The Sony NEX 16-50 “E-mount” Zoom

Barn
Copyright 2013 Andy Richards

Last week, I reviewed the Sony Nex-6 camera body. One of the interesting features of this line of Sony cameras is the large selection of third party lens adapters available, making it possible to mount almost any mount system lens.  While most of these lenses will use the camera’s auto focus (or any other “auto” features for that matter), they will work perfectly well in manual focus mode. There is some “quirkiness,” though. Neither the camera’s onboard information, nor the embedded EXIF information will give you the aperture value, the focal length or the shutter speed value. I used the manual metering system and the on-screen “real time” histogram feature to estimate exposure. And, it appears that on the lenses which do not have physical aperture settings, the camera will default to the smallest aperture and there does not appear to be any way to adjust that. On lenses with aperture rings, you will be able to set the aperture.  Sony does make an adapter for its own lenses (i.e., the A-mount series that mounts on its DSLR cameras) that will pass the autofocus and exposure information through to the camera body and vice versa.

I purchased the Rayqual adapter for Nikon “G” series lenses (these lenses do not have a physical f-stop selector ring, but are instead all chosen by one of the camera’s “command” dials). The G adapter will work with any existing compatible Nikon “F” mount lens (or any lens fitted to the Nikon F mount).  There are a number of manufactures that offer adapters, and reviews seem to suggest that quality of manufacture is all over the place.  The Rayqual was recommended to me by my pro friend and I thought it made sense to go with something known.  The guy at Cameraquest was very accomodating.

Of course, the camera’s “APS” sensor means you will have to apply the 1.5 field of view factor to the lens. But there are some very sharp, fully manual, older lenses out there (i.e., the venerable 50mm f1.8). I played around with a couple of my own Nikon lenses and found that in reasonable light conditions, focusing (either on the back LCD or in the viewfinder) is relatively easy.

Nikon 24-70; approximately 50mm ( 75 equivalent), f22, 100 ISO

My primary motivation for purchasing this Nex-6, though, was to find smaller, more convenient setup to use while traveling and while out walking around, that would give me image quality like I have grown to expect from my DSLR setups. The NEX has the promise of doing that, in my view. But using an adapter and manual older lenses may defeat that purpose. While they are fun to play around with, I don’t want to be doing that when I am on vacation in new places. I want to shoot and have reliably good quality results.

For that reason, the Sony E  SELP16-50 F3.5-5.6 PZ OSS zoom is a very attractive lens. The 35mm equivalent of approximately 24-75mm is a pretty useful range for “street” shooting and “walking around.” Of course, 28-300 would be nice (and they do offer that option), but it comes at the expense of size, weight, and … well, expense (the E-mount 18-200 is over $800). I don’t intend for this camera to replace my D800 DSLR. It is a significant upgrade replacement to my Canon G12, though and will undoubtedly get lots of use. As such I really wanted the 16-50 to be acceptable. It didn’t have to match up to the performance of my f2.8 Nikkors.

Sharpness:

I am pleased to say, I am pretty impressed, given the challenges the lens faces. The lens, fully retracted, measures only 1 1/2 inches long (there is a serious typo in the dpreview literature – though it would be amazing to have a zoom of this range that measured only 3/16 inches  ). The overall depth of the Nex-6 with this lens attached is a mere 2 1/2 inches! The lens is image stabilized (OSS), with a minimum focus distance of just under 10 inches. Its minimum aperture (depending on zoomed length) is between f22 and f36. It is a very lightweight addition to an already comfortably light and small body.  The barn above, was shot at 50 (75) mm at f16.  You can see that at those specs, the lens produces a relatively sharp, edge to edge result.  But how does it do at wider apertures, and at other focal lengths?  You can see in the image below of the white house that, stopped down, the lens performs nicely at its wide end (note that this was distortion-corrected in ACR using its lens database).  For daylight images, I cannot think of a reason not to stop the lens down to its “middle” ranges (f8-11-16), unless trying to obtain a specific DOF result.

16mm at f16

I will leave the technical specifications, like resolving power, distortion measurements, and other things to the technocrats and pixel peepers. My criteria was whether I was going to be able to bring home some “wall hangers,” using this lens. I think I can.

My non-scientific testing involved setting the camera up in my basement, mounted on a tripod using the same image, from a stationary position. I also used the IR remote to ensure no camera movement was involved. I am still trying to master the settings and particularly the AF technology on this little unit. To the best of my observation, the IR remote did not cause the camera to try to re-focus (which is a good thing).   However, as I glean more knowledge about the AF technology in this camera, I wonder if that is really what is happening.  From what I read, the default AF system in the camera works with “contrast detection” (as opposed to “phase detection” on most DSLR cameras).  What I am learning this means, is that the camera, when set to its AF setting, is constantly searching for a sharp exposure.  So, it may just be that in good light, the AF performance is just that good, and  and locked on when the remote triggered.

What I generally concluded was that there is little difference in sharpness from wide to small aperture and from short to long focal lengths. This is particularly true (as might be expected) in the center of the lens. But I am pleasantly surprised at the edge to edge performance. Granted, this combination is not going to be an architectural setup. Nor will it be up to the standards I generally expect from a “grand landscape” image shot with a “pro-specs” lens. But for its intended use, the results were very acceptably sharp and pleasant.  All images were at 100 ISO.

