To underexpose slightly or expose to the right ? - that is the question

[Big Mike]

Would I be correct in saying that when shooting RAW there is a tiny bit more latitude than the histogram is telling me

I have found this to be the case most times.

Also, remember that different cameras use different methods from creating the histogram, you might have usable data on a different channel than what is used for the histogram.

 

[ksmattfish]

Would I be correct in saying that when shooting RAW there is a tiny bit more latitude than the histogram is telling me due to the fact that it represents a jpeg of the image rather than the raw ?

That is my experience. Set the in-camera processing parameters as close to neutral as you can, and if your camera has it check the RGB histogram. Even with my cameras set to neutral the histogram generated from the display jpeg is slightly off from what I'm going to see in the raw processing software. Areas that the camera says are at 255 are actually darker than that.

 

[usayit]

But no matter how much more detail is in the shadows, you're still going to have a much more noisier image than if you would over expose by 1/3 of a stop. Over exposing by about 1/3 of a stop will not blow out highlights unless you're shooting in an environment that has that much of a dynamic range where even a regular exposure will blow out highlights. Like shooting outside on a sunny day.

In bright high noon sunny daylight when blowing out the highlights are more likely (high contrast), I am shooting at the lowest ISO possible. Noise in the shadows are just not an issue. As such, I expose for highlights (underexpose) and recover the shadows. My most used camera recovers shadows nicely and most digital SLRs are incapable of recovering blown out highlights.

In dark dim light situations, I am experiencing the opposite. Highlights are not an issue. Noise in the shadows are a concern. I then over expose.

I have 5 different digital cameras that I enjoy each with different sensors and processors. The differences between the RAW files produced with each is very noticeable. Some my do better exposing in one way while others are best leveraged in another. This is one of the problems with shooting with a variety of different Digital cameras... it takes a while to learn them and keep them straight in your head.

The problem with this discussion is that I'll state what I do and then their will be others that insist that I am incorrect. The variable we are all missing is that each digital camera is different just like slide films and negative films are also shot differently. This is why there is a wide variety of answers being posted.

For us film shooters, the transition to digital can be a bit frustrating since we are working a narrower dynamic range. I can't wait till this mpixel race is over (almost is) and they start working on improving that aspect of digital photography.

 

[Moglex]

+1 :thumbup:





Could you make some loud metallic breathing noises when saying this please?

[Sir Alec Guinness voice]

To get the perfect exposure you have to feel the force.

 

[ksmattfish]

The problem with this discussion is that I'll state what I do and then their will be others that insist that I am incorrect. The variable we are all missing is that each digital camera is different just like slide films and negative films are also shot differently. This is why there is a wide variety of answers being posted.

For us film shooters, the transition to digital can be a bit frustrating since we are working a narrower dynamic range.

When I first read this I almost posted something like "What are you talking about? DSLRs obviously have more dynamic range than color film." That's been my experience, and what many of my education sources believe. For once I decided to actually research something before spouting off, so I googled it instead. I was surprised to find that about 1/2 the experts think DSLR dynamic range barely matches slide film (5ish stops), and the other 1/2 think it has 8+ stops with many claiming 10 to 12. How can so many experienced people using the same equipment have such different experiences or perceive such a difference?

The biggest variable of all is the photographer. It's not just skill and experience. Personal taste in everything from technique to education to how they look at the world affect how photography works for each person. When it comes to what works best personal testing is all that counts. I find that my Canon DSLRs tend to be a bit wary of the right end of the histogram on their own. I always shoot raw, and take full advantage of having the histogram available. If it looks like I can move it over to the right a bit, and not max out the highlights, I go for it. That works for me. It doesn't affect what works for someone else one way or the other.