Beginner Exposing which way?

kellett

kellett

Messages
551
Edit My Images
Yes
Good morning

Iv come across a few threads on here and other sources saying about exposing to the right to get the best quality from a photo without clipping the highlights.

Was very happy with the idea and seem to make sense. Then I came across an example on the d750 thread where a fellow member had under exposed his wedding photos to retain detail for the sky. Bringing the exposure back up in post production the results were very good.

So I'm a little confused as to which way to expose my photos? Does it really matter as long as your not clipping either side?

Cheers kellett
 
Maximum exposure will result in minimum noise. But maximum depends on the photo, in particular you need to be careful not so clip anything important. In some cases you need to underexpose to hold highlight detail and recover the shadows in post. In more modern cameras the penalty for this is not too bad, particulary at low ISOs.
 
Don't forget that if your image is of a dark subject the histogram NEEDS to be the left to be correctly exposed. Conversely if your subject is "high-key" it NEEDS to be to the right.

Edit: I see from glancing at the update to the luminous landscape article linked to above that this is not necessarily true.

So take it with a pinch of salt!
 
Last edited:
jerry12953 said:
Don't forget that if your image is of a dark subject the histogram NEEDS to be the left to be correctly exposed. Conversely if your subject is "high-key" it NEEDS to be to the right.

Edit: I see from glancing at the update to the luminous landscape article linked to above that this is not necessarily true.

So take it with a pinch of salt!
Click to expand...

Not sure about 'need'... It's the difference between 'correct' exposure, and 'optimum' exposure.

Technically correct exposure is when mid-tones in the subject appear as mid-tones in the image file - in the middle of the histogram, with highlights to the right and shadows to the left.

However, if the subject doesn't contain any important bright highlights, you can over-expose the technically correct level and push everything to the right of the histogram, usually by at least one stop, often two stops (the exact level is subject-dependent). The theory behind this is there's way more image data recorded in highlights than shadows, so the more exposure you can give, the more shadow detail you'll have with better tone separation and less noise. The downside is that highlights will clip of course, so it takes a bit of knowledge and experience of where the limits lie with your camera.

The opposite of this is deliberate under-exposure, usually to retain detail in a bright sky, then lift the shadows back up in post processing. This will reduce shadow detail and increase noise, but modern cameras are often quite forgiving and respond surprisingly well to this kind of 'abuse' at low ISO.
 
  • Like
Reactions: BBR
The OP isnt mentioning anyhting about shooting in odd conditions.. surely a normal center exposure is the correct answer.. you over or under expose (left or right) if the conditions are not normal..
 
HoppyUK said:
Not sure about 'need'... It's the difference between 'correct' exposure, and 'optimum' exposure.

Technically correct exposure is when mid-tones in the subject appear as mid-tones in the image file - in the middle of the histogram, with highlights to the right and shadows to the left.

However, if the subject doesn't contain any important bright highlights, you can over-expose the technically correct level and push everything to the right of the histogram, usually by at least one stop, often two stops (the exact level is subject-dependent). The theory behind this is there's way more image data recorded in highlights than shadows, so the more exposure you can give, the more shadow detail you'll have with better tone separation and less noise. The downside is that highlights will clip of course, so it takes a bit of knowledge and experience of where the limits lie with your camera.

The opposite of this is deliberate under-exposure, usually to retain detail in a bright sky, then lift the shadows back up in post processing. This will reduce shadow detail and increase noise, but modern cameras are often quite forgiving and respond surprisingly well to this kind of 'abuse' at low ISO.
Click to expand...

I bow to your superior knowledge, Richard.
 
jerry12953 said:
I bow to your superior knowledge, Richard.
Click to expand...

No need for the bow Jerry :D

And what you said is quite right, just that there are other ways of looking at it.
 
Thanks for the replies some great information :) seems iv started photography at a more forgiving time with these new sensors.


HoppyUK said:
Not sure about 'need'... It's the difference between 'correct' exposure, and 'optimum' exposure.

Technically correct exposure is when mid-tones in the subject appear as mid-tones in the image file - in the middle of the histogram, with highlights to the right and shadows to the left.