50mm @ f22

50mm @ f8

55mm f5.6

Since a common concern is whether these lenses are sharp at their longest lengths, I started there. I then tried some additional, varied settings of the same image:

16mm @ f3.5 (wide open with this lens)

16mm @ f3.5 cropped for center

16mm @ f22

23mm (approximately 50mm 35mm equivalent) @ f4

23mm @ f8

Distortion:

Sony 16-55 “uncorrected” at 16mm
Copyright 2013 Andy Richards

Other reviewers have noted that this lens suffers from significant distortion and some vignetting, particularly at the wide end.  The “before and after shots” here confirm this.  Both images were adjusted for contrast in my ACR raw image converter (Adobe Camera Raw), run through Dfine’s noise software and the default settings Pixel Genius’ “capture sharpening” engine.  They are otherwise uncorrected except that I applied the “lens correction” facility (again at its default settings) in ACR before opening it in Photoshop.  Some of the curvature can, of course, be attributed to the user.  A higher camera position would help here, if possible.  But you can see the pronounced curvature in the first image and the somewhat “tamer” curvature in the corrected version.  You can also see noticeable vignetting in all 4 corners of the first image and essentially no trace of it in the corrected image (no filters were used in this example, by the way, so this is the “bare” lens being demonstrated).  Sony is aware of this issue.  Again, I am not an engineer (and the world is a better place because of that ) but it is my understanding that this is a design issue that cannot be overcome at this point (somebody will figure it out some day).  This is physically a very short lens for its zoom range, and also small, working on a larger sensor than many of these smaller lenses have used in the past.  To “combat” these issues, Sony has firmware in the camera that “corrects” for this.  For Nex users that are using one of the earlier models (Nex-3, 5 or 7), it is my understanding that it will be necessary to upgrade the firmware to take full advantage of this.  Caveat:  the Sony firmware correction will only work on jpg files.  For those of you shooting jpg (there is a 10-step program for you out there ), I understand from what I have read, that this works very well indeed.  For the rest of us, some correction in post-processing will be necessary.  Adobe has done a great job of incorporating lens correction algorithms in their Light Room and ACR modules, including this lens.  I don’t have any familiarity with other raw converters or post-processing software, but it would not surprise me to find something there.  I consider the “corrected” image somewhat “normal” for this type of image, at the selected focal length of 16mm (24mm at 35mm-equivalent).

Sony 16-50 “lens-corrected” in ACR
Copyright 2013 Andy Richards

Bokeh:

For the few who don’t already know this, the word actually comes from the Japanese, “boke,” and refers, in loose translation, to blur.  For photography purposes, it is usually referred to as the aesthetic quality of the out of focus areas rendered by the lens.  With regard to this particular lens, I can only really refer to the last 2 letters of the word in describing my reaction to the 16-50′s Bokeh:  ”eh.”  :-).

Seriously, as I have said previously, it is a multi-purpose zoom in which Sony is trying to accomplish an awful lot of engineering, including a wide focal length range, reasonably wide apertures, and above all, very small footprint.  Given its modest price and versatility, I think they have done admirably well.  I think it would be unrealistic to expect it to stack up again virtually any prime lens and particularly the Zeiss glass or any of the Leica, Nikon, Cannon, Zuiko, Voightlander, or other “legacy” lenses that can be fitted via an adapter.  As part of my overall purchase, I picked up the pair of Sigma-manufactured e-mount f2.8 primes (19mm and 30mm).  When I get a chance to get in the field and do some real world testing, I hope to report on them. for now, here are two “test” examples.  Images are not very exciting, but given the time of year here, they are what I have to work with .  The first image is at the widest end of the lens, wide open.  The second is at the longest focal length, again, wide open.  I did not do any sharpening on these two images, so they are pretty much what you see is what you get (other than whatever PS did during the jpg conversion and resize, and I can say they looked pretty sharp on my screen as they came out of ACR).

Sony 16-50 @ f3.5; 15mm
Copyright 2013 Andy Richards

Sony 16-50 @ f5.6; 50mm
Copyright 2013 Andy Richards

I used the same default “capture sharpening” using Pixel Genius’s “Photokit Sharpener,” and identical contrast and local contrast adjustments in ACR on all the illustrated images.  I did not do any other sharpening.

While the light was not quite as nice on the final image, I wanted to include it to show that the lens is decently sharp at the wide setting and its wide-open aperture, too.  With appropriate “creative” sharpening in post-production, I can see that this lens will produce very acceptable images.

16mm @ f3.5

Size Matters!

Certainly, a hackneyed, old phrase, but in matters of digital photography, it is a fact. The size I am referring to is the digital sensor, but not megapixels; physical size. There are a fair number of parallels to the film-based systems we used before the so-called, “digital revolution.” But with digital sensors, there is a significant difference; technology. Very much like the computer industry, by the time the latest and greatest sensor hits the market, it is already “old technology” (there were major technological advances in film, too, over time, but they happened in a matter of years, rather than months).  This is a very technical subject that many others out on the net explain in technical and engineering details that I cannot begin to match.  This is a layman’s perspective.

