Exposure

[mandabec]

I was just wondering which is easier to edit in PS. A photograph that is under exposed or over exposed?

I know ideally you should take a pic that is just right but just wondering which side is better to err.

Thanks!

 

[Remi M.]

If had to pick one it would be underexposed.

With a overexposed image you will never get detail back from a blownout area.

With a Underexposed image you can adjust it but at a price of noise and artifacts which can to some extent be dealt with.

 

[Garbz]

On that same note if it's underexposed to the point of being black you lose detail there too. Oh and you get colour shifts and noise if you bump things too much. Neither is ideal but underexposed is more manageable.

 

[Groupcaptainbonzo]

I am assuming that you are digital. IN THE MAIN you will loose detail in blown highlights, but blocked up shadows will often be retreivable. Just like with trannies, Expose for the highlights and print for the shadows.

If your meter is working well you should have no probs... so expose normally. it is BY FAR the best way. However.. If in doubt underexpose by a third or a half. but that is a bacon saver, the best images will be correctly exposed... that is why it is the correct exposure..

If for some reason you decide that you actually like the looks of over or under exposed images, then you can always recreate that look in post production (PhotoShop or whatever). while an image with incorrect exposure will always be just that. P.P. (Post production work) will help, may even salvage. But it will never give the perfect results of a well exposed image.