GH2 – pathologically incapable of allowing blown highlights (says dpreview)

[guyburns]

…the GH2's metering system appears pathologically incapable of allowing blown highlights​

I was rather taken with that turn of phrase in dpreview's summing up of the GH2 (http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/PanasonicDMCGH2/page21.asp).

The comment continues:

which means that it tends to deliver relatively dark midtones in scenes which contain both dark and very bright areas. On a purely technical level, this behaviour is usually preferable to the opposite - punchy images with bright midtones but blown highlights - but it does mean that often, the GH2's JPEG output looks a little murky. Low contrast scenes, especially, are frequently so dark as to be virtually unusable straight from the camera. The same applies to video files too - very often, we have found that a little positive exposure compensation is necessary to give the GH2's files the 'lift' that they need.​

Blown highlights are a definite no-no for me, and I was pleasantly surprised to read the above. Pathologically incapable – yay! It's just what I want in a camera. I'd much prefer a darker image than blown highlights from which detail cannot be retrieved. Not yet owning a GH2, I was wondering what other experienced users make of the observations in the quote. How often is it necessary to have a "little positive exposure compensation"?

 

[royfel]

I think it is a mistake to compare the conclusion above, that I agree with, to the AVCHD movie mode, the color spaces are different. The MJPEG mode seems to be pretty faithful to the jpeg rendition if sRGB is selected but, AVCHD to my eyes, interjects a reduced gamma as opposed to aRGB.

 

[stoneinapond]

Photos definitely require some post love to bring out the best. But given that, the camera can deliver stunning shots, especially from RAW.

As to video, I'm constantly battling between accurate metering and slightly overexposing. I tend to live ever so slightly on the plus side.

 

[Ian-T]

I tend to live ever so slightly on the plus side.

I find this to be true in cinema mode. Don't go strictly by the histogram in this mode....especially when exposing for faces. When I do this....cinema mode actually works out best for me.

 

[j1clark@ucsd.edu]

If I have the time to setup, I use a spot meter for determining my exposure, and disregard the camera's indication. With that in mind, I find that if I meter on something 'white', then open up 2 stops, that 'something white' will be very close to IRE 100% as indicated on my CS5 On Location 'scope'.

What I've noticed when I don't have the time, is that using the histogram, and the in viewfinder 'meter' indicator, is that it does give the approximate same reading as my spot meter, as I have the camera metering setup for 'spot', but frequently how I compose the shot, the 'meter' is pointed at something that is absolutely wrong for my intended subject.

What I do, is if I'm metering off of a 'fair' complexion person, is I open up 1 stop. For darker complexion I'd either leave it, or close 1/3 to 2/3 stop. In any case, let everything else in the shot fall where it may.

In an uncontrolled environment, one has to make the 'subject' look close to what one wants, or at least have a plan for postprocessing if the contrast is too high.

My camera is the GH-1, but this is what I've been using for years with any digital camera...

Given the latitude of the camera, one has a choice... take a shot with blown highlights, move to a different location, or if time, use bounce, to soften contrast. (Well with still shots, you can use flash fill to soften high contrast scenes... not a choice for the low budget movie maker without major lights under bright sun... which are not low budget...)