The consumer camera began to drive new technology advances

The first digital cameras were adaptations of 35mm Single Lens Reflex (SLR) camera bodies that were used to build digital imaging tools (today referred to as a Digital SLR; or DSLR). They had very small imaging sensors (significantly, smaller than the rectangular cross-section of a single 35mm film frame), and were capable of producing only around 1.2 megapixel (MP) images. They cost $20,000 to $25,000; not within the budget of most photo-enthusiasts.

Digital image-making brought a new phenomenon to the camera manufacturing industry. Suddenly, the consumer camera (we often refer to them as “point and shoot” or “P&S”), began to drive new technology advances which often first appeared in the consumer P&S cameras, only to be put into the higher-end “pro” cameras later.

Sensor Sizes Compared

How does this all relate to sensor size? The P&S cameras have a much smaller image sensor in them than the DSLR cameras and the newer Medium Format digital cameras that are now available on the market. I currently routinely carry and use 3 different cameras: a Canon G12 P&S, a Nikon D7000 “DX” sensor camera, and a Nikon D700 “FX” sensor camera.  As the illustration shows, there is a pretty remarkable difference in sensor sizes (if you would like to do your own comparison, I used this really cool tool to make this illustration). Especially when we can upload and view all three of these at relatively the same viewing size on our computer monitors, and—within reason—make similar-sized print images from all three. But there is a notable difference in the quality of these images.

Why did the original cameras not have a sensor identical to the 35mm film cross-section that those bodies were designed for? The answer is simple; technology and cost. The technology that continues to “knock our socks off” today was the most limiting factor back in the late 1980′s. The cost to manufacture even a 1.2 megapixel small physical sensor was prohibitive. A 35mm size sensor cost as much as 20 times the cost to manufacture the smaller sensors. And while over time manufacturers rapidly designed and manufactured sensors holding many more photo-sites (hence, more megapixel capture capability), the cost to manufacture larger physical sensors remained expensive. This explains why the cost of the so-called “full-frame” DSLR is still substantially higher that a higher megapixel DSLR with the smaller sensor.

Why weren’t the original sensors identical to the 35mm frame size?

Megapixel Wars.  For the first 10 to 12 years after the introduction of the consumer-affordable DSLRs, there was a huge emphasis—and indeed a “race”—for more and more megapixels. Megapixels translated in many people’s minds into higher quality. There is some truth to this, but it is only part of the story.   When I talk about “size” here, I really mean the physical size of the sensor, more than the number of megapixels.  As Thom Hogan recently noted in his D800 review, the megapixel increases are linear, not geometric.  In other words, the 36 megapixel sensor in the D800 does not create images 3 times larger than the D700′s 12 megapixel sensor (in fact, Hogan estimates that the increase from the D700 to the D800′s image sizes are about 70%).  The arguably more important part of the story is the quality of those megapixels.

My first DSLR was the Nikon D100; a 6 megapixel camera. My “upgrade” to the D200 was 10 megapixels. My current “pro” model D700 is a 12 megapixel camera; while my “backup” D7000 is a 16 megapixel camera. Logically, it would seem that the progression from D100 to D7000 kept getting me to the best sensor. But that is not the case.  The older, 12 Megapixel D700 sensor still yields a much higher “quality” image than the 16 Megapixel D7000 sensor.

You might think that the progression from D100 to D7000 kept getting me to the best sensor. But that is not the case

At the time I bought the D100, there were point and shoot cameras available with higher than 6 megapixel counts. But I could still produce a cleaner, better quality image with the D100 that could be printed larger (I have 13 x 19 prints of images made on the D100 that are indistinguishable at that size from prints made from D700 12 megapixel images). Nikon’s newest “entry-model” consumer DSLR is the D3200, which is a whopping 24 megapixels (only the pro D800 beats it with 36 megapixels – the largest megapixel DLSR available at this writing). One would think it should make “better” images than the only 12 megapixel D700. But it cannot even come close!

The primary reason for this is size. You can readily see the difference in the image sensor sizes of my 3 current cameras. And the number of photo-sites that are packed onto the sensor and the size of the photo-sites make a huge difference in the quality of the image produced. This is most obvious in the low frequency (shadows and low light) side of the digital photographic equation.

Cruise Dock; Port Everglades, FL
Copyright 2012 Andy Richards

Noise.    When a sensor captures light it is converting light to electrical signals and certain “stray” signals can produce a grain-like pattern or effect in an image that is referred to as noise. This noise is largely created by low frequency signals (often the product of low-light conditions), but also by heat and other anomalies in the electronic processor. A small sensor, with many photo-sites packed onto it can create more degrading noise than a larger sensor. It can generate and accumulate more heat because it has less area to dissipate the heat energy. At the same time, the larger photo-sites are capable of capturing more and better detail, yielding a better quality digital image. These higher quality “raw” images, in turn, yield much better files to work with in the post processing stages. The image here, taken at the Princess Cruise Terminal in Ft. Lauderdale, Florida, in the early morning hours, demonstrates this. The noise is simply un-manageable. The same shot, taken with the D700 would have been salvageable.

