I have been using an M6 ttl for the past few weeks with a 35mm f2 lens.I seem to be having a problem with the metering.Most of the shots I take seem to be under-exposed.

I am taking a reading off the face of the subject and then recomposing the frame.Most of the pictures are taken inside under a mix of natural and fluorescent light.

I have taken the same photo's with a Nikon F100 in AE mode with perfect results.

-- Sally (sallyhunter@yarristext.com), February 03, 2002

Answers

Sally-although the M6 has a very accurate meter,it's also very basic.It's easily fooled.I think the only way to get a REALLY accurate reading is to use a hand-held meter or ditch the M6 and carry on using the Nikon(which is arguably a better camera anyway).

-- Virgil (leicavirgin@hotmail.com), February 03, 2002.

Sally:

Rule 1 of exposure is that all meters, hand held or in-camera, want to make everything mid grey-18% reflectance. This is intentional and will result in any surface exposed that way turn out mid grey-pure white or solid black both will be 18% grey if exposed as read. This is Zone V in the Zone System.

Light caucasian skin is a standard for Zone VI, or 1 complete stop lighter. If you meter of the skin, the neg will be, by design, at least one stop underexposed, all else working right.

Three solutions:

1) Use an incident meter and read the light with the meter pointing at the camera;

2)Meter off a standard 18% grey card- available at most full line photo stores. (A good substitute is a page of newspaper with no pictures -classified ads.)

3) Meter off the skin and open up one stop.

All this applies for colour and B&W.

An excellent book on all this is " The Zone VI workshop" by Fred Picker.

Cheers

-- RICHARD ILOMAKI (richardjx@hotmail.com), February 03, 2002.

Wow:

I can imagine the flames along this thread after that Nikon related statement!!! We have been infiltrated by a Nikonian.

Duck, quick. I can hardly wait. Get ready for a lot of brown fans.

Cheers

-- RICHARD ILOMAKI (richardjx@hotmail.com), February 03, 2002.

How the hell can you say the F100 is a better camera? Why are you in this forum if that is what you think?

The F100 is in a completly different league,it's like saying a timex watch is better than a Rolex.

-- Richard Ramone (richramone@jjss.net), February 03, 2002.

More like saying an Omega is better than a Patek.

-- Chris Henry (henryjc@concentric.net), February 03, 2002.

The only reason the F100 exposes these shots correctly is the background is darker than the subject's face and the meter is averaging it together. Switch the F100 to spotmetering and meter the face, or lean in and fill the frame with the face and lock the reading in Matrix, and you'll get the same underexposure. The advice above to open up one stop (or use 1 shutter speed slower)after metering the face is a good one. Another way is to use the frame selector lever to pull up the 50mm frames (which gives you a *vertical* estimate of the M6's meter coverage) and meter with the face in the left or right half of the frame. That will introduce enough of the background to even out the exposure. The open-up-1- stop method is the best IMO.

-- Jay (infinitydt@aol.com), February 03, 2002.

Many would agree that slr's are better for some things and rangefinders for others. In this example, the basic metering of the M6 requires more of an understanding of metering and its pitfalls. I think this is an example of how using an M makes you a better photographer because it demands more of the pnotographer. Instead of relying on matrix metering and computer chips, the user will read about the zone system, incident vs reflective metering and become a more educated photographer. Neither approach is wrong. You just have to decide who the photographer is; you or your camera. You can apply these principles to the Nikon in the manual mode, but most people but these cameras for the automation. Most importantly, life is way too short to use anything but Leica lenses.

-- Bill Henick (dhen1922@aol.com), February 03, 2002.

"using an M makes you a better photographer"

The only thing makes you a better photographer is getting the shot. For that, the F100 is possibly a better deal, except in low light.

-- rob (rob@robertappleby.com), February 03, 2002.

You Leica respondants are acting like a bunch of morons. You're trying to answer a question about metering when you don't even know what type of film is being used, or how it's being processed! Is it color negative? Is it black and white negative? Is it color positive (slide)? Is it black and white positive? Com'on, wake up and get on the ball!