However, if the subject doesn't contain any important bright highlights, you can over-expose the technically correct level and push everything to the right of the histogram, usually by at least one stop, often two stops (the exact level is subject-dependent). The theory behind this is there's way more image data recorded in highlights than shadows, so the more exposure you can give, the more shadow detail you'll have with better tone separation and less noise. The downside is that highlights will clip of course, so it takes a bit of knowledge and experience of where the limits lie with your camera.

The opposite of this is deliberate under-exposure, usually to retain detail in a bright sky, then lift the shadows back up in post processing. This will reduce shadow detail and increase noise, but modern cameras are often quite forgiving and respond surprisingly well to this kind of 'abuse' at low ISO.
Click to expand...

I understand every scene you will have to gauge on how to expose correctly depending on subject. Are there different rules for landscape? usually you will have a large range of tones from low to high. Say you exposed to the right with the use of nd grad filter would you be able to push the boundaries more to obtain optimum exposure as the filter would be holding the highlights back?
 
kellett said:
I understand every scene you will have to gauge on how to expose correctly depending on subject. Are there different rules for landscape? usually you will have a large range of tones from low to high. Say you exposed to the right with the use of nd grad filter would you be able to push the boundaries more to obtain optimum exposure as the filter would be holding the highlights back?
Click to expand...

Frankly I wouldn't worry too much about grad filters as they can be a bit awkward to get good results with.

And a Grad filter is usually used to hold back skies to get more detail in them so in that case you could expose to the right more to bring up shadow detail (if it needed it).

But your best friend really is the histogram which can tell you straight away whether you need to increase or decrease the exposure.

just make sure you check it first on a variety of scenes to make sure you know where the limits on it truly lie as it can be slightly out.

Really you want to get the exposure so that it all fits on the histogram with no highlights clipped and no shadows blocked.

But on a really bright day that may not be possible so the choice then is to decide what is more important, the highlights or the shadows, and expose accordingly, or expose more for the highlights and pull the shadows up in PP, or turn to HDR to accommodate the full range of tones.
.
 
kellett said:
Thanks for the replies some great information :) seems iv started photography at a more forgiving time with these new sensors.
Click to expand...
Unfortunately not. Print film has both a greater dynamic range and greater latitude. Colour transparency film (slides) had less latitude but still had greater dynamic range than your 'new sensor'.

The limited dynamic range of your 'modern sensor' is the last advantage of film.
 
Phil V said:
Unfortunately not. Print film has both a greater dynamic range and greater latitude. Colour transparency film (slides) had less latitude but still had greater dynamic range than your 'new sensor'.

The limited dynamic range of your 'modern sensor' is the last advantage of film.
Click to expand...
I would agree when we consider the highlight side of things. Digital sensors have a nasty highlight clipping characteristic to them compared to film. And all of the "increased" dynamic range of the modern sensors hasn't helped this at all.
BUT, the increases in dynamic range has been a BIG improvement in shadow detail/recovery which makes ETTR make even less sense IMO (I never did care for it).

I always go for a "normal exposure." The stop or two of recovery on the high side is my "protection" from blowing out things I might want.
 
Last edited:
Me too. I always thought that exposing to the right was a silly catchphrase and that the method (if such it is) had a fatal flaw. Highlights must normally rule. Take it from there. Think slide film, if you like.
 
Hi, Maybe get slatted for this but!!
And JMO here.
No camera can actually give you an exact exposure and my reasoning is that a camera does not no what it is supposed to expose for.
You point your camera at a subject either a face or a vista to set what you the photographer wants an image of you also set through the system the exposure you want but the camera sees all the light around and makes a calculated guess at what the exposure should be within middle grey.
I use a hand held meter and trust what it says as it is giving me the measure of light and that's all, no matter if the light is direct above me or miles away the reading will be the same I also do ETTR by 2 stops set into the meter as I no that my camera has at least 3 stops of latitude on both sides.
As I said this is JMO and the way I like to work.
To the OP, when/if you get a chance go outside on a day when there are white clouds in the sky and take one image from the camera exposure of the clouds then another two stops over and ask yourself what image has white clouds and is the camera metered slightly grey?
 