G12                                         D7000                                         D700

Angle of View.    Another controversial area over the years has been the concept often referred to as “crop factor,” or “magnification factor.” When manufacturers began making digital interchangeable-lens camera bodies, they simply adapted the current, 35mm SLR body. While one might wonder why they didn’t just design and build a new “digital” body, the most obvious answer is probably again based on economics. It was probably much less costly to adapt the 35mm SLR body. And, it meant not having to create a completely new lens mount and require all of us to buy a whole new series of lenses. They had a ready-made consumer, just waiting to purchase the DSLR and use their existing lenses.  The composite above is shots from the same tripod position, taken a 140 mm on all three cameras, at their maximum aperture.  The G12 is obviously with its built-in lens.  The Nikon is with a 70-200mm f2.8 zoom.

The “crop factor” / “magnification” debate doesn’t really matter

The first sensors were significantly smaller in cross section than the 35mm film frame. The SLR lenses were designed for the larger 35mm cross-section. So, the sensors only used some of the inner part of the lens circle, effectively “cropping” the outer part. The effect of this was to create a narrower angle of view. The appearance is a “telephoto effect.” The practical effect was that you lost your wider angle and “gained” a longer view on all of your lenses, by a factor of 1.3 or 1.5. Because these sensors were similar to the size of the (largely failed) Nikon Pronea APS film camera, they came to be known as “APS” size sensors (Nikon has since denominated their “APS” sized sensor as a “DX” sensor).

There is no such thing as a “full frame” camera

There has been a considerable amount of debate and even “flame wars” on the internet over this concept. It really doesn’t matter. The debate is, for practical shooting, silly. The reality is that if you have a wide angle lens, on an APS sensor, it just won’t view or capture as wide. Conversely, if you have a longer lens, you get a longer angle of view on the entire sensor, effectively increasing the “telephoto” effect of the lens. Depending on your intended use, this can be a good thing or a bad thing (I actually made my recent backup decision to buy an APS size sensor partly on the premise that it would give me slightly more length for certain wildlife shooting).

Likewise, the controversy over whether a camera is or is not “full frame” is non-productive. But I’ll weigh in anyway . There is simply no such thing as a “full-frame” camera. I know that might draw some debate, but it is just a reference point. To a lifelong 35mm shooter, “full frame” means 35 mm (24mm x 36mm). But to a Medium Format or View Camera user, that’ hardly “full.” Indeed a View Camera 8 x 12 sheet of film makes a so-called “full frame” 35mm look like what it really is: a Postage Stamp! Again, it’s a reference point. To my way of thinking, the larger the better.

But there are practical considerations. When I bought my 6 megapixel APS frame D100, I carried a couple 2G flash cards around. With my 12 megapixel “full frame” (Nikon refers to their 35mm size frame as “FX”) D700, I use 8G cards. With the new D800 36 megapixel FX sensor, I don’t even know how large the cards would have to be. And with each of these increases in file size, an equal increase in hard drive storage and computer processing power (memory) is needed. At some point, it may become overkill. When Nikon announced their Flagship D4, at “only” 16 megapixels (same as the D7000 consumer body), many of us thought it might signal the end of the megapixel wars). But they have since released the D800 FX 36 megapixel body. Interestingly, the D800 is the “entry-level pro” camera and the D4 is the flagship pro body at a significantly higher price point (suggesting that a lot of working pro’s don’t consider the megapixel issue significant anymore at 16 megapixels). I cannot personally see a need for more than double the capacity of my D700 which creates some splendid digital images, in low light conditions.

It is difficult or impossible to get those pleasing out of focus effects on a point and shoot camera

Canon G12; 140mm; f4.5

Depth of Field.    Interestingly, sensor size also affects depth of field. This is analogous to the film reference above (as was the comment about “full frame, Medium and Large Format). It relates to the field of view and image size geometry. I am not capable of explaining the science, here and will leave it to more capable persons. But as a general rule, the smaller the sensor, the greater the depth of field for a given lens focal length. This explains why it is difficult or impossible to get those pleasing out of focus effects on a point and shoot camera.  As you an see, the G12 image, which is shot at its longest focal length and its widest aperture, still captures the background in reasonably sharp focus.  On the D700, everything is blurred except the main subject (of course a big part of that is the wider aperture).

Nikon D700; 140mm; f2.8

In the end, it is still first and foremost, about quality! When the consumer affordable DSLRs first came on the market, there was an immediate hue and cry for a “full frame” (i.e., 35mm size) sensor. The main reason, I believe, was because those of us used to using 35mm didn’t like the change required when thinking about and using our existing lens arsenals. I bought an 18mm lens and it solved my concern. Over time, the camera lens manufacturers have answered the call by designing lenses specifically for the APS sensor size. This has created some of its own issues, as we now have 35mm size sensors available. A “DX” lens on my “FX” D700 will have a big black vignette circle in the viewfinder, but will simply crop the image to the DX format. It just means we have to plan and think about what and how we are shooting.

