If you're using print film, how can you tell (seriously) if the camera is
underexposing? And in a high contrast situation, any camera's meter is
fallible because it can't read your mind. Do you want to expose for the
shadows or highlights? You can't have both.
If the printer is telling you the negative is underexposed for the shadows,
this isn't a 2/3rd undexposure, it's most likely a gross 2-stop
underexposure and most probably was caused by the meter being confused and
unable to read your mind. This is when multi-spot metering is handy.
You should shoot a roll of Provia 100F slide film with moderate contrast
scenes. Include a gray card in the scene. Bracket in 1/3 to 2/3 steps. This
will tell you more conclusively whether the camera is bad. Evaluative
metering of a high contrast scene -- you'll get a million answers depending
on what you're shooting for -- and none of them will necessarily be wrong.
I got an EOS-3 from B&H last November and it's working fine. The evaluative
meter is prone to wrong exposures in certain situations. But that's
verified by using an external lightmeter (Minolta Autometer IVF) and based
on my emphasizing different areas of the scene than the evaluative
metering. And I shoot slides exclusively.
If you're able to tell just by looking through the viewfinder and then at
the EI numbers (exposure x aperture) that the camera is underexposing (ie.,
you *know* the scene needs more light) without using a spotmeter or
incident meter or slide film, you're more photographer than most of us.
I *can* look at a scene and know that the evaluative metering algorithm is
getting fooled by a bright area (snow) and will adjust (as will most other
photographers), but that's different from a general tendency of the meter
to underexpose slightly, which you won't be able to tell unless you use
slide film.
Karen
At 7:54 AM -0700 4/2/01, Ken Durling wrote:
>On Mon, 2 Apr 2001 13:57:17 +0300 (EET DST), you wrote:
>
>>It's a common problem... well there was a real problem like that, and then
>>maybe some feel that the evaluative metering just underexposes a bit.
>
>
>Very interesting., I just received some shots back from "gold"
>printing, taken with the Elan 7, and there was a note from the lab
>saying "underexposed, lacks detail in shadow area." It was admittedly
>a high contrast situation - some Elk standing against the sky, and the
>shadow areas were under their bellies and in the crevices of their
>"armpits."
>
>I *am* noticing that on a somewhat intuitive level, with lots of film
>going through the camera and watching the results, that in other than
>really bright situations, my left thumb is more often than not wanting
>to creep the exposure compensation up a 1/2 or a whole stop.
>
>Certainly all of this varies with film, though, or at least how
>noticeable the overexposure is, and there fore how much correction is
>necessary.
>
>Ken Durling
*
****
*******
***********************************************************
* For list instructions, including unsubscribe, see:
* http://www.a1.nl/phomepag/markerink/eos_list.htm
***********************************************************
