Got fooled by the Histogram and LCD screen: Every time I photograph a dark skin person I have to overexpose by 1.5 in post processing even though the histogram shows a perfect...

ttheme Loc: Florida

Every time I photograph a dark skin person I have to overexpose by 1.5 in post processing even though the histogram shows a perfect exposure. Any comment?

tainkc Loc: Kansas City

ttheme wrote:

Every time I photograph a dark skin person I have to overexpose by 1.5 in post processing even though the histogram shows a perfect exposure. Any comment?

Turn the histogram off. I am serious. You already said why to do that. You already know that you have to compensate due to your experience. I leave my histogram turned on in lightroom because I like to laugh. Laughter keeps me from aging.

Darkroom317 Loc: Mishawaka, IN

tainkc wrote:

Turn the histogram off. I am serious. You already said why to do that. You already know that you have to compensate due to your experience. I leave my histogram turned on in lightroom because I like to laugh. Laughter keeps me from aging.

:thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup:

bsprague Loc: Lacey, WA, USA

Exposure meter science is left over from a long time ago when film was involved. Originally, meters measured the light falling on a subject. For convenience, and later zone work, reflectence options became available. And, that is what is built into cameras. They measure what is reflected.

In black and white terms, if you use only the cook book, a metered object will be interpreted to be displayed as medium grey or "18% grey". Interestingly, caucasian skin is almost close.

You can buy an incendence meter, have the subject hold a "18% grey card" while you set exposure or learn to compensate with head work.

If none of this makes sense, try measuring exposure off of black hair and blonde hair. Or, put a coin on a black piece of paper and meter it with your camera. Then try a white piece. Last, try a grey piece of paper.

Darkroom317 Loc: Mishawaka, IN

bsprague wrote:

Exposure meter science is left over from a long ti... (show quote)

You do not use a grey card with an incident meter. The meter is turned away from the subject and towards the camera. It measures the light falling on the subject not reflected by it.

FilmFanatic Loc: Waikato, New Zealand

Sigh. Don't turn it off, the histogram is extremely useful.

In this case I suspect that your camera's contrast setting is too high, try using a more neutral setting.

CaptainC Loc: Colorado, south of Denver

Good advice above (for the most part). A histogram is showing brightness and shadows over the whole image, not on one person's face. If an overall scene meters for a proper exposure, individual bits could well be over or underexposed. For darker skin, a + .7 to +.1.3 is not unusual to get the face right.
The suggestion to use an incident meter is right on the money.

BHC Loc: Strawberry Valley, JF, USA

ttheme wrote:

Every time I photograph a dark skin person I have to overexpose by 1.5 in post processing even though the histogram shows a perfect exposure. Any comment?

What meter mode are you using?

The Watcher

Darkroom317 wrote:

You do not use a grey card with an incident meter. The meter is turned away from the subject and towards the camera. It measures the light falling on the subject not reflected by it.

Incident light meters measure the light falling on the subject. You only point the meter at the camera when the main light is coming from that direction. You point the meter at the main light source so that the light hits all of the sensor. If you have more than one light source and want to measure each source then you block one off with your hand or body and take a reading. If the meter also measures flash output, you can use this blocking method to adjust the brightness of a flash or flashes that are set on manual. Flash readings are taken at the subject location, Incident readings only require equal lighting on the subject and the meter. This allows for readings away from the subject.

BHC Loc: Strawberry Valley, JF, USA

The Watcher wrote:

Incident light meters measure the light falling on... (show quote)

When using a reflected light meter, you hold the meter at the subject pointing the meter at the CAMERA! You want to record the light that is reflected toward the camera, not the light that is reflected back toward the light source.

Reference: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qOxJvwcmADg

lighthouse Loc: No Fixed Abode

I could have several different slants on it but will voice only one.

Main point.
Auto exposure of any sort DOES NOT give the perfect exposure.
It gives an average exposure. It is a guide.
The OP is posing the situation as if it is a fault of the camera.
The OP is aware of the effect, knows that this happens everytime, and yet still makes the same mistake. Every time!
Slow learner?

ttheme wrote:

Every time I photograph a dark skin person I have to overexpose by 1.5 in post processing even though the histogram shows a perfect exposure. Any comment?

Radioman Loc: Ontario Canada

lighthouse wrote:

I could have several different slants on it but will voice only one.

Main point.
Auto exposure of any sort DOES NOT give the perfect exposure.
It gives an average exposure. It is a guide.
The OP is posing the situation as if it is a fault of the camera.
The OP is aware of the effect, knows that this happens everytime, and yet still makes the same mistake. Every time!
Slow learner?

********
While I fully agree if the exposure is set to average the whole scene - but 'Auto Exposure' is not limited to this. Todays DSLR cameras have zone exposure - you can pinpoint something and the camera will 'auto-set' the exposure based on this point.

lighthouse Loc: No Fixed Abode

Is that what it's called? I didn't know it had a name.
I do that with the back button.

Radioman wrote:

********
While I fully agree if the exposure is set to average the whole scene - but 'Auto Exposure' is not limited to this. Todays DSLR cameras have zone exposure - you can pinpoint something and the camera will 'auto-set' the exposure based on this point.

winterrose Loc: Kyneton, Victoria, Australia

lighthouse wrote:

I could have several different slants on it but will voice only one.

Main point.
Auto exposure of any sort DOES NOT give the perfect exposure.
It gives an average exposure. It is a guide.
The OP is posing the situation as if it is a fault of the camera.
The OP is aware of the effect, knows that this happens everytime, and yet still makes the same mistake. Every time!
Slow learner?

You should have said "Auto exposure of any sort DOES NOT necessarily give the perfect exposure under all conditions."

The ttheme is not posing the situation as if it is a fault of the camera. Only that this situation is a facet of photography that is not wholly understood.

Your attitude to "helping" our member with this pointless and demeaning reply in my mind vindicates what I have said about you.

Where is your advice to this OP, Mister lighthead?

I can only conclude that you can offer nothing to ttheme in the way of constructive assistance so kindly cease your rude disruptions and leave it to those who support our members rather than cutting them off at the knees.

Dlevon Loc: New Jersey

ttheme wrote:

Every time I photograph a dark skin person I have to overexpose by 1.5 in post processing even though the histogram shows a perfect exposure. Any comment?

Turn off your histogram, and using incident meter. I only look at histograms after the fact. Rely on what your eyes tell you, not electronics. You can use your histograms in post-processing..