Under expose or Over expose (Page 8): At the risk of repeating other posts on the subject I'll offer this:- It is always better to correctly expose the subject and with modern digital...

Peter Boyd Loc: Blyth nr. Newcastle U.K.

johneccles wrote:

What do other member think about Under or Over exposing their shots, what co's and pro' are there.
Thanks.

At the risk of repeating other posts on the subject I'll offer this:-
It is always better to correctly expose the subject and with modern digital cameras offering one third stop increments it should always be possible to correctly expose. Theoretically if correct exposure was impossible then slight underexposure would be preferable with digital cameras because it is easier to correct for underexposure than overexposure. With negative film the opposite is true.

mikemilton

mikehueb wrote:

If the situation requires one or the other, it dep... (show quote)

Also as stated above, the discussion is not about blown highlights. It is about using exposures other than what would be 'right' given an 18% gray target.

You can recover dramatically more information from highlights than shadows on a digital sensor so that is the direction to go. Also raising shadows tends to make noise more visible.

If you are working from the camera histogram and shooting raw you should know that the highlights seem to be 'blown' a stop or more before they actually are so biasing an exposure towards the highlights (which might be a better way to express 'overexposing') is typically both beneficial and safe whereas biasing towards shadows will always reduce detail and increase noise relative to more exposure (as long as you don;t saturate the sensor.

Shuttergram Loc: Colorado

Nightski wrote:

quote=KR40 quote=Nightski I was just reading abo... (show quote)

Thanks, I will check it out.

mikemilton

Hey, Esther, you mention the Peterson book and I'd have to agree it looks very interesting . People might want to have a look at this as a teaser: http://youtu.be/Q8NEa-ghHbo

That said, it seems to be mostly about selecting among equivalent exposures to achieve a desired outcome (like freezing motion or depth of field and so on) while also wandering into the topic of dealing with scenes that are not standard.

In contrast, the question here seems to be about selecting an exposure that is NOT equivalent but includes more or less light than is (nominally) correct.

Some seem to have conflated more light than nominal with blown highlights (possibly because this is a symptom of extreme overexposure just like lost shadows or undesirable levels of noise is a symptom of extreme underexposure). I do not think that was the intent of the original question and certainly not many of the responses. Also, what constitutes extreme differs depending on the medium one uses (reversal or negative film or digital).

These confusions are not helpful to a beginner trying to sort out the advice they are getting.

Anyway, the book you mention likely does not help with this specific question either but it really would be of great use to a beginner.

EstherP wrote:

quote=Nightski I probably shouldn't have said any... (show quote)

romanticf16 Loc: Commerce Twp, MI

Think of digital as slide film with a greater exposure latitude. If you overexpose you blow out the highlights and there is nothing there. You can salvage an underexposure in post processing. In doing a bracket for a HDR you are making multiple exposures to allow selecting the proper densities for shadow, mid tones and highlights by making a composite image with the best exposures for each merged into one image.

mikemilton

romanticf16 wrote:

Think of digital as slide film with a greater exposure latitude. If you overexpose you blow out the highlights and there is nothing there. You can salvage an underexposure in post processing. In doing a bracket for a HDR you are making multiple exposures to allow selecting the proper densities for shadow, mid tones and highlights by making a composite image with the best exposures for each merged into one image.

Oh for heavens sake - did you read this discussion at all?

1) if you blow the highlights you blow the highlights and, yes, that is an issue but it is not the case that increasing exposure necessarily blows highlights. Reasonable overexposure short of blown highlights is a positive thing using digital sensors which, by the way, respond to light totally differently than either negative or reversal film.

2) Any shift towards less exposure ( that is less than is required to accomodate the highlights) reduces the information gathered by a digital sensor.

So, underexposing (lessening exposure from that which is nominally correct) is not good advice when using a digital sensor. A modest increase (but not to the extent of saturating the sensor) is very good advice as long as the person will use raw and undertake some post processing.

jlrivera Loc: Round Lake, Illinois

lightchime wrote:

jerryc41 wrote:

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

I think that there are some problems with this information from the digital school. First of all, there is no definition of what is meant by under or over exposure. The information appears much more related to opinion than to fact. My experience and learning is consistent with what is said to be Scott Kelby's opinion - and the opinion of others who use hard facts to justify them.

