[stevebrot]

I find the K-3 exposure metering system is more accurate and 'intelligent' than in any previous Pentax I have used.

Same here. The only problems I have had were when I had an S-type aftermarket focus screen from focusingscreen.com installed. That screen had laser-etched AF zone lines that threw the metering off and resulted in gross underexposure for some subjects.


Steve

[sherrvonne]

This thread was very helpful, now I 'get' it!

[emalvick]

I think I have noticed with my previous cameras that the settings for the JPG (even if you are shooting RAW) influence the exposure (or at least the histogram you see after you take a shot). I'm not sure whether it really affected the metering or my perception of the metering as I often just over and under-exposures by the histogram and image I see on the camera while I'm trying to get the shot.

I mention this because on two major trips I made two accidental changes to the camera settings with regard to JPG style. In one case, I had accidentally changed the JPG to some setting that reminded me of a high-key (or more high-contrast) type shot. The result was that I had felt that many of my shots were too limited in dynamic range (under- and over-exposed indicators). I ended up shooting almost exclusively bracketed shots as I didn't think much of it. The lighting wasn't great on that trip and the sky was often partly cloudy with a glaring sun.

I got home and found that most of the RAW images were just fine with one exposure and on import saw the bad jpg embedded in the raw convert to the real image data. Looked at my camera and found the culprit. On another trip to Utah, something like that happened with white balance. Didn't think much of it until I found that an errant WB setting was selected.

In both cases, everything was fine because of the raw images, but the big point is that the in-camera histogram is not the same as the RAW histogram and the settings in camera can affect the appearance of images being over or underexposed.

[asp1880]

... the big point is that the in-camera histogram is not the same as the RAW histogram and the settings in camera can affect the appearance of images being over or underexposed.

This is correct. The histogram is a JPEG histogram. high/low key, contrast, shadow correction etc. impact the jpeg histogram.


I think the digital Leicas show a RAW histogram.


Regards,
--Anders.

[emalvick]

This is correct. The histogram is a JPEG histogram. high/low key, contrast, shadow correction etc. impact the jpeg histogram.

--Anders.

And this is part of why I generally go through the effort of actually setting up some JPEG settings although not for a final image but to try and represent the most data as possible... e.g. low contrast.

What I've never figured out is how I mistakenly changed the settings to some preset when I did that. The white balance issue I had I figure was due to auto-white balance being confused by the red rocks all around Utah or my own accidental setting white balance based on the red rocks there since all my images on that trip ended up with the same WB setting.

[PALADIN85020]

Normally, slight under-exposure is a good thing. If you shoot RAW, you can bring up detail in the dark areas, but pulling detail out of blown-out highlights is more difficult.

I take a lot of shots of objects with a white background where I WANT the background to be as pure white as possible. The solution? It's simple. Go to manual exposure and dial in increased exposure to your heart's content. I normally bracket about 5 shots with varying exposure, and manipulate the RAW file that best approaches what I want. Here's an example.

John

[stevebrot]

but pulling detail out of blown-out highlights is more difficult

Impossible is the proper term. A blown highlight is the result of high value clipping. What is not there is not there and no amount of PP will make it be there.


Steve