[pres589]

I'm not sure if the XR7 has center-weighted or matrix metering, but I don't see that kind of scene exposing well with an in-camera meter in general.

I know they're miles apart in development, but I don't think I would have had nearly so many issues with my K-5 II. Which is partially why I'm doing this.

What's your advice then to make sure I can actually get what I need out of that sort of situation? I was planning on shooting in a similar environment tomorrow evening. If I can't use A mode with exposure compensation to try and keep things exposed well then it's all-manual time. Which is fine, just, I cannot read the camera's meter so it's a bit of a guessing game...

[johnha]

Okay, so I've been using Les's XR7 for a few weeks now, and I've had three rolls of film developed by a lab that reviews well. Here are four pictures that I think show where I'm at. I had the lab scan these, I only resized with Photoshop Elements, to show them here.

I shot this one with Fuji Superia 400 with the camera set in A mode. Lens: Kiron 28mm f2.0 @ f2.0

Grain like this on ISO 400 film suggests under exposure - the camera meter will have a minimum EV metering range. If the scene is below this limit, it may simply default to its lowest metering range, therefore not giving enough exposure. Most film cameras go down to about EV 1, a few go down further to EV -1 or so.

Porta 400, Rokinon 14mm @ f2.8, camera in A mode.

Again the grain suggests under exposure - possibly due to the bright sky compared to the foreground.

T-Max 400, pushed 2 stops, with the camera set to 1600 on the ISO dial, 0 exposure compensation, A mode again. Lens: Pentax M 50 1.4 @ 1.4.

This is a good image under the circumstances, there is blur (subject movement by the look of it) but this adds to the nature of the shot. The lack of grain at ISO 1600 is very good.

T-Max 400 @ 1600, A mode. Lens: Pentax M 50 1.4 @ 1.4.

Again, this is likely to be the meter being fooled by the bright high-lights (particularly the large lamp at the top of the frame). excluding the lamp may have dropped the scene below the minimum EV meter range though.

That last one is kind of a good example of what I'm annoyed with. I can improve that somewhat in post-post processing with digital tools... The LCD indication of exposure is really difficult in some of the shots I took as they were taken in dark environments. The camera can drive itself to some pretty long exposure times... The club scene with all of the red is fairly repairable, I was surprised at all of the noise, I assume some of that is from aggressive sensitivity with the negative scanner?[/QUOTE]

Again, this last image is likely to be the meter being fooled by the bright high-lights (particularly the large lamp at the top of the frame). excluding the lamp may have dropped the scene below the minimum EV meter range though. The best I can suggest, is to avoid high contrast scenes and/or place the subjects in more brightly lit areas (the 3rd shot is a good example of this).

The minimum EV metered range is an absolute figure, setting the ISO to 1600 instead of 400 doesn't extend this range as it relates completely to the subject brightness. Beyond this, you're in manual mode unfortunately.

John.

[pres589]

I think the "good" black and white picture was in an area that was just as dark. It was just more uniformly dark. There were other shots from that same location that came out as badly as the "bad" black and white picture. What I'm taking away from all of this is, don't be afraid of over-exposing, and shoot manual in dark situations. Agreed on the TMAX 400 coming out nicely with lack of grain when the exposure came out well.

I wonder if I should be looking for a different body for when I'm not using a loaner, something that is better at telling me when I'm at risk of bad underexposure. Maybe this is all on me, but honestly, I can't see anything at all in that display in low light unless I swing the camera to somewhere else that is illuminated, giving the needle a backlight, which invalidates the information it would show.

[johnha]

I wonder if I should be looking for a different body for when I'm not using a loaner, something that is better at telling me when I'm at risk of bad underexposure. Maybe this is all on me, but honestly, I can't see anything at all in that display in low light unless I swing the camera to somewhere else that is illuminated, giving the needle a backlight, which invalidates the information it would show.

The problem is more than the needle - most manual focus cameras with LED metering display an LED against an un-illuminated legend in the viewfinder. If you can't read the legend - you still don't know what the meter is telling you. Some cameras have LED illuminated digits (from memory P30, P50, SFXn) but again, at low levels these may just display 'LT' meaning long time - not the actual shutter speed.