-- Glenn Travis (leciaddict@hotmail.com), February 03, 2002.

Ok,I should have said.I use 50/50 Neopan 400 and Sensia 100 or 400.

Lenses are 35mm f2 on the Nikon and 35mm f2 'cron on the Leica.

-- Sally (sallyhunter@yarristext.com), February 03, 2002.

"The F100 is in a completly different league,it's like saying a timex watch is better than a Rolex."

"Most importantly, life is way too short to use anything but Leica lenses."

I love my Leica, but come on - it is only a camera!

What is this strange allegience to Leica or Nikon? They are tools for the job.

As has been said above a manual camera demands more of the user, the Nikon offers you automation - take it or leave it.

-- Giles Poilu (giles@monpoilu.icom43.net), February 03, 2002.

I should have mentioned that I had corresponded with sally before I wrote that last comment and knew what she was shooting(indoor documentary style portraits)and all I meant was that the Nikon was a better camera for the way she was working.

-- Virgil (leicavirgin@hotmail.com), February 03, 2002.

Sally:

You Leica is great for what you are doing. BUT, keep in mind that the methodology for metering as described by RICHARD ILOMAKI is the correct proceedure for exposing ANY film accurately (assuming the skin you are metering is caucasian). As such, the method he described will generate a correct exposure directly on transparency film, and will generate a coorectly exposed negative with print film. HOWEVER, when printing the print film an automatic printer will make the same assumption as the camera during the printing stage and under-expose caucasian skin by 1 stop, thus generating an under-exposed print. A good printing lab will know to catch this before the print leaves the lab, while a one-hour lab generally won't.

:-),

-- Jack Flesher (jbflesher@msn.com), February 03, 2002.

So,if I am shooting a whole roll of portraits with the M6 I can rate the Neopan400 at 200asa and trust the meter?

-- Sally (sallyhunter@yarristext.com), February 03, 2002.

It's a large spot. You point it at stuff you want to be exposed at more or less midtones and use that reading, that's all.

-- rob (rob@robertappleby.com), February 03, 2002.

"So,if I am shooting a whole roll of portraits with the M6 I can rate the Neopan400 at 200asa and trust the meter? " ---- You could adjust your meter but I think even better is that you learn to recognize the mid point of the scene and meter that mid point - some area darker than the zone VI skin tones. The advantage of this method is that you can extend your recognition of mid point (or zone V) to other scenes. You have now adjusted your seeing and thinking to how the camera meter sees. The meter in the M6 is accurate and dependable, you do need to point it at the right part of the scene.

-- Henry Ambrose (henry@henryambrose.com), February 03, 2002.

Well, I have to respond- I think Richard is a little off base with his specifics about metering. First, all meters do not only give proper exposure for 18% grey. This is REFLECTIVE metering. Incident meters measure the amount of light falling on a given spot to represent true tone, not middle grey. Secondly, reflective meters (which Richard correctly points out to include all in-camera meters) do NOT all uniformly give 18% grey- they are very often 1/3 to 3/4's of a stop brighter than this. Most in-camera area meters fall into this category, whereas a 30 year old Luna Pro reflective meter, or any of similar quality and calibre WILL actually read for 18% grey.

All of which leads to confusion even when a simplistic approach to metering such as above is given. A little knowledge is a dangerous thing.

My suggestion to effectively use ANY in-camera meter is to rate the film at 1/3 stop under ISO (i.e. 320 for most 400 speed films) and point the camera at an area of mid range value, meter there, and recompose. This method will work very well, but it requires that you understand the idea of a mid range value and can effectively identify one in any scene, and do it quickly enough that it not interrupt your workflow. But it's not as hard as it may sound. Many people refer to the Leica learning curve, esp. with M cameras; I find that often it is learning to meter properly for one's self and not just let the camera's computer do it for you (as with the Nikon F100- an excellent camera). Then you have the differences of learning a rangefinder on top of this. I would argue that it should be a choice in shooting style and approach that should dictate the use of an SLR or a rangefinder, not metering problems.