My primary criteria for purchasing a camera will always be its sensor quality

When the D700 came out, I immediately decided to buy it. The sensor size really had absolutely nothing to do with it. I had “moved on” to the smaller sensor / lens combinations and had a bag of lenses that worked well for me. Buying the D700 made me have to re-think that and it was, frankly, in the short run, a nuisance to do so. Eventually I have sorted that all out. But my primary criteria for purchasing the D700 – and it will probably always be my primary consideration in purchasing any camera, was sensor image quality. And there is just no question on my mind that the camera I have in the bag that yields the highest quality image, is the one with the biggest sensor.

For lots more than you ever wanted to know about sensors, sensor size, and electronics, see Wikipedia and this DPreview page.

Expose Right To Expose Correctly

This is the second installment of my tutorial on using metering tools to obtain correct exposure.  After all that detail, the tutorial on how to obtain correct exposure using a light meter, can now–to some extent–be thrown out the window, thanks to the tools given us by most digital cameras!  I want to start out by saying that, like all of my tutorials here, I did not invent the wheel.  This is (hopefully) an understandable distillation of what a number of much more knowledgeable gurus have taught me through their writings and seminars.

Photoshop (and similar software) users are already familiar with the histogram, which depicts, in a graphical way, the number of pixels in an image ranging from pure black to pure white.  And, we know that if there are spikes at either end of the graph, we have problems with under, or over-exposure (known in digital terminology as “clipping”).  The left example shows pixels “stacked” on the left and indicates lost detail in the shadows (underexposure).  The right example, conversely, shows pixels stacked on the right and loss of detail in the highlights.  The middle example is close to an ideal histogram and is neutral.  There are no lost details.  The LCD readout on the back of the camera measures the same phenomena.

Using The LCD on the Back of The Camera

Today’s digital cameras give us this tool, built into the camera and we are foolish if we don’t take full advantage of it!  Digital capture gives us something we never had before–immediate feed back about our exposure.  We can now take the shot and look at the LCD on the camera back to see the result.  But be careful!  It is easy to be fooled by this great tool, if you do not understand how to set it up and use it.

  The actual image you see on the back of the camera, for example, is rarely useful as a tool to determine exposure.

 It can perhaps tell you something about composition and maybe about sharpness.  But it is not a good measure of exposure.  The image on the LCD screen is a jpg which is interpreted by the camera’s internal software and displayed on a screen that is not likely calibrated like your computer screen.  So any judgment you make about exposure and rely on is likely to be disappointing.

The tool you need to understand is the histogram to see whether your exposure is technically correct.  This is a wonderful, and time-saving tool, because it is a pretty accurate measure, immediately after-the-fact, of your exposure.  However, caveats apply.  First, notice that I say “technically” correct.  Recall from my tutorial on Using The Light Meter, that it is up to you, as the photographer, to determine the aesthetically correct exposure.  This remains true even when using the DSLR and the histogram (though the aesthetics can be more easily done as a matter of post processing now).  Second, the histogram is based on the camera’s interpretation of a jpeg image and only the “luminousity” channel (measuring mainly the black and whites in the image).  It is possible that one of the RGB channels might be overexposed (blown out) and you will not know it. This is probably a minor concern that in practice isn’t a serious issue.  And, some of the newer bodies now have an RGB histogram display.  Last, but certainly not least,

There is a danger in becoming so “married” to the histogram that we begin to shoot mechanically and technically

missing a crucial moment or artistic approach (this is why I still believe sound exposure knowledge covered in previous tutorials on exposure are necessary as an internalized fundamental understanding.  Indeed, this penchant we have developed to shoot, then check the LCD on the back of the camera has been given the name, “chimping,” for its similarity to a chimpanzee looking up and down.

In order to take full advantage of the features offered by your camera, you will need to go into the camera’s menu system and make sure the histogram feature is enabled.  While you are in there, you should also enable the camera’s feature (most DSLRs) that shows a flashing display on the LCD image for “blown highlights” (more below).

Reading the Histogram

I think the world of Michael Reichman’s contribution to digital knowledge and his Luminous Landscape is a must-bookmark site for any serious DSLR  user.  His article on understanding histograms is clear and concise and I recommend reading it.   Reading your histogram is essentially similar to the Photoshop Levels histogram discussed above.  As a general rule, you want the histogram to show an even dispersion of pixels between the far left and right of the graph.  If the graph is “stacked” against either side, it is an indication of an exposure problem.  Stacked against the left side means you are likely underexposed.  Stacked against the right means you are likely overexposed.  As a general rule, particularly if you are shooting jpg images, having the histogram centered is going to give you a good exposure (if you are shooting RAW, however, there is a better way–more below).  It is worth mentioning here again, that the LCD image on the back of the camera may even look pretty good. Do not believe it.  Believe the histogram!  It is also worth noting that the shape of the histogram is not really important.  My “neutral” histogram is the theoretical shape of an “ideal” histogram with an even dispersion of tones.  Many (if not most) images will not have that characteristic.  If your image has a lot of shadow or darker content, the histogram will show more pixels to the left and they will likely reach higher up on the graph (perhaps making it look more steep and spikey).  If there is a lot of bright areas in the photo (highlights of water, clouds, and bright skies are a good example), it will likely show more steepness to the right. The critical determination is whether it stacks flat against the right or left.  If that happens, you are clipping important digital data and not getting the most from your exposure.

