Which one is better exposed? Yesterday in my topic http://www.uglyhedgehog.com/t-360423-1.html discussing tuning camera metering I posted these pictures but my opponent did not pay...

MMC Loc: Brooklyn NY

Yesterday in my topic http://www.uglyhedgehog.com/t-360423-1.html
discussing tuning camera metering I posted these pictures but my opponent did not pay attention. These pictures have different exposer / 0, -0.3 and +0.3 /. I changed exposer in Photoshop. I would like to know your opinion.

One

(Download)

Two

(Download)

Three

(Download)

joe west Loc: Taylor, Michigan

MMC wrote:

Yesterday in my topic http://www.uglyhedgehog.com/t-360423-1.html
discussing tuning camera metering I posted these pictures but my opponent did not pay attention. These pictures have different exposer / 0, -0.3 and +0.3 /. I changed exposer in Photoshop. I would like to know your opinion.

number 2 lot brighter really looks good :thumbup:

pete-m Loc: Casper, WY

My opinion is # 1

Although I don't know that changing the exposure by pp is actually changing the exposure.

MMC Loc: Brooklyn NY

Thanks.

joe west wrote:

number 2 lot brighter really looks good :thumbup:

MMC Loc: Brooklyn NY

Thanks for your opinion. I checked and compared histograms. Histograms are different.

pete-m wrote:

My opinion is # 1

Although I don't know that changing the exposure by pp is actually changing the exposure.

(Download)

camerapapi Loc: Miami, Fl.

In the first place, what is considered a "right" exposure?
The right exposure is the one that yields the results you want, those you feel comfortable with. An example, let's say that you shoot a landscape with a beautiful sky but when you look at your capture the sky IS NOT the way you expected to be. Is that considered the "right" exposure?
The right exposure should have a tonal distribution that should please the person looking at it.
In your particular case and based on my perception of what I consider as the right exposure it is No. 1. There are enough gray tonalities to represent the bright, middle tones and dark areas. The second one could be the answer for others.
As long as we expose for an important bright object and we see details in those areas we can say that we nailed the right exposure.

MMC Loc: Brooklyn NY

Thanks for your reply. I saw on this forum that one of the UHH members fine-tuned optimal exposure increasing or decreasing it by 0.3 step. I would not do it and corrected my exposure in PP. I decided to post pictures with a little bit different exposure /I think all of these 3 are acceptable/ and receive members opinion.

camerapapi wrote:

In the first place, what is considered a "rig... (show quote)

tomvanb Loc: Anthem, AZ

MMC wrote:

Yesterday in my topic http://www.uglyhedgehog.com/t-360423-1.html
discussing tuning camera metering I posted these pictures but my opponent did not pay attention. These pictures have different exposer / 0, -0.3 and +0.3 /. I changed exposer in Photoshop. I would like to know your opinion.

#2

MMC Loc: Brooklyn NY

Thanks for your choice.

tomvanb wrote:

#2

RRS Loc: Not sure

MMC wrote:

Yesterday in my topic http://www.uglyhedgehog.com/t-360423-1.html
discussing tuning camera metering I posted these pictures but my opponent did not pay attention. These pictures have different exposer / 0, -0.3 and +0.3 /. I changed exposer in Photoshop. I would like to know your opinion.

I like #3 the best. #1 looks @1/3 over and #2 looks @ 2/3 under. #3 looks @ 1/3 under retaining more of the highlights .

MMC Loc: Brooklyn NY

Thank you for your opinion. Would you notice it if I posted just one #1 or #2?

RRS wrote:

I like #3 the best. #1 looks @1/3 over and #2 looks @ 2/3 under. #3 looks @ 1/3 under retaining more of the highlights .

RRS Loc: Not sure

MMC wrote:

Thank you for your opinion. Would you notice it if I posted just one #1 or #2?

If you only posted one it would be harder to tell but I would look for detail in the whites and look to see if the whites were blown out or not.

MMC Loc: Brooklyn NY

Thanks for you reply. Histograms shows blown out neither #1 no#2.

RRS wrote:

If you only posted one it would be harder to tell but I would look for detail in the whites and look to see if the white were blown out or not.

RRS Loc: Not sure

MMC wrote:

Thanks for you reply. Histograms shows blown out neither #1 no#2.

Without a histogram I would only have my old eyes to try to look for fine details in the white areas. You are making viewers look and think and that's a good thing. Thanks!

MMC Loc: Brooklyn NY

Thank you.

RRS wrote:

Without a histogram I would only have my old eyes to try to look for fine details in the white areas. You are making viewers look and think and that's a good thing. Thanks!