Hammer Loc: London UK

Hi,

I have read (B Peterson ) that in order to achieve high shutter speeds and keep the ISO down its fine to underexpose up to two stops and recover that in PP

Was going to try that this weekend after Christmas , if its not raining but wondered if any fellow hoggers have used or tired this.

Its seems very attractive as 2 stops allows 1/1000 where 1/250 would have been the "correct" exposure.

Its time to sing about Good King Wenceslas . I have researched him and found out that his favourite food was Pizza.

Not any old pizza but the deep pan crisp and even variety .

To all hoggers :Have a great Christmas and a prosperous New Year

birdpix Loc: South East Pennsylvania

Under certain circumstances this would work. If the dynamic range of the photo is not too great, and you have plenty of light, then it would be possible to underexpose and recover in post. With high dynamic range photos, in our specialty, black and white birds, underexposing may render shadow detail unrecoverable.

Additionally, if a high ISO is used, noise becomes even more obvious in shadow areas that are underexposed and then "recovered". If we have lower light levels, then this technique becomes even more problematic.

In shooting Birds-in-flight we are usually taxing our equipment and our technique to the utmost. We often trade off ISO for shutter speed or greater depth of field. Underexposing and recovering in post is just one more tool in the box to pull out under the right circumstances.

Personally, I would only use this with scenes that had a narrow dynamic range in bright light. I would also be sure to shoot in RAW to retain the most detail in those shadows. In the end, much depends on your equipment, (i.e. how high an ISO can I use before noise becomes a problem or how fast is my lens? Is it an f/5.6 or f/2.8?) and the capability of your post processing program to deal with the shadow recovery and the resulting noise.

Post some pictures of your experiment. I'm sure we would all be interested in seeing the results!

Linda From Maine Loc: Yakima, Washington

Birdpix: What a thoughtful, easy to follow response you gave!

Hammer Loc: London UK

Hi,

Many thanks for your time and your informative and very helpful reply. Now have a much better idea of the issues involved. This proves that a little knowledge is dangerous.

This has now got me very interested , so will start some experimentation, hopefully after the New Year and post some photos.

Merry Christmas

Tom O Loc: Wisconsin

A great straightforward and easy to understand response.

If the sun ever comes back out I'll try that!

Happy Holidays to all,

Tom

imagemeister Loc: mid east Florida

IMHO, If it works at all, it would be in a very narrow window of circumstances as mentioned by birdpix - otherwise, I think you are flirting with disaster.

imagemeister Loc: mid east Florida

As a side thought, you may gain additional perspective from this - http://photographylife.com/riddle-intermediate-iso-settings#more-66017 - article .

martinfisherphoto Loc: Lake Placid Florida

I shoot Nikon and they tend to shoot on the hot side in my opinion. I use spot metering for all my birds in flights and have dialed back exposure compensation up to 1 full stop to steal a little more shutter speed or aperture or ISO. Works much better on white birds than darker ones. You always need to push your equipment to the edge to learn it's limitations. At this point you then learn how to shoot around them or use them to your advantage.

BigBear Loc: Northern CT

Thank you for your input on this.
I tend to shoot under and have wondered if it was hurting the detail. I can't shoot ISO over 800 anyway without corruption.
I wasn't sure if shooting under was losing detail or not.

Hammer Loc: London UK

Hi,

Thanks for your reply and that link, mind blowing ! I would never have thought that the effects of pumping up the ISO were anything but linear.

Just proves we need to check everything we assume .

Hammer Loc: London UK

Hi,

Thanks for your reply. This is so true .

I now realise that its not sufficient just to "read up" on something and then think that it will work let alone be remembered . Its about practise and evaluation, just got to put some more time in , if only it would stop raining and blowing gales.

Hammer Loc: London UK

Hi Birdpix,

Once again thank you for your time and great response, I could not have put it better than my fellow Hoggers have.

Some time ago I went to shoot some Cormorants who had settled on a small island on a local lake. They were side lit and sunning themselves by spreading their wings . I set up my camera on the tripod and felt very smug, but from there it all went wrong. The white chests on the birds were reflecting the sun straight at me as they sunned themselves . I had forgotten my polariser and not taken account of the direction of the light, the reflections of the sun etc. Gave up in disgust and went back to the flowers in my garden .

The posts here have enthused me to get out and practise and get to know my equipment. If only it would stop blowing a gale.

Happy New Year to you , Birdpix and all my fellow Hoggers.

Swamp Gator Loc: Coastal South Carolina

For white birds in bright or otherwise difficult lighting, under exposure (or it could reasonably be called 'proper exposure') is pretty much essential as is shooting in Manual mode.

I shot this egret in severe upper back, side lighting conditions at 1/2000 f9 at 200 ISO.

What do you think this shot would have looked like if I made it in an Auto mode where I let the camera pick what it felt was the correct exposure?

birdpix Loc: South East Pennsylvania

Phil;

Proper exposure is the one that gets you what you want in a photograph. You cannot rely on a technical device to make aesthetic decisions.

It is only when one gains a working knowledge of the basics and the experience to know how and when to apply that knowledge does photography become more than just a hit or miss affair.