The beauty of the histogram is that it allows us to make that measurement immediately after the shot and adjust exposure until we get it correct.  Obviously, there are instances when that is not going to work.  Action photos may only give us one chance.  If you can anticipate action, however, the histogram allows us to take some “pre” test shots and be ready when the action happens.

Professional nature photographer John Shaw has been an inspiration to me for 25 years.  I have most of his books.  In the film days, John (as did Bryan Peterson — mentioned in my earlier tutorial in his Understanding Exposure–and many other professional photographer-writers) spent a fair amount of time and text addressing proper exposure techniques.  Last winter, I had the pleasure of attending one of John’s weekend seminars.  I was taken aback by something he said (and a little abashed that such a simple concept had escaped me until I heard him say it).  After acknowledging how much careful time and study he had put into proper exposure and metering techniques (using spot-metering and never trusting the camera’s automatic features) in the old days, he unashamedly acknowledged that he pays no attention to it these days!  He takes a shot at the camera’s suggested exposure using the matrix meter–as a test shot– and then uses the histogram to adjust for proper exposure.  Wow!  How simple is that?

 In two full days of sessions, that was the most important and useful piece of information I brought home with me

There are caveats, again, however.  First, I shoot in the camera’s RAW format 99.99% of the time.  This is a technique that really works best when you are using the most digital information the camera can capture.  To me, this means shooting in the camera’s native 12 bit RAW format, and making post-processing conversions in a RAW converter.  While using the histogram will work in any format, it shines brightest when shooting RAW.  Second, when shooting RAW, the “rules” of reading the histogram change, as we will see next.

Expose To The Right in RAW

What follows only applies if you shoot in the camera’s native RAW format.  Jpg shooters (which, unfortunately, includes most Point & Shoot users), disregard this information, center your histogram as much as possible and take a break.

The idea here, contrary to the thought that you want to “center” your histogram, is that you will get the maximum potential from the capture image data if you expose so that your histogram is as far right as possible, without blowing out any highlights.  This means that for the most part, that we want to shift that centered histogram to the right as far as we can.  Keep in mind that the advantage to this technique will only be realized in the adjustments you make in the image RAW converter prior to opening the image in Photo Shop or other Post Processing software.

Some Theory

I t has been suggested that digital sensors are capable of capturing up to 6 “stops” of range.  For the most part, in my experience, 5 stops is more realistic (besides, most other commentators use 5 stops to demonstrate, and the math is a little easier to grasp).  It is worth mentioning here that the “Levels” histogram in Photoshop uses 0-255 for its measurement from pure black to pure white.  This is based on an 8-bit jpeg model.  Most of the images I work on in Photoshop are 12 bit (everything should double and it should be 16 bit, which is–again–what Photoshop says it is, but current DSLR cameras are only able to capture a maximum of 12 bits, so we work with 12 bits in a 16 bit space). I know, too technical for me too!  Not to beat it to death, however, but consider how much more range of pixels we have to work with (and hence, margin for error) in a 12 bit image which gives us a 0-2048 pixel range instead of 0-255.

Now, here is why to expose to the right.  Consider the graphical 5-stop diagram below.  Note that as we progress from 128 to 2048, the area under consideration continues to double.  What this means in very simple terms is that the last step contains 50% of all the pixels captured!  Note that that is also the highlight.  So we want to capture as much of that as possible.  We accomplish that by shifting our histogram as far right as we can without blowing any highlights.  Another way to say this is that if you do not fill the right side of the histogram you are effectively potentially wasting up to 50% of the available information that your camera is capable of capturing.

There are two excellent tools on the camera-back LCD to determine this.  The first is the histogram we have been discussing.  Check it to make sure you have shifted it as far right at you can without a spike on the right side, or stacking.  The second tool was alluded to above.  If you turned on your camera’s flashing highlight display (affectionately called “blinkies” by many of us), the LCD will show blown highlights as blinking, or flashing.  From there, simply back off the exposure until we eliminate them, or push it to the right until you get them.

Again, do not be concerned with the look of the image on the LCD display.  And, when you open the RAW file in the RAW converter, do not be surprised to see your image look light and overexposed. Just use the image adjustment tools in the RAW converter to bring your image to the look you desire. And, trust me, your images will look better.  A couple week after my John Shaw epiphany, I went out and shot, using my newfound approach.  

Set the camera meter to matrix, shoot your test shot and check the histogram.  Adust the exposure until you have it as far right at possible with no blown highlights.  And trust it.

 It will be right.  Other than that, I did nothing different than I always have.  I sent some shots to a fellow photographer in a “what I captured yesterday” kind of email and he responded that my work just keeps getting better.  Nice compliment (deserved or not), but  the point is that I was able to get all I could out of the capture, with the confidence that my base exposure was dead-on.

Some weeks later, I was experimenting with an old Tilt and Shift lens which did not have metering capability on my camera.  I had no real concern about how to properly meter.  I did not have my hand-held meter with me.  No matter.  I took my best guess (based on my fundamental knowledge of light, exposure and metering), took a test shot, and adjusted until I got the histogram I desired.