Metering is so much at the heart of what we do. Learning to properly expose film with whatever tools we use is the absolute foundation of technical neccesity in photography, and it is a subject around which lots of debate has always swirled. We all learn methods that work for us. There will be techniques that work fine for some and not at all for others. The recommendations about ISO ratings for given films on this forum tell a story about this. Some folks get best results from Tri-X or Superia 400 at 200, some at 320, some at 400. It is as often as not a difference in metering technique as anything else.

So take everything we've all said with a grain of salt. There's lots of good information available from the great contirbutors to this forum. Of course lots of it is conflicting, too. So read what we have to say, and TEST. You'll figure it out, and learn as you go.

Your pictures are dark they way you are working? Open up a stop, stop and a half, two stops. Look at your contact sheets- is it uniformly dark? Maybe you should cut the ISO rating of the film, or maybe you should meter of a different/darker area than the face; maybe you should meter as you do and open up a stop. All of these achive the same result- a stop more exposure, which is what you need if your pictures are dark. Find the method that reminds you to get there that works best for you.

-- drew (swordfisher@hotmail.com), February 03, 2002.

I agree a little knowledge is indeed a dangerous thing. Rating a color neg film consistently 1/3-stop slower than box speed will tighten the grain some but won't give enough of an increase in negative density to compensate for a full stop of underexposure. Sally can tell her lab to print the negs lighter but the image quality will still be degraded due to underexposure.

With color reversal film (Sally says she uses Sensia), consistently rating it 1/3-stop slower than box speed will result in a loss of color saturation and blown-out highlights at the bright end of the film's contrast range. With color reversal film, many photographers rate them to underexpose by 1/3-stop, to increase the saturation. But again, a 1/3-stop compensation will not be sufficient to correct a subject that is 1 stop brighter than middle tone.

The bottom line is, if the photographer wishes not to be bothered with exposure theory, a modern camera with evaluative metering will give a higher percentage of keepers in situations where the subject is not middle-tone, unless it occupies the majority of the frame, in which case the meter will be fooled. I owned a Nikon F5, whose meter is much more sophisticated than the F100, and despite what anyone says that it is 100% accurate, it still underexposes an extremely light or overexposes an extremely dark subject if it fills the frame.

-- Jay (infinitydt@aol.com), February 03, 2002.

Drew wrote:

>Well, I have to respond- I think Richard is a little off base with his specifics about metering. First, all meters do not only give proper exposure for 18% grey. This is REFLECTIVE metering.<

Leica meters ARE calibrated to read 18% gray, and that is what Sally is shooting with.

>Incident meters measure the amount of light falling on a given spot to represent true tone, not middle grey.<

AND which will generate EXACTLY the same result as directly metering a gray card with a reflective meter.

:-),

-- Jack Flesher (jbflesher@msn.com), February 03, 2002.

Sally, I am surprised that no one has brought this up. The simple fact is that when you are using a new camera, you shoyld know the area and size of the metering pattern. In the Nikon F100, metering is superb for a camera that thinks for you. Now that you have a camera where you have to think, it is importnant taht you...well, think!

Anyway in the M6 the camera reads light of a white spot behind the lens inside the body. That white spot reads off approximately the centre 13% of the viewfinder. So when you are metering a person with a 35mm lens, usually you aren't that close and the camera also picks up abient light surrounding the face- as long as it is within 13% of the centre of the viewfinder.

So make sure that you go up closer to the subject and take a reading, or over/under expose accordingly, dependent on the type of light available- usually overexpose. this technique is learnt over time. but for now, take a reading closer to the subject including the center 13% of take a reading off your hand, if the lighting is the same as the person's face- assuming that is where you want to take the reading.

Good luck. Comming from a Nikon F100 and F5 myself, I too had to adjust. But if you do adjust, the photographic process becomes so much more enjoyable.

-- Kristian (leicashhot@hotmail.com), February 03, 2002.

Thanks guys,you are all right.It's just such a different way of working.I have always just pressed the shutter and known the exposure would be good,but that's not really what I want,I want to be more in control of the final image.