Something like an AF SLR with LED segments for the meter (similar to the K-5 - say an MZ-5n) may display the actual shutter speed to several seconds - but again the light levels may be below the minimum EV for the meter. The Super-A will display the actual time, you can illuminate the LCDs in the finder with a light switch - but it's not terribly good and I imagine it eats the battery.

[TwoUptons]

I think you may have just fallen off the bottom of the meter range... and then gotten lucky with some of the exposures.

You could compare the meter results in low light to something more modern to double check that it’s accurate, too...

The classic K1000 does exactly the same needle thing. It’s infuriating...

Or get a flash... which is pretty contrary to street shooting best practices but can be very effective...

-Eric

[pres589]

For another shot of TMAX 400 pushed to 1600, there's this;



This is pretty much exactly what I was hoping for with B&W film. It really seems like the answer here is, run the lens wide open, and when in doubt wind the exposure out longer. All of these probably would have worked at f2.0 or f1.4 (lens dependent) with an exposure of 1/8th of a sec. At least, that's my theory, and the feedback so far seems to be that overexposure is better than under.

Thanks for the replies so far.

[pres589]

Two more film shots. I had a couple rolls of film developed yesterday and got scans back this afternoon. These are only changed over to jpeg and resized in Photoshop, nothing else done to them. Both of these are from a roll of Fuji Superia 400 pushed 1 stop.


Taken with a Kiron 28 f2.0, shot at f2.0, probably 1/15th of a second.


Taken with a Pentax M-series 50 f1.4, taken at f1.4, 1/8th of a second.

I've basically adopted the idea that, if I think I might underexpose, shoot as long of an exposure as I think I can get away with. The airplane bar shot I'm happy enough with, the bar band shot is still underexposed. I think I need to move to faster film, right? I don't think pushing would have helped this much from what I've read. Both of these were shot in manual mode, no attention paid to the light meter. This my drive me to try one of the 3200 ISO B&W films sometime soon. Thoughts?

I may look into getting a magnifying eyepiece for my XR7. I'm seeing too many missed focus shots.

[timw4mail]

I've basically adopted the idea that, if I think I might underexpose, shoot as long of an exposure as I think I can get away with. The airplane bar shot I'm happy enough with, the bar band shot is still underexposed. I think I need to move to faster film, right? I don't think pushing would have helped this much from what I've read. Both of these were shot in manual mode, no attention paid to the light meter. This my drive me to try one of the 3200 ISO B&W films sometime soon. Thoughts?

I may look into getting a magnifying eyepiece for my XR7. I'm seeing too many missed focus shots.

Ideally, you would meter for the mid-tone in the scene. Realistically, it's probably more practical to meter to the darkest part of the scene, and let light sources blow out. In camera light meters are generally nice, but they aren't great at low light. (With perhaps the exception of the LX). If you can find an inexpensive, low-light-sensative light meter, with a small measuring area (In other words, a spot meter), that's probably the kind of tool you want in these sorts of situations.

I'm actually impressed with the lack of camera shake when you have images taken at 1/15 second. That said, for how dark the areas you seem to be photographing, an 800 ISO film is probably the slowest practical speed film for you. Incidentally, 800 speed film is about where the availability of color film ends.

[pres589]

That's the thing; with ISO 400 film loaded, in those environments I can barely get the highlights to blow out as it is. So really, my thought was just try to get as much light as I can on the film without dragging a tripod or similar tool into the mix. It's one thing to take a camera, another thing again to set up a tripod, and a remote cable...

The second shot, the bar/music venue, I used to use my K-5 II and set the ISO to 1600 at max, 1/15th of a sec exposure, and then f2.4 or faster apertures, whatever the fastest was on the lens I was using. If I could go back and do it over again, I'd like to try Ilford Delta 3200 with my 50 1.4 and try 1/15th and see what happens. The light meter on these camera just isn't very useful in these environments from what I'm seeing/hearing. Thx for the compliment.

[ChrisPlatt]

A rangefinder camera is easier to use than an SLR in many low light situations.

Chris