This is one of those topics that seems to come up at least weekly - if not almost daily. There are several facts here that have not been addressed. First of all, the camera histogram is very limited - there is at least another f stop of data beyond the right goal post. It is lost in the JPEG conversion. Therefore, a bit of data is present beyond what the histogram shows. The other thing is that fully 1/2 of the data is present in the brightest f stop of information. Yes, 1/2 the data is in this area. When you shoot to the right, you are allowing for more data in the shadow areas. When you bring the shadows to the right in post processing, you minimize that muddiness, get less noise and more detail.

Saying to expose to the shadows may have been good for certain films, but it is a bucket of fecal material when it comes to digital. The other thing to keep in mind, besides mining data from the right is that even if there is a bit of overexposure in one channel, there may be loads of information in the other two. When you shoot to the dark side, you get very little if anything.

There are many references to reading books around here. That is fine - but it would be much more reliable if the information being referred to would actually provide the information in context. Otherwise it is like exposing to the dark side where there is little to be had.

It is fine to be new to photography and search for information. It is another thing to know a little but profess to know nearly every thing - the pseudo expert.

quote=jerryc41 quote=Nightski I didn't say that.... (show quote)

:thumbdown: :thumbdown:

jlrivera Loc: Round Lake, Illinois

mikemilton wrote:

quote=mikehueb If the situation requires one or t... (show quote)

:thumbdown:

jlrivera Loc: Round Lake, Illinois

wilsondl2 wrote:

Of course it is best to have exposure right on. This is my thought - In film you can not do much with a thin underexposed negative. I know this from doing darkroom work for years. If you blow out the highlights in digital there is not much I can do maybe someone else can. - Dave

:thumbup: :thumbup:

cheineck Loc: Hobe Sound, FL

Master Flash wrote:

quote=Nightski I was just reading about this last... (show quote)

Not sure I agree... if you're shooting RAW, blown out highlights CAN be recovered in the majority of cases with the right software in post-processing.

CaptainC Loc: Colorado, south of Denver

cheineck wrote:

quote=Master Flash quote=Nightski I was just rea... (show quote)

That is sorta true, but in most situations that is a case of the jpg histogram showing it is lost when some data is still there - particularly if you shoot raw as a 14-bit raw. But if any ONE of the three channels is blown out, detail recovery is compromised. (Often the red channel.)

royden Loc: Decatur, GA

EstherP wrote:

quote=Nightski I probably shouldn't have said any... (show quote)

Hi Esther, Always enjoy your qoutes/posts. I have Understanding Exposure, 3rd edition. Great book. Have some cool videos..see page 11 on how to access them. I'm assuming that you have the same book. Peace.

Frank47 Loc: West coast Florida

Under very bright conditions such as snow, I will try and slightly overexpose so as to get white snow, not gray. As for general exposures, that is what bracketing is for. Also, I will often double-process a RAW file and then layer to meet the needs at both ends of the histogram.

CaptainC Loc: Colorado, south of Denver

Frank47 wrote:

Under very bright conditions such as snow, I will try and slightly overexpose so as to get white snow, not gray. As for general exposures, that is what bracketing is for. Also, I will often double-process a RAW file and then layer to meet the needs at both ends of the histogram.

See, here is the semantic issue: you are NOT overexposing - you are using your brain to place the exposure correctly because your light meter is stupid when it comes to that type of scene. You are doing what photographers are supposed to do: be smarter than the camera.

If your meter UNDER exposes, placing the exposure correctly is not OVER exposure.

christofras Loc: Gold Coast Australia

As far as I am aware,always expose to the right,and DON'T blow out highlights. Under exposing,creates noise to develop especially in the shadow areas. The best approach is to get the best possible exposure IN CAMERA rather than doing excessive in post editing.