Nikon's Active D-Lighting and Matrix vs. Spot Metering (Page 2): :sm24: :sm24: :sm24:...

joecichjr Loc: Chicago S. Suburbs, Illinois, USA

selmslie wrote:

It's no coincidence that the first two raw histograms are identical. Active D-Lighting does not affect the raw data.

However, it may be a coincidence in this case that Active D-Lighting combined with matrix metering happened to achieve the correct ETTR. A different scene might have gotten different results.

Nevertheless, it shows that the right end of the JPEG histogram is pretty much in lock-step with the right end of the raw histogram.

jerryc41 Loc: Catskill Mts of NY

My first SLR, a Miranda Sensorex in the late 1960s, had spot metering, and I grew to love that. I could move the spot around and match the needles wherever I wanted. It's the same with focus, I prefer a single spot in the center. That lets me choose what will have the sharpest focus.

larryepage Loc: North Texas area

jerryc41 wrote:

My first SLR, a Miranda Sensorex in the late 1960s, had spot metering, and I grew to love that. I could move the spot around and match the needles wherever I wanted. It's the same with focus, I prefer a single spot in the center. That lets me choose what will have the sharpest focus.

I agree that spot metering is the best and least ambiguous way to check for proper expisure. I can't even remember when I bought my Pentax Spot Meter V at the store that KEH operated in Dallas, but it was between 25 and 30 years ago. It meters a 1 degree spot, which is small enough to isolate just about anything I'd want to isolate and meter.

The problem with in-camera spot meters is that the spot they meter is simply too large. If you check the manual, the best ones (at least any in cameras that I have owned) meter a 6mm circle. That's a quarter of the height of the frame. Some of them in the past have metered an 8mm circle. That's a third of the height of the frame, and about the same as the area covered by the Center Weighted Metering option.

That's why I don't use it. It's too big an area and generally gives misleading results.

selmslie Loc: Fernandina Beach, FL, USA

larryepage wrote:

The problem with in-camera spot meters is that the spot they meter is simply too large. If you check the manual, the best ones (at least any in cameras that I have owned) meter a 6mm circle. ....

The Nikons I use all claim 4mm (Sony and Fuji don't specify) but that's still too big. That's not much better than center weighted metering.

Both of my hand-held spot meters measure a 1° circle. But even that presents a problem. The field of view on the digital Pentax meter is equivalent to about a 150-200mm lens on a full frame digital camera. That makes it easy to use for it's intended purpose - large format photography.

But when it comes to 24x36mm format and 150-200mm lens, 1° may also be too wide because it's now a sizable fraction of the field of view.

That's why I avoid metering at all for digital. I just make an educated guess and avoid large highlight warnings.

larryepage Loc: North Texas area

selmslie wrote:

The Nikons I use all claim 4mm (Sony and Fuji don'... (show quote)

I checked and you are correct...Nikon spot meters cover 4 degrees (I got confused and entangled with the coverage of the center weighted metering area). But you are correct...it is still too large, and if you do take a spot reading using the camera, what you get is not what you were expecting, because that is still a relatively big chunk of the frame, not really any kind of usable spot. And I agree that half-degree meters are better. I just never could afford one when I was using a spot meter regularly. Like you, I now have other effective ways of deciding exposure which fit my current process better, so I haven't pursued a better spot meter in recent years.

User ID

larryepage wrote:

I agree that spot metering is the best and least a... (show quote)

I suspect the in camera spots are bigger cuz they’re intended for AE users. There’s no technical barrier that prohibits making them much tighter.

At about 200mm the onboard and the handheld systems are equal. Anything longer and the onboard sees a smaller scene segment than the handheld.

larryepage Loc: North Texas area

User ID wrote:

I suspect the in camera spots are bigger cuz they’re intended for AE users. There’s no technical barrier that prohibits making them much tighter.

At about 200mm the onboard and the handheld systems are equal. Anything longer and the onboard sees a smaller scene segment than the handheld.

The Highlight Weighted Metering function seems to cover the entire frame pixel by pixel. I've not decoded exactly how it works, but my suspicion is that it somehow looks at the output from each (or at least most or perhaps just many) of the individual pixel sensors. So yes...I see no reason they couldn't make the spot meter sense an area the same size as the autofocus markers. That would be really useful.

Anyway...we can wish.

selmslie Loc: Fernandina Beach, FL, USA

larryepage wrote:

The Highlight Weighted Metering function seems to cover the entire frame pixel by pixel. I've not decoded exactly how it works, but my suspicion is that it somehow looks at the output from each (or at least most or perhaps just many) of the individual pixel sensors. So yes...I see no reason they couldn't make the spot meter sense an area the same size as the autofocus markers. That would be really useful.

Anyway...we can wish.

I looked at Highlight Weighted Metering on the Z7 and it looks like a good solution for a scene with a wide dynamic range. It appears to pick the worst case in a very small target, much smaller than the normal spot meter, and place its exposure about 1 stop below the raw limit. You can push it closer to ETTR with some EC+. That's great if the highlight is a white cloud, bird or garment but not if it's a specular highlight like drops of sunlit water that you don't mind blowing out.

In this example the top graph is for the overall image and the bottom is for a 124x144 selection that is over a couple of the beads hanging from the light socket.

(Download)

flyboy61 Loc: The Great American Desert

For my camera, a D 7100, the manual says, (P.115)"HDR is most effective when used with matrix metering..." and it gives several modes where HDR cannot be used. Later camera models may have different modifications. It also (P.83) says that the spot covers 3.5mm, or 2.5% of the frame. Later models may have a smaller spot.

tcthome Loc: NJ

However, it may be a coincidence in this case that Active D-Lighting combined with matrix metering happened to achieve the correct ETTR.

Is it safe to assume you like shooting Active-D & Matrix? Thanks for the post.

User ID

tcthome wrote:

However, it may be a coincidence in this case that Active D-Lighting combined with matrix metering happened to achieve the correct ETTR.

Is it safe to assume you like shooting Active-D & Matrix? Thanks for the post.

Actually I don’t use either. Mostly I don’t meter at all. Really don’t care to pick an argument with a stoopid machine. Then acoarst thaz just me. Some users really do get off on fancy metering tricks.

selmslie Loc: Fernandina Beach, FL, USA

tcthome wrote:

However, it may be a coincidence in this case that Active D-Lighting combined with matrix metering happened to achieve the correct ETTR.

Is it safe to assume you like shooting Active-D & Matrix? Thanks for the post.

In case that was addressed to me (you should use Quote Reply to clarify), I don't use Active D-Lighting because I process my images from raw.

As for matrix metering or any other form of metering, I don't use it in broad daylight because I don't use any meter, internal or external, in that case. I might look at in bad weather or when it's hard to judge the light.

As for ETTR, I almost never use it. I just watch for blinkies. They are the most reliable indication of whether the raw file's upper limit has been exceeded or about to be exceeded.

The real purpose of this thread is to demonstrate that the camera's JPEG highlights do not blow out before the raw file does.

kenArchi Loc: Seal Beach, CA

I see that your setting is sRGB vs RGB.
Will that make a difference?

selmslie Loc: Fernandina Beach, FL, USA

kenArchi wrote:

I see that your setting is sRGB vs RGB.
Will that make a difference?

No.