I will start tommorrow with a new way of thinking.

Thank you all for the fantastic information,I have learned more in 1 night than I learned in 4 months at a collage night-class!

-- Sally (sallyhunter@yarristext.com), February 03, 2002.

Why your getting underexposure remains somewhat of a mystery to me, but I would seriouly look at your lab. I just shot 13 rolls of Sensia II 200 in four days, in varying light, and sent them to Fuji for development, and the only problem is an occasional 1/2 stop overexposure which I'll correct in Photoshop. With silver b&w which has such a wide latitude, how the hell can anyone get an underexposure? They would have to be shooting with the lens cap on! To me that would mean the film is black (no light has hit it.) But I also develop and print my own b&w. Again, this would indicate to me that your lab sucks. Take the b&w prints back to the lab, tell them they suck, and you want them redone, or you want a credit. From now on with the b&w, I would only ask for developing and a contact sheet. Also get a decent loupe and light box and examine the negs. If you can see detail in the highligths and shadows, then they are OK. Any competent printer should be able to get a decent print. Also, the Leica M meters are not spot, but partial meters. The M6 classic meters approximately 23% of the frame for the lenses you are using. The M6 ttl meters approximately 13%. When you say you're metering off the subject, do you mean that you hold the camera inches from their face and take a reading? Or do you mean that you're pointing in the general direction from say 10 feet away? If you're metering from 10 feet away against a white or very light background, then this will slightly squew the meter. Check the meter by metering the palm of your hand, filling the lens. This should be within a stop of where you want to shoot, or right on if you want extra saturation.

-- Glenn Travis (leciaddict@hotmail.com), February 03, 2002.

Actually, Sally - skin can be a good substitute for an incident light meter - provided it's yours!

A lot of photographers who like incident metering for its consistency (it isn't affected by bright/dark areas in/around the subject) but also like built-in camera meters for their convenience, use their hand as a substitute 'gray card'.

Put your hand in the same light conditions as the subject, meter it, open up 1 stop, and you're there! By the same token, in your proposed "whole roll of portraits" - you COULD change the film speed, but you can also just open up one stop or increase the time by 1 shutter speed from the meter's 'preferred' exposure.

The advantage to a non-AE camera (Like the Leica, but also the F100 in manual mode) is that IN CONSTANT LIGHT, once you set the camera you can stop worrying about exposure and metering and dials - it's done. Just wait for the moment and shoot.

The AE camera is making a new exposure reading for each frame, which is unneccesary if the light isn't changing, and introduces the possibility of an error (due to a bright spot or reflection in the background or whatever) every time you press the shutter/meter button.

-- Andy Piper (apidens@denver.infi.net), February 03, 2002.

Note to Glenn Travis

Glenn

I respectfully suggest a bit of polishing up is in order on the subject of exposure latitude and densitometry. Yes, a one stop"latitude" may be apparent in a casually made print, but in order to achieve the maximum tonal range a film is capable of, there is essentially no latitude.

For every film/camera/lens/developer combination there are unique film speed and developement parameters that will result in optimum use of the full 10 stops available in B&W and 5 in reversal transparencies. When one relies on "latitude" without compensating in the development or printing there is a loss of either highlights or shadows, as well the subtleties between. Either the whites will be burnt out or a real Dmax will be missing.

Consult Ansel Adams: "The Nagative" or "Zone VI Workshop" by Fred Picker, or any standartd text on densitometry. THAT part of photography is a science, the rest is art.

Cheers

-- RICHARD ILOMAKI (richard.ilomaki@hotmail.com), February 04, 2002.

Hey guys.I did some more shots this morning and over-exposed by 1 stop,I also had them developed at a Pro-lab.Well,the extra 1 stop and an extra £3.75 was well worth it! The results a great.

I was thinking that I could just have the negs developed and then print them myself(I don't have enough room in my student flat for a whole darkroom),anyway I'll see how it goes.....

-- Sally (sallyhunter@yarristext.com), February 04, 2002.