# Metering question - Nikon FE



## iambarefoot (Apr 13, 2009)

Here's an E-6 (Velvia 50) shot taken with my FE set for auto. (f/8, shutter speed was ~2 seconds) It's nice enough, but a bit underexposed, I think. 







There's another, full night shot that exposed (on auto) for about 4-5 minutes, but it was under enough that the processors didn't bother to scan it.

My question is, is there something wrong with my camera's meter, or do I just need to take the error into account and adjust the ISO/Exposure compensation?


----------



## Sw1tchFX (Apr 13, 2009)

With the longer shutter speeds of 4-5 minutes, that's reciprocity failure, you should do what your meter says and double it. if you're worried about exposure, bracket. slide film is very unforgiving. So this shot above, just bracket from what the mater says, a stop under, and a stop over. 

BTW, that looks like a really nice scan.


----------



## compur (Apr 13, 2009)

That's a tricky scene to meter with an in-camera meter.
The brighter sky & water reflection likely caused the under exposure.

Best to bracket a scene like that or use a hand-held meter.


----------



## iambarefoot (Apr 13, 2009)

Forgive me, I'm a bit of a noob. I looked up 'reciprocity failure' on wikipedia and it made my head hurt. If I understand right, it was underexposed (the dusk shot shown and the 4-minute night shot not shown) by one stop? Both shots were done on auto - could I have adjusted the ISO setting to 25 (using Velvia 50) to get the desired result? Or do I need to invest in a meter, shutter cable and stop watch?


----------



## compur (Apr 13, 2009)

A shot like yours (with sky and water refections) plus a long shutter speed
plus using slow slide film is triply difficult to predict.

Few photographers could get a perfect exposure with just one shot under
those conditions, even with multi-pattern metering.

I wouldn't worry about it or your camera.  Just bracket (meaning: make 
a series of exposures varying up to a stop or even two) with shots like
that.


----------



## Battou (Apr 14, 2009)

My camera could not take that shot on auto and my meter is calibrated to account for the sky and compensate. This was one ot those scenes that some heavy duty experience and manual work was going to need help getting right. Like everone else here, I suggest braketing that bad boy off.


----------



## Mike_E (Apr 14, 2009)

Two words: spot meter and zone system.

OK, I lied. Here's another:  Previsualization and gradient card.

If my humor is a bit off what I'm trying to say is it's doable with a spot meter, a printed card showing a gradient corresponding to the zone system and a good idea of what you want to see on your print. At least on shots with enough light to see by. With the night-vision ones you have already seen the swag method described.   

With the gradient card pick a shadow that you can see a fair amount of detail in and hold up the card to it and see which shade of gray is closest.  This will be your lower range.

Then pick the highest value you want to see good detail in and that is your upper range.

Now forget all of that for a minute.  Find something that gets closest to zone 5 and meter that with your spot meter.  This is your base exposure value. 

The reason you went to the trouble of finding you upper and lower ranges is that if what ever you used to meter off of is very close to your upper range then you will need to increase your exposure to put your upper range far enough away (lighter) from zone 5 to get the lower range enough exposure to have the detail you want on the print.

Knowing how much shadow detail you want in your print is where previsionalization comes into play.

I'll leave it to someone else to make sense of all this but remember that it is doable and it doesn't really take much.


----------



## Sjixxxy (Apr 14, 2009)

iambarefoot said:


> Forgive me, I'm a bit of a noob. I looked up 'reciprocity failure' on wikipedia and it made my head hurt. If I understand right, it was underexposed (the dusk shot shown and the 4-minute night shot not shown) by one stop? Both shots were done on auto - could I have adjusted the ISO setting to 25 (using Velvia 50) to get the desired result? Or do I need to invest in a meter, shutter cable and stop watch?



The FE has a little -2,-1,0,+1,+2 compensation dial along with the ISO dial. For years my nightime exposure strategy with my FE was shoot with it in auto mode. First exposure set at 0, another at +1, and a third at +2. I didn't know much about reciprocity failure back then and at least one of the exposures ended up being useable.

You may also want to get some Provia100 instead of Velvia if you plan at shooting at night. The Velvia data sheet I found goes to "Not Recommended" after 64 seconds. Provia100 has no exposure compenstation needed up to 128 seconds, and only an additional 1/3rd more up till 8 minutes.


