. All of my images so far seem to be under-exposed by between a half and one full stop.
The details:
Images captured in raw/jpeg.
Camera set for monchrome with no filter.
Highest quality res set.
EV dial set at 0 (obviously).
Lens used Summilux Asph 35mm 1.4.
This issue is not a problem as such because raw conversion allows me to add up to 2 full stops of exposure but I need to know if this is a quirk or a fault. If it's a quirk is it recomended that I compensate with the EV dial or just make adjustments in PS. (Or would it make little difference?)
I attach an image taken with the 35mm Summilux. (my Daughter and her friend)
Approx f4 at 1/200.
This is about 40% full frame
1 stop of exp added in PS plug in.
Thanks for any help on this.
Richard
Attachments
jlw
Rangefinder camera pedant
Your exposure looks good to me. I think the metering in the R-D 1 is set to try to avoid overexposure of highlights, which in a digital image would lead to irretrievable "blowout" and clipping (loss) of data. In this respect digital is a lot like shooting slide film, where if you're going to make an exposure mistake, you always want to make it on the underexposure side. (An underexposed slide often can be salvaged by duping, or just by moving the projector closer to the wall; an overexposed slide is just clear film and a total loss.)
Because of this, the R-D 1's meter often will indicate a bit less exposure when compared to a meter reading for a film camera, especially a more recent one that's probably set up for print film. (Color print films love overexposure and perform poorly with underexposure, so -- since print film dominates what's left of the film marketplace -- manufacturers tend to set up their meters to expose a bit generously.)
In short, if you're getting good results with your final images -- and it certainly looks as if you are -- I wouldn't worry about the fact that you're having to add a bit of compensation in Adobe Camera Raw. If you seem to be getting a bit less exposure than you need with certain subjects or situations, just set the compensation dial to +1/3 or +2/3.
One nice thing about shooting digitally is that in a doubtful situation, you can always shoot a test shot and check its histogram. (If your R-D 1 has the latest firmware upgrade, you can set it to display the histogram with every shot.) The highlight part of the histogram graph should be well over to the right, but not so far that it's cut off at the right end of the graph. If your histogram is well-distributed across the graph, then you're getting a good exposure regardless of what the meter says.
Because of this, the R-D 1's meter often will indicate a bit less exposure when compared to a meter reading for a film camera, especially a more recent one that's probably set up for print film. (Color print films love overexposure and perform poorly with underexposure, so -- since print film dominates what's left of the film marketplace -- manufacturers tend to set up their meters to expose a bit generously.)
In short, if you're getting good results with your final images -- and it certainly looks as if you are -- I wouldn't worry about the fact that you're having to add a bit of compensation in Adobe Camera Raw. If you seem to be getting a bit less exposure than you need with certain subjects or situations, just set the compensation dial to +1/3 or +2/3.
One nice thing about shooting digitally is that in a doubtful situation, you can always shoot a test shot and check its histogram. (If your R-D 1 has the latest firmware upgrade, you can set it to display the histogram with every shot.) The highlight part of the histogram graph should be well over to the right, but not so far that it's cut off at the right end of the graph. If your histogram is well-distributed across the graph, then you're getting a good exposure regardless of what the meter says.
JeffGreene
(@)^(@)
David_b
Newbie
I was about to write my very first post with a question regarding the RD1 metering system, and I got tha answer before aksing ! It is definitely a great forumJeffGreene said:
@RichardJ : I hope you won't mind if I highjack your thread for a few minutes ?
As a soon-to-be owner of an RD1s (back ordered from Robert White), I wanted to take the opportunity to thank everybody in this forum. I have been reading it with great interest : all the informations and knowledge shared (I include in that all the potential problems I might encounter with the camera), plus the great pictures you make, all that has certainly helped me to make the final decision.
Maybe Epson 'ld thank you too ?
I must also say that I appreciate very much the... spirit, or should I say the 'atmosphere' or the 'tone' of the forum (sorry, my English is not that good).
So : thank you all
andyturk
Established
I've had the same problem. The R-D1 meter is fairly sensitive to what's going on at the edges of of the frame. If there's a highlight that's just outside the frame, it might even cause the camera to stop down a little. I tend to shoot either full manual or +1EV in the presence of highlights.RichardJ said:
The good news is that Photoshop can still get a nice image from a shot that's two stops underexposed.
You can get a nearly perfect exposure by watching the built-in histogram and adjusting accordingly. Just be careful about the contrast and saturation parameters. They won't affect the raw data, but they *do* change the histogram shown on the LCD.
boilerdoc2
Well-known
The R-D1s does bias toward protecting the highlights. However if it 'underexposes' too much and you have to pump up the exposure in RAW don't forget that this can cause increased noise in the shadow areas. I watch the histo and push the exposure to make sure there is information up to the right edge. Try it you'll like it! Steve
RichardJ
Member
Thanks all for the input, very helpful as usual. Sorry this was covering old ground, I wasn't aware of the link that Jeff directed me to.
Cheers, Richard
Cheers, Richard
rvaubel
Well-known
Also remember that some highlights SHOULD be blown. For example bare lighting requires that the bulbs be blown and so what? Thats the way they look to the eye.
What you want to avoid is blown highlights in light colored clothing and anywhere you want to preserve detail.
Maybe this is too obvious
Rex
What you want to avoid is blown highlights in light colored clothing and anywhere you want to preserve detail.
Maybe this is too obvious
Rex