Effect of fixing badly underexposed shot in LR: I was out shooting some sunset shots the other night, and set the exposure to -2.3 stops. Then forgot to set it back. Oops. Today I came...

Stats153

I was out shooting some sunset shots the other night, and set the exposure to -2.3 stops. Then forgot to set it back. Oops. Today I came across a gray tree frog, got some nice shots, and didn't realize they were badly underexposed until I saw them on my computer. LR to the rescue, and they turned out reasonably ok (see attached).

Guess I'm a slow learner; I've made this mistake before.

Question is, how much is lost in IQ by this sort of blunder and fix? I'm guessing that since 2^2.3 is about 5, the net effect would be the same as if I'd exposed it correctly and used an ISO five times bigger than I used. I shot the attached at ISO 320 (D7000 with 40mm micro @ f16) and would say the result looks better than if I'd shot it at ISO 1600.

(Download)

Cwilson341 Loc: Central Florida

Without a download file it is hard to be sure, but this looks quite good to me. It's a very nice shot.

Stats153

Cwilson341 wrote:

Without a download file it is hard to be sure, but this looks quite good to me. It's a very nice shot.

Thanks. It's downloadable now.

kpmac Loc: Ragley, La

I think it is better that you underexposed as to overexposed. Looks to me like you still had the entire dynamic range for this image. I like it.

GregWCIL Loc: Illinois

I'm not an expert but it probably depends on your camera. I know I have read on my D500 that recovering underexposed shots gives similar results to shooting at a higher ISO. Your mileage may vary. Either way, you tend to lose some contrast and of course gain noise in the finished product.

That's a very nice photo. Perhaps the frog was that bright, but he almost looks over-exposed now. You might try adjusting your "whites" slider down a bit or the "highlights" slider.

Math78 Loc: Scottsdale, AZ

The D7000 is one of the cameras which is "ISO invariant." You get essentially the same result from increasing the ISO in the camera, or shooting at base ISO and increasing exposure in post. Your choice. It's been discussed in UHH a few times. For example, see:
http://www.uglyhedgehog.com/t-389822-1.html

Stats153 wrote:

I was out shooting some sunset shots the other nig... (show quote)

BHC Loc: Strawberry Valley, JF, USA

Stats153 wrote:

I was out shooting some sunset shots the other nig... (show quote)

Raw or JPG?

mborn Loc: Massachusetts

CNP safaris recommend shooting at a -1 or more EV to prevent blowing out the whites and it is recoverable in PP

pithydoug Loc: Catskill Mountains, NY

Stats153 wrote:

I was out shooting some sunset shots the other nig... (show quote)

LR is extremely flexible with under exposure. In bright and dark in the same photo, I focus for the bright. Then in post you can bring up the shadows. Once you blow out the whites, you can not correct.

Of course how much you can recover in general depends on your sensor and the number of pixels.

crazydaddio Loc: Toronto Ontario Canada

Sadly....Canon really bites it in the ISO Invariant dept and Sony and Nikon rock. Closest Canon has to ISO Invariant dept is the new 5DMkIV. Above 400ISO in camera, the pics will be ISO Invariant up to 4-5 stops. Meaning if you set the camera at ISO400, any pic up to what should have been 6400 ISO in camers will be virtually identical to PP in LR or ACR jacking up the exposure slider. All other DSLr cameras from Canon just wont. (1dmkii is close) . ISO invariance in real world shooting means not having to trade off highlights with underexposure. Go ahead and underexpose the image to not blow out the highlights, pull up exposure and crank down the highlight sliders in post and voila !

I have used this extensively since i got mine. (More accurately/honestly, had the wrong settings and got away with it :-)

...love my 5DMkIV....

tinplater Loc: Scottsdale, AZ

Catch myself ALMOST making this error quite frequently. Fortunately on the Sony A7R2 the exposure compensation dial is right on the top of the camera, I have learned to check it's position frequently. It is a great feature on the RX10 as well, along with clickable aperture dial on the lens making it very simple to identify some of the exposure parameters instantly and allowing adjustments with your thumb on the dial, left hand on aperture ring.

Stats153

GregWCIL wrote:

I'm not an expert but it probably depends on your camera. I know I have read on my D500 that recovering underexposed shots gives similar results to shooting at a higher ISO. Your mileage may vary. Either way, you tend to lose some contrast and of course gain noise in the finished product.

That's a very nice photo. Perhaps the frog was that bright, but he almost looks over-exposed now. You might try adjusting your "whites" slider down a bit or the "highlights" slider.

Thanks -- I think you're right about the adjustments; will give it a try. I need advice on setting environment for post-processing. Even with monitor calibrated, differences in ambient light in office influence results.

Stats153

BHC wrote:

Raw or JPG?

Raw

Stats153

Math78 wrote:

The D7000 is one of the cameras which is "ISO invariant." You get essentially the same result from increasing the ISO in the camera, or shooting at base ISO and increasing exposure in post. Your choice. It's been discussed in UHH a few times. For example, see:
http://www.uglyhedgehog.com/t-389822-1.html

Thanks -- that's what I was looking for. Will have to see if I can get my head around the DR effects, etc ... there must be some loss if you shoot too far to the left.

Fotoartist Loc: Detroit, Michigan

If dark to start with, why did you over brighten it then?