Ugly Hedgehog - Photography Forum
Home Active Topics Newest Pictures Search Login Register
Main Photography Discussion
Defining correct exposure
Page <<first <prev 6 of 7 next>
Jun 13, 2018 11:17:34   #
speters Loc: Grangeville/Idaho
 
canadaboy wrote:
Discounting special effects such as high or low key etc, if asked how I might define correct exposure I could say something like "were it a scene that includes a mid Grey object, correct exposure would be settings that make the object appear as a similar tone in the completed image".

How would you define it?

I would define it as follows, to show your subject the way as you saw it with your eyes, but that may not be the right/appropriate exposure, as that depends on your intend! That said, the correct exposure is often not the right exposure!

Reply
Jun 13, 2018 12:07:15   #
Gene51 Loc: Yonkers, NY, now in LSD (LowerSlowerDelaware)
 
DanielB wrote:
Hard to say since we can't download to have a better look but to me it looks a little washed out.


That's exactly what the contact print looked like - your description of washed out is inaccurate. Washed out is usually too bright, no blacks, and often the bright areas have no tonal differences. The contract print was lacking in contrast - not the same as washed out - everything was a dull drab gray - not at all washed out.

With his expertise he was able to create prints that added contrast, burned in areas to make them darker, held back areas to lighten them, and increased the overall tonality to make a dramatic, though decidedly not faithful to reality, version of what he wanted us to see.

As one poster put it - the end product was an ok result.

Reply
Jun 13, 2018 12:30:58   #
RichardSM Loc: Back in Texas
 
Your picture remind me of an similar photograph that A. Adams took many years ago on one of his road trips, Burning, dodging and contrast. Very well done your explanation is spot on!


Gene51 wrote:
If you thought that exposure was terrible, then what would you say about this image?

The point I am making is that a proper exposure is less about how "nice" an image is when you view it on the preview screen or look at the jpeg on your computer screen or print, and has a mid-gray object in it that looks like it does in reality. But more about recording the important parts of the scene, with detail, in such a way that with some manipulation you can extract all of the details, tones and colors to make a complete image. Mnay photographers are proud to state that they do not spend any time manipulating their images. I say that they are "leaving money on the table" by not taking their images and improving contrast, sharpening, dodging and burning, as the photographer who took the picture below did, in order to create a better image. So the first image is a correct exposure, and the ultimate result bears that out.
If you thought that exposure was terrible, then wh... (show quote)

Reply
 
 
Jun 13, 2018 12:44:52   #
BebuLamar
 
selmslie wrote:
Not so simple if you don't have a foot candle meter - hardly anyone does. They measure incident light, usually for an indoor space like an office or museum.

To make matters worse, different sources give you different values for broad daylight foot candles. I have seen values of 250 fc (your meter), 7600 fc (Seconic) and 10000 fc (Wikipedia).

Nearly all meters used for photography provide exposure value (EV) and they have dials or internal calculations to give you shutter speed and f-stop adjusted for ISO without any additional calculations.

Sunny 16 is just as simple as your formula: 1/ISO seconds at f/16 for broad daylight. That's the same as your 250 fc calculation.

There is plenty of information available at Exposure Value.
Not so simple if you don't have a foot candle mete... (show quote)


Not only that finding the square root without a calculator isn't easy. Using the formula you effectively use a K10 for the K constant while the Sekonic meter uses a K12.5 and Minolta meter uses K14 and the unit isn't really foot candles or FC but rather Candles per foot squared.

Reply
Jun 13, 2018 12:54:06   #
Gene51 Loc: Yonkers, NY, now in LSD (LowerSlowerDelaware)
 
RichardSM wrote:
Your picture remind me of an similar photograph that A. Adams took many years ago on one of his road trips, Burning, dodging and contrast. Very well done your explanation is spot on!


Thanks!

Reply
Jun 13, 2018 13:06:21   #
jamesl Loc: Pennsylvania
 
canadaboy wrote:
Discounting special effects such as high or low key etc, if asked how I might define correct exposure I could say something like "were it a scene that includes a mid Grey object, correct exposure would be settings that make the object appear as a similar tone in the completed image".

How would you define it?


I would include a grey card in the scene and meter off of it. Then check the histogram to be sure the spike from the grey card is centered, and if not, I would adjust with exposure compensation as needed. Once that was done and as long as the lighting doesn't change, I could use the settings to continue shooting.

Reply
Jun 13, 2018 13:09:27   #
hookedupin2005 Loc: Northwestern New Mexico
 
canadaboy wrote:
Discounting special effects such as high or low key etc, if asked how I might define correct exposure I could say something like "were it a scene that includes a mid Grey object, correct exposure would be settings that make the object appear as a similar tone in the completed image".

How would you define it?

Reply
 
 
Jun 13, 2018 13:15:37   #
hookedupin2005 Loc: Northwestern New Mexico
 
canadaboy wrote:
Discounting special effects such as high or low key etc, if asked how I might define correct exposure I could say something like "were it a scene that includes a mid Grey object, correct exposure would be settings that make the object appear as a similar tone in the completed image".

How would you define it?


