Under expose or Over expose
Mar 18, 2013 06:52:30 #
What do other member think about Under or Over exposing their shots, what co's and pro' are there.
Thanks.
Thanks.
Mar 18, 2013 06:57:40 #
I was just reading about this last night. I can't tell you how many UHH'rs told me to buy Byron Peterson's understanding exposure. I did and I am so glad. Try to get your meter on 0, but if you can't go for the under exposure, and get the book. It's amazing.
Mar 18, 2013 07:12:58 #
johneccles wrote:
What do other member think about Under or Over exposing their shots, what co's and pro' are there.
Thanks.
Thanks.
If either under/over exposing were the way to go, I would think that by now, the camera manufacturers would have adjusted their metering systems to either go over/under and call that "right on".
Just my opinion of course.
Mar 18, 2013 07:15:49 #
I have spent my life exposing things correctly why would I want to mess it up now, yet another fad eh !
Mar 18, 2013 07:16:34 #
I didn't say that. I said if you Can't get your meter right on 0 it's better to underexpose 1/3 to 2/3 of a stop rather than overexpose the shot.
Mar 18, 2013 07:35:13 #
This has come up before. Scott Kelby says overexpose. I don't agree, but I accept he knows a lot more about this stuff than I. I reckon you're better off using curves to lighten a dark exposure in PS and using Topaz Denoise to get you out of trouble than over exposing, where no system has yet been devised to recover burnt out detail.
Mar 18, 2013 08:02:24 #
Nightski wrote:
I was just reading about this last night. I can't tell you how many UHH'rs told me to buy Byron Peterson's understanding exposure. I did and I am so glad. Try to get your meter on 0, but if you can't go for the under exposure, and get the book. It's amazing.
This has been a debated subject for a long time. From my experience, it seems most of the people I shoot with agree that it is better to under expose. Reason is that in digital, once the highlights are blown/overexposed, they are gone. Under exposing helps to retain some highlight detail. This can be recovered if underexposed. If you shoot raw, you can obtain/ recover more shadow detail than you can highlight detail. If you had to live with over or under, better to underexpose as you can recover more than if you overexposed.
Mar 18, 2013 08:35:37 #
Right, wrong or otherwise, I keep my exposure compensation set to -0.7. But, I'm usually in bright daylight, and almost always meter the sky. It isn't uncommon for me to adjust this, depending upon the scene in front of me. But, as has been mentioned, it is far easier to bring exposure to the shadows than it is to tone down the highlights.
Mar 18, 2013 08:46:42 #
I probably shouldn't have said anything. I am so new to photography. I was just excited about what I learned last night reading the "Understanding Exposure" book, and I wanted to share.
Mar 18, 2013 09:00:27 #
Nightski wrote:
I probably shouldn't have said anything. I am so new to photography. I was just excited about what I learned last night reading the "Understanding Exposure" book, and I wanted to share.
Nightski, that's what makes this a unique forum. We offer our opinions on what we know, experience or relate what other experts say. Don't ever hesitate to post. I have been shooting since 1971. There is still so much I learn from the forum. Keep posting. Notice that the forum is full of personal opinions. Thanks for the post!
Mar 18, 2013 09:20:10 #
johneccles wrote:
What do other member think about Under or Over exposing their shots, what co's and pro' are there.
Thanks.
Thanks.
Without a certain parameter being defined, any answer is without value. Are you talking about negative film, transparency, or digital? Making the proper adjustments in total light is neither under, nor over exposure.
With this, one must remember that meters and camera histograms may not tell the truth because they only measure light and are unintelligent with regard to purpose.
Mar 18, 2013 09:25:35 #
Nightski wrote:
I probably shouldn't have said anything. I am so new to photography. I was just excited about what I learned last night reading the "Understanding Exposure" book, and I wanted to share.
Don't second guess yourself. Say whatever you want.
Mar 18, 2013 09:30:08 #
jerryc41 wrote:
Don't second guess yourself. Say whatever you want.
Nightski wrote:
I probably shouldn't have said anything. I am so new to photography. I was just excited about what I learned last night reading the "Understanding Exposure" book, and I wanted to share.
Don't second guess yourself. Say whatever you want.
:thumbup: :thumbup:
Mar 18, 2013 09:32:29 #
Nightski wrote:
I probably shouldn't have said anything. I am so new to photography. I was just excited about what I learned last night reading the "Understanding Exposure" book, and I wanted to share.
That is totally and completely wrong, you started a debate, it was VERY worth it, thank you
Mar 18, 2013 09:37:23 #
Nightski wrote:
I didn't say that. I said if you Can't get your meter right on 0 it's better to underexpose 1/3 to 2/3 of a stop rather than overexpose the shot.
The Digital Photography School agrees with you.
http://digital-photography-school.com/is-underexposing-or-overexposing-better
If you want to reply, then register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.