----------



## iambarefoot (Apr 14, 2009)

I'm beginning to understand better - Thanks! I am going on vacation soon and I want to get some night shots of Monument Valley (need to check what phase the moon will be in) and I'll apply this most excellent advice when I do. :mrgreen:


----------



## adamwilliamking (Apr 14, 2009)

From my experience, 



Sjixxxy said:


> The Velvia data sheet I found goes to "Not Recommended" after 64 seconds.


 
That's your problem.

Possibly followed closely by Nikon's so-so metering system. A range of their camera's meters require exposure compensation almost all the time.


----------



## Mike_E (Apr 15, 2009)

adamwilliamking said:


> From my experience,
> 
> 
> 
> ...



:lmao::lmao::lmao::lmao:


You do realize that Nikon stopped production of the FE in 1983, right?


----------



## epatsellis (Apr 15, 2009)

adamwilliamking said:


> From my experience,
> 
> 
> 
> ...



And your source for this information is? I've been shooting Nikons since my F in high school ('76) and the one thing that is consistent is the high accuracy of the metering systems that Nikon has used, whether my F2, F3, F4 or even the lowly FM. Nearly any in camera meter will struggle in low light conditions, add reciprocity errors and either bracketing or knowing the film is de rigeur for available darkness shooting.


----------



## bhop (Apr 15, 2009)

I'm going to laugh too...:lmao::lmao::lmao::lmao:

I have an FE myself and the meter is pretty great for such an old camera.  You just have to realize it's center weighted only, unlike modern matrix type meters, you've got to compensate in some way.


----------



## compur (Apr 15, 2009)

adamwilliamking said:


> From my experience,
> 
> 
> 
> ...



That's because you're in Canada. Everywhere else Nikon meters work perfectly . :greenpbl:


----------



## Steve Fretz (Jul 13, 2017)

I did TONS of might photography with an FE, some of which wound up in pretty neat places.  It works amazingly well for night photography - although you do need to use exposure compensation as others have said.  I'm thinking of buying another one now that I shoot film again.


----------



## jcdeboever (Jul 14, 2017)

Additionally, cameras this old are bound to have slower shutter speeds.


----------



## table1349 (Jul 14, 2017)




----------



## Dave Colangelo (Jul 17, 2017)

That image was perfectly exposed based on the way the meter in the FE works. This was hit on in earlier posts but ill elaborate a bit. The Nikon cameras of this era have a very heavy center weighted meter. In other words think of it like having a few spot meters in the center of the finder that are averaged out. There is a nice overview here but basically anything within the larger circle is where the meter pulls the majority of its info. in your case the sky was metered correctly while the trees were left dark. This is the result of the sky comprising enough light to bias the meter in its exposure decision as well as falling within the center weighting area. There is a shot somewhere in the middle where both the skys and trees are exposed better but its a tricky shot on any note. A graduated ND would help quite a bit here. But to me it looks like your camera is working just fine. 

One nice way to use the old units like this to get a tough shot is basically to point the center of the camera at various parts of the image and see what shutter speed it wants to use in auto (really aperture priority). This makes it sort of a poor mans spot meter. You can then apply some thoughts on the zone system and decide on your exposure.


----------



## table1349 (Jul 17, 2017)




----------



## Steve Fretz (Jul 17, 2017)

The F3 meter is strongly center-weighted, the FE less so, but your point is well-taken.  Bright lights can trick the meter.  (Unfortunately I'd sold my FA before I became a serious night photog)

With experience you get a sense of when this happens - all your other exposures in the area were one-two minutes, then suddenly it takes half a second.  Unfortunately no film camera I know of will give you a meter reading longer than one second; I use my D600 sometimes for metering night shots cause that'll go out to 30 seconds.  Meter with it wide open, aiming at the darker areas in the photo, and then extrapolate.

If using an FE with print film, I'd always take a safety shot with +2 exposure comp.  If you want a rule of thumb, one minute at F8/F5.6 with Portra 160 will almost always give you something usable.  A really dense neg is a lot better than one that's too thin.

My Flickr has a bunch of analog night shots on it, and when I remember it I post the exposure data in the description field:  Steve Fretz


----------



## table1349 (Jul 17, 2017)




----------



## benhasajeep (Jul 17, 2017)

Hahahaha, Nice Zombie thread.

But, I'm going to pile on.  I have new light seals for my FE.  Just need to find the time to replace them.


----------