Correct exposure is how satisfied YOU are with a particular image... I may not feel the same about an image you took, as you do, but it is YOUR photo.

Reply
Jun 13, 2018 13:17:58   #
rmalarz Loc: Tempe, Arizona
 
You're confusing foot-candles with lumens. A foot-candle is the measurement of the amount of light produced by a standard candle at a distance of 1 foot. That is equal to one lumen per square foot.
--Bob

BebuLamar wrote:
Not only that finding the square root without a calculator isn't easy. Using the formula you effectively use a K10 for the K constant while the Sekonic meter uses a K12.5 and Minolta meter uses K14 and the unit isn't really foot candles or FC but rather Candles per foot squared.

Reply
Jun 13, 2018 13:49:17   #
BebuLamar
 
rmalarz wrote:
You're confusing foot-candles with lumens. A foot-candle is the measurement of the amount of light produced by a standard candle at a distance of 1 foot. That is equal to one lumen per square foot.
--Bob


Yes but that a measurement of illuminance and not luminance. While Adams used the term foot candle what he really meant was candela per foot squared because Adams always worked with luminance. He never like illuminance measurement as in an incident meter.

Reply
Jun 13, 2018 17:00:52   #
Kuzano
 
canadaboy wrote:
Discounting special effects such as high or low key etc, if asked how I might define correct exposure I could say something like "were it a scene that includes a mid Grey object, correct exposure would be settings that make the object appear as a similar tone in the completed image".

How would you define it?


Are you attempting to make exposure Objective? Because it is not as a general rule. It is subjective. Everybody sees exposure diffently.

Reply
 
 
Jun 13, 2018 19:08:22   #
Tomcat5133 Loc: Gladwyne PA
 
To me the correct exposure is the one you like. You may choose to make decisions on dynamic range how much of the darker areas can be seen.
We always have the issue of the lights and sky or some area of the photo is blown out. But when you adjust to keep more of the sky the scene looks darker.
I shoot raw and jpg often but often adjust photos photoshop. I like to tweak color saturation and use shadows and light and a little sharpening.
I think to try and answer your question can I see more of the details of the scene overall in the photo. You can pick the exposure indicated by the camera.
You can use the histogram if the camera has one. This discounts arty approach like bokeh with focus of the foreground.

In today's photography and (film) cinematic video the post processing and color grading of photos and video are the right exposure.
I believe I can judge in the viewfinder or LED screen what I want the exposure to be. Was in a photo studio fashion production
a couple of weeks ago and the post processing and alteration is what the exposure becomes.

Reply
Jun 14, 2018 01:07:17   #
btbg
 
rmalarz wrote:
You realize that the example I used was fictitious. I could have used any value for the light reflected from the grey surface. So, you using my 250 fc (your meter) is a somewhat bogus statement.

The meter I used years ago, and still use at times now, provides measurements in ft-lamberts. Since I carry a notebook with me when photographing, I have the necessary tables to convert ft-lamberts, or EV, to ft-candles. So, it's very simple, at least for me. And, it works.

Additionally, the sq-root of the ISO and reciprocal of the ft-candles combination for photographic exposure comes from "The Negative" - Ansel Adams. Too bad he's not still around so you could argue with him.
--Bob
You realize that the example I used was fictitious... (show quote)


Isn't it interesting the difference between old school and new school when it comes to the technical aspects of photography? The young technical wizards tend to disregard knowledge from the past as somehow obsolete or no longer applicable.

Your answer just like Gene51's will supply a digital negative that can be manipulated to get the desired mood and final pint desired. Both answers are tried and true and will always work, but they just aren't sexy.

Reply
Jun 14, 2018 04:09:10   #
canadaboy
 
rmalarz wrote:
Interesting reply. Let's see. You joined this group just a couple of days ago. You ask a reasonable question, to which I provided a factual and documented answer. Then you reply with this. Your reply would tend to lead one to negative conclusions about your personality and likeability.
--Bob


I wish to convey to you my humblest apologies especially being as I am a newbie I should have been more careful to avoid offending and upsetting anybody.

To my simplistic peabrain your post did genuinely appear to be tongue-in-cheek in cheek or some such which led me to my mistake which was attempt at humour.

Reply
Jun 14, 2018 07:19:33   #
rmalarz Loc: Tempe, Arizona
 
You present an interesting observation. Personally, I'm not fond of this 'old school' / 'new school' concept. I view it more as continuing education. The basic tenets are the same. They are just accomplished in a different manner. Gene is an exceptionally talented photographer. One can take what he says to the bank. Thanks for your contribution to the thread.
--Bob

btbg wrote:
Isn't it interesting the difference between old school and new school when it comes to the technical aspects of photography? The young technical wizards tend to disregard knowledge from the past as somehow obsolete or no longer applicable.

Your answer just like Gene51's will supply a digital negative that can be manipulated to get the desired mood and final pint desired. Both answers are tried and true and will always work, but they just aren't sexy.

Reply
Page <<first <prev 6 of 7 next>
If you want to reply, then register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.
Main Photography Discussion
UglyHedgehog.com - Forum
Copyright 2011-2024 Ugly Hedgehog, Inc.