The histogram measurement tool has freed us to concentrate on the aesthetic aspects of photography.

Getting Exposure Right

As Andy Rooney might famously say, “Have you ever wondered why sometimes your photos will come out just great, and other times they will either be way too dark, or bleached out to the point that they just look awful?”

I think most photographers understand that modern cameras have a light meter built into them and the camera’s internal computer uses the meter to determine how to “properly expose” the photo.  But how, exactly, does the light meter work?

You might conclude that this meter and in-camera computer system is pretty “smart.”  The reality is that a meter is actually “dumb” (in fairness, it really doesn’t make sense to refer to an inanimate object as “dumb” or “smart”).  In reality, the  internal exposure system in modern cameras is very sophisticated.

But a light meter doesn’t think–it measures!

For many years, photography was all about acetate-based film.  Today, photographers mainly use digital sensors to record images. Both of these systems are based on the same principal ingredient: Light. The technical capture of images is based on quantity of exposure to light.  As we covered in the tutorial on “F-stops,” the amount of light which strikes the sensor is based on time of exposure, size of lens opening and the sensitivity setting (ISO) of the sensor.

My Philosophy. So how do we use these variables to obtain the proper exposure?  Before we go into mechanics, lets make a couple of important points.  First,

Letting the camera (sophisticated as its system may be) choose these variables for us is the worst and least dependable way to obtain correct exposure

Second, “correct” exposure will always be, to some degree, a subjective judgment.  Sure, there is a point at which all would agree that an image is underexposed (too dark) or overexposed (too light).  But there is also a range of acceptable exposure, and very small differences may give nuanced results in color saturation and brightness of an image.  Slight “overexposure” will tend to give a more “pastel” color result, with slightly brighter image, while slight “underexposure” will tend to give slightly more saturated colors, but a darker image.  This is a part of the reason why modern cameras often allow exposure adjustment in fractional stops.  Understanding correct “base” exposure will help us use these “nuances” to our advantage.

The “Science” of the Light Meter. The primary measurement tool is a photo-sensitive “light meter.”  It is actually possible to get a reasonably accurate exposure without a light meter by knowing the reciprocity of a particular ISO, based on a standard set of conditions (the traditional one is the “sunny F16 rule,” which says that proper exposure for a particular ISO in bright, sunny conditions is 1/ISO, when the lens aperture is set at F16).  Using this standard, you can interpolate between other stops, and guess pretty accurately about other light conditions.  But it is still a guess, not a measurement.

Reflected Light Meters.  How does the light meter measure light?  There are two different ways light meters measure light.  The most common method, which is used by light meters built into cameras, measures the light which is reflected from an object.  This is a very important concept to understand.  Photographic images often have multiple objects.  This makes it paramount that the photographer understand which of those objects are the most important to be properly exposed!  Often this means that the photographer will have to make choices.  This type of meter is referred to as a “reflected light meter.”

Ambient Light Meters.  The second type of photo-sensitive meter reads the “ambient” light.  This type of meter is normally a hand-held meter which can  measure the intensity of light falling on a subject rather than being reflected from the subject.  This method requires the photographer to point the light meter toward the camera.  One of the principal disadvantages of ambient light meters is that often the subject is far enough away or sufficiently transient (e.g., wildlife) that it is difficult or impossible to truly measure the light that is actually falling on the subject.  Since the meter must be pointed at the camera, it should be obvious that such a metering system cannot be part of a camera’s built-in metering.  Nor is it always possible to position an ambient meter in the scene near the light we are tying to measure.

Limitations of the Sensor.  It is not uncommon for a scene to simply have  more variation from light to dark, than can be captured.  In this case, the photographer must make the important choice about which parts of the image must be properly exposed.  Understanding how the camera’s meter works is the key to getting this right.

Metering Methods.  Modern mid to high-end DSLR meters typically have 3 choices for measuring light: Balanced Matrix Metering, Center-weighted and Spot.  Traditionally, SLR cameras had “Center-weighted metering (some pro models added Spot metering).

Center-weighted metering assumed that the most important part of the photograph was always in the center of the photo (that area in the square brackets in the center of the viewfinder), and thus weighted its measurement, typically about 80% in the center and 20% in the rest of the image..  The problem with this approach was that most good photographs do not place the subject “bulls-eye” in the center of the image.  When available most experienced photographers did not rely on this method.

Spot-metering allows the camera to meter a narrow area in the viewfinder.  Advanced photographers use this method most often, metering those specific areas they want properly exposed, letting the other areas fall wherever they fall.

Balanced Matrix Metering has gained great popularity in current day cameras (note: this is what Nikon calls it, Other manufacturers may have different names, but the concept is the same).  The camera’s system has internally memorized thousands of lighting situations.  The meter samples several areas of the image in the viewfinder and inputs this data into the in-camera computer.  The computer compares it against its internal list of situations and suggests an exposure base on its comparison.  My experience is that this suggestion is dead-on about 90% of the time.  The other 10 percent, the meter can be completely fooled.  If you are intent on getting the image, and may never have the chance to repeat it, this may not be the best system to rely on.  Seasoned photographers more often than not use their spot-metering system to obtain the correct exposure (if you shoot digitally, and shoot the camera’s native “RAW” format, there is an even better way.  We’ll cover that in a future topic).