With film, we can expand or contract the contrast to suit the scene. i.e. for a low contrast scene, extra development is given to make the brightness range fit the dynamic range of the film. Conversely, a high contrast scene can be given less development to make its range fit.

Is there a digital, in camera equivalent? (I know it can be done in post processing) I seem to remember something about contrast presets back in the olden days when I had a D100.

Phil V said:
The limited dynamic range of your 'modern sensor' is the last advantage of film.
Click to expand...

Apart from the low cost of the equipment and the eccentricity value!


Steve.
 
Last edited:
russellsnr said:
No camera can actually give you an exact exposure and my reasoning is that a camera does not no what it is supposed to expose for.
Click to expand...
Nothing can ever give you an exact exposure... because it doesn't know what your intent is.
is the camera metered slightly grey?
Click to expand...
All meters are set to grey... it's just a matter of knowing what is being metered and how.
 
Thanks for the replies, will be sticking with the histogram for the mean while I don't think iv got to the stage of using a hand held light meter. I probably wouldn't even be able to tell the difference in a photo with one exposed with a dslr and one with a light meter.

Phil V said:
Unfortunately not. Print film has both a greater dynamic range and greater latitude. Colour transparency film (slides) had less latitude but still had greater dynamic range than your 'new sensor'.

The limited dynamic range of your 'modern sensor' is the last advantage of film.
Click to expand...

I was always under the assumption that the digital range of sensors were better than print film. Me falling for Industry marketing as new 'MUST' be better.

Kellett
 
kellett said:
Thanks for the replies, will be sticking with the histogram for the mean while I don't think iv got to the stage of using a hand held light meter. I probably wouldn't even be able to tell the difference in a photo with one exposed with a dslr and one with a light meter.



I was always under the assumption that the digital range of sensors were better than print film. Me falling for Industry marketing as new 'MUST' be better.

Kellett
Click to expand...
There's no difference in the end result, as long as you know what your meter is doing. ie if you're shooting a snow scene, you'll not just accept your meters 'correct' and you'll either use EC or spot metering or exp lock etc. An incident meter will get you the same shot quicker. It's not a case of it being more accurate, it's a different way to the correct result.

Print film is very forgiving, look how simple a disposable camera is. Take one outside in the 'daylight' and you'll get 24 'correctly exposed' pictures all shot at the same aperture / shutter speed. Your DSLR and it's meter will be giving you loads of different exposure settings for open shade, full sun, evening light, bright subject, dark subject etc.
 
Phil V said:
Print film is very forgiving, look how simple a disposable camera is. Take one outside in the 'daylight' and you'll get 24 'correctly exposed' pictures all shot at the same aperture / shutter speed. Your DSLR and it's meter will be giving you loads of different exposure settings for open shade, full sun, evening light, bright subject, dark subject etc.
Click to expand...

That's how Kodak's box cameras worked. They just gave one exposure which would have been correct for a dull day. On a bright day you got a couple of stops extra exposure - which came out fine and on a very dull day you got a couple of stops under exposure which also came out fine, albeit with a bit less contrast - which is how you remembered it as it was dull!

Another way of thinking about lattitude is to consider that it's how far you can get it wrong then ghet away with it!


Steve.
 
It's also worth pointing out, seeing as this is in "Talk Beginners" that shooting RAW gives a whole lot more leeway when working with highlights and shadows.
 
I think we need to go back a bit a lot to the early days of digital, when the 'expose to the right' "rule" started.
Back then, image noise was a massive problem, and underexposure was a big no no, which gave some validity to the 'expose to the right' theory.
Those days have long gone (at least with DSLR cameras) so exposing 'to the right' of the histogram is more of a personal choice than a necessity.
Me? I use medium format and full frame cameras, so personally I prefer to err on the side of caution, which means that I expose to the left - which suits the type of work I happen to do, but it doesn't make me either right or wrong.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top