Under expose or Over expose
Mar 19, 2013 11:18:20 #
Research ETTR and the explanation makes perfect sense.
Expose to the right and bring it back down in PP. I think with digital, you have to think of it differently then film.
Expose to the right and bring it back down in PP. I think with digital, you have to think of it differently then film.
Mar 19, 2013 11:30:51 #
Exactly to the point.... clearly nobody is suggesting you overexpose to the point that highlight detail is lost. The phrase is 'TO the right' NOT 'WELL PAST the right'
The last bit of confusion is that the in camera histogram exaggerates this because it is based on the preview *not* the image file. Depending on the settings you set to make the preview (the jpg settings even if you are not keeping the jpgs) you easily have 1 or more stops *past* the right on the in camera histogram.
So, the only effects of exposing to the right are:
- you need to keep the raw file and do post processing
- you will have a lot more detail overall and less noise in the shadows
Done properly, this does not 'blow' highlights.
Oh and, yes, this is different that reversal film. Which is the (surprise) reverse.
The last bit of confusion is that the in camera histogram exaggerates this because it is based on the preview *not* the image file. Depending on the settings you set to make the preview (the jpg settings even if you are not keeping the jpgs) you easily have 1 or more stops *past* the right on the in camera histogram.
So, the only effects of exposing to the right are:
- you need to keep the raw file and do post processing
- you will have a lot more detail overall and less noise in the shadows
Done properly, this does not 'blow' highlights.
Oh and, yes, this is different that reversal film. Which is the (surprise) reverse.
CaptainC wrote:
I find it amazing how many times it has to be repe... (show quote)
Mar 19, 2013 11:46:07 #
Your opinion is as good as anyones that's the whole point of this forum so don't stop offering an opinion.
Mar 19, 2013 11:48:45 #
banjonut wrote:
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.
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.
They have, it is called "Exposure Compensation". It is manually set with camera controls and has been available since the early days of 35mm film.
Mar 19, 2013 11:49:50 #
CaptainC wrote:
I agree there is no "perfect exposure." Much of it is subjective and certainly open to individual choices. But the fact still remains that there is far more data in the brighter half of the histogram that the darker half.
It seems to me that my 7D routinely produces shots that are a little light, even when the subject and background are overall mid-tone. Interesting in "light" of CaptainC's post. Also, when I PP'd a few of my photos using "autocorrect" last night, the most noticeable thing it did was lighten my original shot. Then, when I went back and manually adjusted brightness, color and contrast, I got some pretty spectacular results, compared to the original, that is. Unfortunatley I was so pleased that I deleted the original, so I can't really post a comparison. Well maybe one. I'll look.
For what it's worth, my exposure mentor is Arthur Morris. His exposure theory is logical, situational and succinct, making it easy to grasp basic principles and go out and shoot (so you're photographing instead of studying exposure theory).
Mar 19, 2013 11:50:12 #
JR1 wrote:
I have spent my life exposing things correctly why would I want to mess it up now, yet another fad eh !
Perhaps you don't care if some elements of the image go pure white, or sink into deep black shadows.
Mar 19, 2013 11:50:49 #
mikegreenwald
Loc: Illinois
'Too many simplistic replies.
1. If unsure in any situation, bracket.
2. Expose for your primary subject or intent (ie. if you want a backlit silhouette, expose for the background; if you want the subject primarily, expose for the subject - probably need to spotmeter.
3. Your exposures have to be somewhat close, even with RAW files.
4. Overexposure loses unrecoverable detail in the highlights.
5. With digital, photos are free. Practice by taking lots of pictures, with deliberate over and under exposure of each. Study them to learn when and where to use modified exposure as one more tool.
1. If unsure in any situation, bracket.
2. Expose for your primary subject or intent (ie. if you want a backlit silhouette, expose for the background; if you want the subject primarily, expose for the subject - probably need to spotmeter.
3. Your exposures have to be somewhat close, even with RAW files.
4. Overexposure loses unrecoverable detail in the highlights.
5. With digital, photos are free. Practice by taking lots of pictures, with deliberate over and under exposure of each. Study them to learn when and where to use modified exposure as one more tool.
Mar 19, 2013 11:54:21 #
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.
Generally, this is a good idea. You preserve image details in bright areas, and maintain some detail in the shadows. Another plus is the added color intensity in the captured image. All of these attributes can be adjusted in Post Processing (PP) after the capture; but if you don't have these attribute in the capture thy are lost and no manner of PP will recover them.
Mar 19, 2013 12:06:50 #
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,
Never fear, you did do the right thing by posting here.
There is only so much a person can learn by reading a book, each person is different. You may be discovering the fact that you can learn a little by reading, a little more by practicing what you read, and a lot more by asking questions to folks who have been through the tasks themselves.
When you read a published article, and it sounds reasonable, try it; just understand it is most valid for the conditions presented in the article. It becomes a guide to get you close to what you need. Understanding the theory and how it affects the final product fine tunes your personal ability to capture the image you envision before exposure.
Mar 19, 2013 12:10:57 #
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.
You should have and we are all so glad you did. :-D A few here are sometimes a bit less than diplomatic with their comments. :D But 99.9 % of the time it is unintentional and should not be taken personally. I learned from this discussion. Thanks for your input.
Mar 19, 2013 12:14:21 #
johneccles wrote:
What do other member think about Under or Over exposing their shots, what co's and pro' are there.
Thanks.
Thanks.
.................................................................................................
Don't do either; try to expose correctly instead. If you are over or under a little bit, Photoshop can often rescue you. However, overexposure often results in blown out highlights that cannot be repaired by anything. Underexposure can leave you, even after processing, with unacceptable amounts of noise and muting of colors.
Mar 19, 2013 12:59:44 #
digicamking
Loc: Raleigh, NC
EstherP wrote:
quote=Nightski I probably shouldn't have said any... (show quote)
Is digging it up like exhuming it? lol
Mar 19, 2013 13:08:42 #
ag photog
Loc: Atlanta, Georgia
Again, not a bad subject to bring up, because look at the debate sparked and the wealth of information and opinions we may can take from this one statement. Thanks,and never worry about speaking what's on your mind. If this forum is doing what I assume it's designed for, then it should be welcomed. :)I would have said under expose, but now I have new info to look at and I appreciate that info and the opportunity to read it and think about it, even possibly change the way I do things.
Mar 19, 2013 13:33:22 #
If the situation requires one or the other, it depends on what's most important in the picture. As stated above, once highlights are blown, they're gone forever. Also, if you print, that will be a no-ink area, and can look a little funny on some paper surfaces. I tend to underexpose to retain highlights over shadow.
I always shoot raw, so again as mentioned above, am able to regain some shadow details. DxO 8 finally has good enough results that I actually bought into and am using it. Neat Image is my go-to for noise control.
I always shoot raw, so again as mentioned above, am able to regain some shadow details. DxO 8 finally has good enough results that I actually bought into and am using it. Neat Image is my go-to for noise control.
Mar 19, 2013 13:41:44 #
TedPaul
Loc: Madison, MS
Night ski, have at it. You are in good company. You raise a question I have a problem with. How does one read a histogram with a modecom of intelligence?
If you want to reply, then register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.