What the Eye Can See. The human eye is a rather amazing optical instrument.  The eye can see many “stops” (see “How F Stops Work”).  The digital sensor, however, is not the human eye (yet–technology continually amazes me.  I have read that there are sensors in development that may approach the technological sophistication of the human eye).  The digital sensor can “see” (record) a range of about 5 photographic stops.  The human eye, in contrast can see thousands off stops.  So, often what we “see” simply cannot be captured and displayed with current technology.

It is critical for the photographer to understand this fundamental limitation of the digital sensor (or film).  When using the light meter to measure the light in a scene, the photographer must make critical choices about which objects must be in proper exposure, and which will simply fall where they fall.  Obviously, the subject must be in proper exposure.  The range of exposure that the sensor is capable of is known as “exposure lattitude.”

Getting Exposure Scientifically “Correct.” In order for a light meter to measure light correctly, it must be calibrated to a “standard.”  This standard goes back to black and white film days, and is known as “neutral gray,” halfway between pure black and pure white.  Convention has this as 18% grey (technically, ANSI standards calibrate the light meter at 12%, but that is a story for another day — for our purposes, 18% grey is the standard reference).  Theoretically, if you properly expose an object that is 18% grey in a scene, the entire scene will be well exposed, within the limits of the sensor’s exposure latitude.

Here is the critical point: The Light Meter is calibrated to “See” anything it is pointed at as 18% grey, and thus Directs you to Adjust your settings to get that result.

So, if you meter something that should be very light, such as snow, and follow the suggestion of the light meter, your result will be grey (actually, in color, blue/grey) snow!  Likewise, if you are shooting something that should be black or very dark, like a black bird, or a bear, if you blindly follow the suggestion of your camera’s meter, you will end up with a grey bird or bear.

In a photographic scene, there may be many different elements.  If you point your spot meter at a light or dark element, you will have the exposure variances noted above.  What about if you use one of the “smart” metering methods, like center-weighted or matrix?  These are the circumstances responsible for those “Andy Rooney” shots we started out mentioning.  What happens is the bright or dark influences in the scene “fool” the light meter.  Snow is a great example.  Another example is shooting into the sun (known as back lighting).  The meter is unduly influenced by the snow, and you end up with an underexposed image.  Or, in the case of backlighting, the meter sees the bright sunlight only, and you end up with a silhouette.

Finding a “Neutral” Point to Meter.  If you point the spot meter at a neutral object in the scene, you will theoretically get properly exposed snow and black objects.  Unfortunately, many scenes do not have objects in them that are 18% grey.  You can purchase a cardboard, or plastic card that is 18% grey, which can be carried in your camera bag.  If possible, the card can be placed in the scene and metered.  Again, this is not always a practical solution.

In real life, certain objects and colors will work as a good substitute.  One of the things a photographer learns to do is look for something “neutral” in the scene to meter off of.  Light grey tree trunks and rocks, blue sky on a sunny day, and grass are all good approximate 18% grey substitutes.

Learning to “Adjust.” There are other references that can be used with an “adjustment.”  Caucasian skin, for example, is one stop brighter than 18% grey, so in a pinch, you can meter off your hand and open up one full stop from the setting, to arrive at the scientifically correct exposure.  Snow, is 1 1/2 to 2 stops brighter, so in a winter scene, you can meter off the snow and open up to compensate.  For this method to work, you must use your camera’s spot meter, and the longest lens (or lens setting in the case of a zoom lens) to “focus” the meter on the area you are trying to meter.  Using the matrix or center-weighted metering will defeat this, by trying to “average” the entire scene.  The best method is to learn how the meter measures the light being reflected from the object and learn to adjust accordingly.

A final point about reflected light metering:  The meter must be pointed at the light you are metering.  Be careful not to meter light in a different area that the light actually falling on the scene.

Getting the Exposure Esthetically Correct. As I mentioned in the beginning, true correct exposure will always be a matter of subjective judgement.  When I shot slide film, I would routinely “bracket” (the practice of shooting several exposures, one or more “over” the correct exposure and one or more “under” the correct exposure).  There were those who did that routinely as “insurance” that they got the technically correct exposure.  That is not why I did it.  I always preferred to measure the subject properly and rely on proper techniques to get the exposure right.

I bracketed because I would often find that I would find the “look” of slightly over or underexposure more esthetically pleasing.  Higher end DSLR cameras allow adjustments of f-stops and shutter speeds by 1/2 or 1/3 stop.  I usually would bracket 1/3 over and under for this purpose.  With digital cameras (especially if you shoot in the camera manufacturers’ RAW formats), you can simply adjust for these exposures in post processing. With digital exposure, it is more important to expose properly for the maximum capture of data highlights (again, a topic for another day).

Understanding the “science” of the light meter will be the most important thing you can do to make your exposures consistently good.  And, one you have internalized these concepts, you can begin to use them creatively to “make” photographs the way, as an artist, you want them to appear.  For more in depth coverage of exposure issues, I highly recommend, Bryan Peterson’s “Understanding Exposure,” which is listed on the Blog here under Recommended Reading.