Dark photos, exposure correct
Sep 23, 2016 10:16:50 #
Sep 23, 2016 10:18:05 #
Although RAW was used, to see an image it must be converted (TIFF or the like) and that can affect exposure - just sayin'
Sep 23, 2016 10:18:46 #
Check out Astronomical Photography Forum section of our forum.
Sep 23, 2016 10:25:28 #
Sep 23, 2016 10:41:58 #
kenArchi wrote:
Why do digital photos come out dark. They look lik... (show quote)
It looks to me that your camera's meter was reading the large white area and exposing it to appear a light gray. The trick to using your camera's meter is to spot meter on a density neutral area. A patch of dirt is an example. Or if you are doing a landscape containing large pale areas and using a broad field as the metering area, then you should apply some negative exposure compensation, knowing that the meter is going to expose so that the average light from the entire area is 18% gray.
Sep 23, 2016 10:42:45 #
IowaGuy
Loc: Iowa
dirtpusher wrote:
i would say it was reading off the walls .
That was my first guess. Meter on the walls and you'll be at least 1 stop underexposed as the meter is giving you an exposure for 18% gray. Try this again metering off the sunlit green (which in my understanding is near 18% gray in luminance).
Sep 23, 2016 10:43:45 #
Apaflo wrote:
I'll give you a technical analysis, which will pro... (show quote)
Excellent comments and right on. I try to keep my highlights below 240 and will not bring an image into photoshop until they are in the 235/240 range. I am assuming the histogram on both images will confirm your findings.
Check out Wedding Photography section of our forum.
Sep 23, 2016 10:47:30 #
PHRubin wrote:
Although RAW was used, to see an image it must be converted (TIFF or the like) and that can affect exposure - just sayin'
Exposure is controlled by how much time the shutter is open and how wide the aperture is.
It cannot be changed after the shutter release is pressed.
You are referring to brightness, not exposure. (It does make a difference.)
Sep 23, 2016 10:56:57 #
CatMarley wrote:
It looks to me that your camera's meter was reading the large white area and exposing it to appear a light gray. The trick to using your camera's meter is to spot meter on a density neutral area. A patch of dirt is an example. Or if you are doing a landscape containing large pale areas and using a broad field as the metering area, then you should apply some negative exposure compensation, knowing that the meter is going to expose so that the average light from the entire area is 18% gray.
He used a hand-held incident light meter. Incident meters read the light source, not the subject.
Sep 23, 2016 11:04:09 #
Here are histograms of the two images, as provided by gimp's "curves" tool.
It appears to me that neither image is slid too far off {i.e., neither has a peak at the end} to be fixed to something more reasonable by adjusting levels.
It appears to me that neither image is slid too far off {i.e., neither has a peak at the end} to be fixed to something more reasonable by adjusting levels.
Sep 23, 2016 11:16:29 #
Pablo8
Loc: Nottingham UK.
IowaGuy wrote:
That was my first guess. Meter on the walls and you'll be at least 1 stop underexposed as the meter is giving you an exposure for 18% gray. Try this again metering off the sunlit green (which in my understanding is near 18% gray in luminance).
***************************************************************************************************
The OP was using an INCIDENT reading from a HAND-HELD METER. Another' advisor' who thinks the OP was using TTL readings through the camera. A little knowledge is a dangerous thing. Please read (and fully understand) what the OP was doing, AND USING, to achieve his exposure readings.
Check out Sports Photography section of our forum.
Sep 23, 2016 11:16:49 #
kenArchi wrote:
Why do digital photos come out dark. They look lik... (show quote)
The Gossen meter is averaging everything. Try Spot Metering your camera on the "normally" light grass. Looks like your meter was averaging the bright wall. In my opinion, the wall of the first looks great where the wall in the 2nd one looks really close to being blown out. All that can be fixed to look good in post.
Sep 23, 2016 11:18:07 #
rehess wrote:
Here are histograms of the two images, as provided by gimp's "curves" tool.
It appears to me that neither image is slid too far off {i.e., neither has a peak at the end} to be fixed to something more reasonable by adjusting levels.
It appears to me that neither image is slid too far off {i.e., neither has a peak at the end} to be fixed to something more reasonable by adjusting levels.
You are correct. The image can be easily adjusted.
Apaflo wrote:
I'll give you a technical analysis, which will probably sort of blow your mind: They are both over exposed. What? you say! ...
What, indeed! Neither is overexposed. I guess you can add exposure and histograms to your research list.
Sep 23, 2016 11:26:06 #
kenArchi wrote:
... It seems like I always have to over expose my photos.
Maybe my camera needs exposure adjustment somehow.
Maybe my camera needs exposure adjustment somehow.
Before you bias your camera by adjusting the default exposure value setting, take some images where the range of brightness is not so extreme.
In this scene there is a white sunlit wall (which is not overexposed) and a deep shadow containing dark foliage. That would be a challenge for film as well as for digital.
The best approach here is to watch your histogram and blinkies and try to keep the brightest portions from blowing out. Then you can bring up the shadows in post processing.
Sep 23, 2016 11:44:35 #
If you want to reply, then register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.
Check out Underwater Photography Forum section of our forum.