An exposure question

[oldhippy]

Recently I took a shot that was way under exposed. When I adjusted this shot in Photoshop, the detail seemed better than a normal shot. This makes me wonder if I should underexpose a stop or two than adjust in PS. I am posting both before and after. I would appreciate any feedback.

 

[astroNikon]

Expose to the left - underexpose a bit is what I try
But then I read stuff like this --> Prolost - Blog - Exposing to the Left vs. Exposing to the*Right


It kinda seems like a Nikon vs Canon type debate after looking all over the internet. Which ... ironically we know which one is better

 

[Derrel]

Expose to the left - underexpose a bit is what I try
But then I read stuff like this --> Prolost - Blog - Exposing to the Left vs. Exposing to the*Right


It kinda seems like a Nikon vs Canon type debate after looking all over the internet. Which ... ironically we know which one is better

You are in trying to be amusing, revealing a fundamental truth: Canon users using even modern, full-frame cameras have to be VERY wary of under-exposing, or they get shadow noise that is horrible. As Fred Miranda himself shows, the shadows of the 5D Mark III are very filled with noise, whereas the Nikon D800's shadows are noise-free. His suggestion for 5D-II owners??? OVER-EXPOSE.

Part II - Controlled tests

As he writes, : "There is no question that the D800 does not disappoint in signal to noise ratio (SNR) at low ISO and has higher dynamic range. I'm still shocked by the differences.I know this is disappointing for Canon shooters but on the bright side, there is a workaround if you shoot RAW. Start by overexposing (up to 1 stop) above the correct exposure before taking your shot and then normalize the exposure later in software. This gives you the correct exposure but the shadow detail is much cleaner, just in case you need to push it a stop or two. Alternatively you could use ISO L (50) for low contrast situations whenever lighting and wind conditions allow. However, make sure that there is no clipping in the highlights (blinkies) because essentially when you are using ISO 50, you are already compromising highlight detail by about one stop. I've used this workaround for many years and have been happy with the results.
In regards to the Nikon D800 handing of noise in the shadow areas, I have to say it's nothing short of amazing! Kudos to Sony and Nikon for the new sensor partnership. The Exmor sensor is exceptional and there is so much detail in the shadows. I can push the shadows more than 4 stops without any hint of color noise. WOW! Let's just say the D800 sensor is a breakthrough in sensor technology."

 

[Derrel]

As far as the whole ETTR or Expose To The Right mantra: 10,12 years ago, it made total sense to do that. But, you know what? The new Nikons, with their wide-DR sensors, and better software, have allowed Nikon shooters to recover under-exposed shadows in software, to a degree that was simply IMPOSSIBLE when the majority of the earlier ETTR manifestos were written. The ability of newer software applications to "lift" under-exposed shadows, has become very advanced, over just the last few years. There was a time, that I remembr, when "digital fill light" had not yet been invented, nor had "recovery", not even "clarity" sliders...I man NONE of this stuff was aailable back when the ETTR manifestos were first written. We are no longer shooting on Nikon D1 cameras, or D100 cameras!!!

Under the old theory, a high-megapixel sensor would have utterly garbage results at higher ISO levels...there was a time when people thought the Nikon D700's 12-megapixel images would be vastly superior to those of the 36-megapixel Nikon D800's images; that little delusion and holding onto the past fantasy lasted about two months. Look at the Fred Miranda tests in the link above, and you can see that older sensor technology versus newer, state-of-the-art sensor technology means that Expose To The Right is no longer the fundamental gospel that it once was. oldhippy's image above shows just how far sensor technology has come.

When I first came to TPF, wayyy back in 2009, Pentax introduced a new APS-C K-series d-slr. At that time, there were some posts about grossly, deliberately under-exposing, at the equivalent speed and f/stop of ISO 54,000, which produced basically a BLACK frame, straight out of camera. But the user, using RawTherapee as I recall, as his raw image converter, was able to "lift" the shadows from pure black, to make a pretty decent image. That was back at the very start of the Sony Exmoor-generation sensors. That is about the time that the ETTR mantra became officially outdated in practical, real-world use. What ONCE was gospel, became merely historical information, in a day-to-day type sense.

 

[Overread]

I wonder if the increased detail is simply a joint result of;

1) Faster shutter speed - eliminating any handshake and subject motion

2) Smaller aperture giving a greater depth of field.


The underexposure though is going to generate lots of noise which will cause its own degradation of the image quality.

 

[oldhippy]

Am I understanding anything. Nope. Will I ever. Probably not. My question is. Does underexposed deliver more detail in PP.

 

[astroNikon]

I've done this same thing many times. Take a photo with the exposure way too dark .. "happy finger on the release button" syndrome
Then later in Lightroom use the exposure and shadow feature and get a pretty good photo considering it was nearly black.

All I can say is that I like my cameras

 

[Overread]

Under exposure won't, on its own, render more detail.

I forgot one other element which is that underexposure is likely making the contrast of the shot stand out more because your blacks and shadows are going to remain strong and well defined even as you increase the brightness. This is going to give an appearance of sharper crisper detail because part of how we see sharpness is by contrast differences in a scene.

The stronger the contrast the stronger we see a sharp boundary.

 

[KmH]

My question is. Does underexposed deliver more detail in PP.

No.

Because - http://www.adobe.com/digitalimag/pdfs/linear_gamma.pdf

 

[ann]

and this is why one should test their cameras before deciding one method is better than the other

 

[Pejacre]

I expose to the left cause my underexposed areas always seem to be more recoverable than blown highlights, so I want to avoid them. I'm still amazed how much detail can be recovered from the shadows.

 

[paigew]

I shoot canon. I generally ETTR. But not always.