It's called Spot Hi-Key and Spot Low-Key on the older models and Spot Highlight Control and Spot Shadow Control on the newer models for this specific reasons. Which is why OIympus provides us with 2 extra metering options from auto and center-weighted. At least, this has been my impression thus far shooting with my E-PL1.
So the ESP metering computer can actually be giving the operator the wrong information in regards to exposure latitude to fit the sensor's dynamic range at its performing ISO. When you do that, the metering system will revert back to what it's supposed to do - not compensate by trying to protect the highlights, but because the poster thought it is underexposing, it overexposes which basically burned the highlight areas. So what is happening I think is that, the poster tries to compensate for the white background by slightly overexposing. This behaviour is also happening on the E-PL1, which is why I found it ODD for some reviews to comment that the E-M10 is trying to protect highlights, when in fact, it's been doing this for the past 4 years on my old camera. This, I found, tell the Olympus computer metering system to over ride its own metering which actually tends to protect the highlights on the pixel level. If you want to apply compensation on a subject matter metered using ESP (matrix metering), the best approach would be using Olympus global metering off-set. What the modern metering system does (ESP by Olympus or Matrix from Nikon or Multi-segment by Pentax) is to use patterning zones in the image area metered at 18% and then the metering computer will use the zones to recall from its built-in metering computer database to apply the appropriate compensation from the 18% metered. Vice versa, the meter tends to want to overexpose black to grey. All metering system on a digital camera meters at 18% grey, so the meter tends to want to underexpose white and turn it grey. Here's a number of things to make aware of. So basically the final RAW image is only flawed if the metering was set wrong by the photographer or the photographer was unaware of the sensor's performing dynamic range or in the film world era, it's known as its exposure latitude. Even with the camera's JPG processor, the Low image is about 1/3 stop hotter.Ī RAW file is basically a binary file of 1s and 0s (not a picture) and the RAW program interprets this file and forms an image.
Rawdigger highlight analysis iso#
If one uses a photo editor that can read out the RGB values of any point in a frame, they would see that the RGB values are almost identical in the ISO 200 & 400 images, and higher in the LOW image. ISO was set to Low, 200 & 400, f2.8 and the shutter speed was varied along with the ISO. The following 3 pictures were done with a E-M5 on a tripod and the exposure set for 100, 200 & 400 ISO. The Low setting is called Low and not ISO 100 because it does not conform to the ISO standard for 100.
If I print it out on a printer that has uses the paper's profile, I get a print that looks like what is on the monitor and what the scene looked like.
If I take a picture using the meter's exposures settings, and then look at it on a calibrated monitor (brightness set to 120 Cd/m^3) it will look just like the scene I just shot. I have a Sekonic L-358 incident light meter. Standards and definitions exist to avoid the chaos and gibberish that gets posted on internet forums by people who either unaware or don't understand the standards. Incident light metering and ISO sensitivity ratings adhere to standards, procedures and definitions. They chimp, look at histograms, look at blinkies, create new methods and languages, and basically make stuff up. Now that we are well into the second decade of digital photography, it seems that almost no one does formal metering.