exposing to the right and highlight control

[tirediron]

My biggest complaint with "expose to the right" is that Nikon exposure meters overexpose to the LEFT.

This is because Nikon does not accept the 18% grey standard that just about every other company that makes light meters, or exposure control devices, cameras, etc does. They use a standard closer to 14.5 - 15%. I had a LONG telephone "discussion" with Nikon technical people about this, and they refused to tell me exactly what their meters were designed (the 14.5 - 15% is a based on research and personal experiments), nor did the acknowledge that 18% grey is even remotely common. It still annoys the **** out of me, but it's better than going Canon!

 

[E6filmuser]

Nikon are being stupid. 18% is the universal standard.

 

[DeadEye]

When you say "expose to the right," the assumption is that normally you'd be exposing at the center, i.e. normal exposure. To say that the correct way to expose is to not expose normally is to say that the correct exposure is not, in fact, the correct exposure. That's a fallacy from any logical or semantic standpoint.

Again, beginning with the assumption that normal and correct are semantically equivalent, if it is the case (per whatever anecdotal evidence) that overexposure is correct exposure, then the correct exposure is not the normal exposure. Therefore, the correct exposure is actually not the correct exposure. Logical fallacy.

Now I'll grant that there are times when you would want to over or underexpose. But you'd be doing that to compensate for the way the meter is reading the scene. You can over- or under-expose relative to the meter reading and still be exposing correctly. What that signifies is not that the correct exposure is wrong (remember that logically the correct exposure is always correct, and therefore exposing in a way that's different from the correct exposure is by definition incorrect), but simply that the correct exposure is something other than what the meter's telling you. This is precisely why we have so many different methods of metering and understanding exposure.

So, moral of the story....if your camera is giving you bad readings all the time, then there's a problem with your camera. It's that simple.

I think what may have prompted the OP to this thread is a subject with competing surfaces, out in the wild were we cant control the light. The sun a harsh point source striking the white fur and reflecting bright diffuse light and the black fur reflecting direct light much less intense. In this case an average "CORRECT" exposure will lead to blown highlight in the whites and/or underexposed blacks. There is no correct exposure in this case but ways to deal with it . Like changing viewpoint or waiting till the light is better.

Personally I would rather underexpose the dark and keep the white detail or wait till better light . But much of my work is crap so take that for what its worth. Just my preference for high noon shooting.

Point is there are two differant correct exposures for same scene.

 

[manaheim]

This is because Nikon does not accept the 18% grey standard that just about every other company that makes light meters, or exposure control devices, cameras, etc does. They use a standard closer to 14.5 - 15%. I had a LONG telephone "discussion" with Nikon technical people about this, and they refused to tell me exactly what their meters were designed (the 14.5 - 15% is a based on research and personal experiments), nor did the acknowledge that 18% grey is even remotely common. It still annoys the **** out of me, but it's better than going Canon!

Well, that's interesting... didn't know that. However, I was actually merely referring to the fact that the light meter in the camera has overexposed to the left on the meter instead of the right, as Canon appears to.

 

[dEARlEADER]

Well, that's interesting... didn't know that. However, I was actually merely referring to the fact that the light meter in the camera has overexposed to the left on the meter instead of the right, as Canon appears to.

well... i think term expose to the right pertains to the histogram not the direction of the meter......

regarding the meter... the d300 does allow you the option to reverse the display so you can read it like a canon... just don't blame me if someone roughs you up for your lunch money after they see you've done this.....

may as well coat your best lenses with liquid paper while ur at it...

 

[ksmattfish]

18% is the universal standard.

That's what the Photo 101 books say, but there is actually quite a bit of disagreement as to whether there really is a standard. I've read some experts on camera gear claim most meters measure for 13% gray. There's also been rumors about the "K factor" around for decades, which is a premise that meters in consumer cameras are set to approx 1 stop brighter than middle gray because most of their buyers are light skinned whites and asians, and it makes for better portrait exposure, particularly with neg film.

There's also the issue of manufacturing quality control and calibration. I sold cameras for 4 years. When we were bored we fiddled with gear. It was my experience that you could take a gray card, place it in unchanging light, and meter it with various cameras, and even in the same model line the camera meters varied by up to a stop. This occurred in Nikon, Canon, Pentax, Olympus, and Pentax. We eliminated as many variables as possible by using the same settings, such as metering modes, and filling the frame with the gray card.

That's why individual film speed testing is so important. Variations in supposedly identical gear is part of how come 2 students in Photo 101, both using the same gear, film, and processing techniques can come up with completely different personal ISOs. We used TMY-400 in Photo 101. After we did film testing most people ended up with a personal ISO around 200, but a few stayed at 400, and some even got 800. We were all using major brand name 35mm film SLRs.

http://bythom.com/graycards.htm

http://www.richardhess.com/photo/18no.htm

In the end the great thing about digital, and having a histogram available, is that I can analyze the exposure itself, and i don't have to rely on the meter being 100% accurate. The histogram tells me much more than the meter ever did.

EDIT: "correct exposure" is an opinion. If the exposure allows the photographer to realize their vision the best it is correct. If it causes problems in realizing their vision it is incorrect. It doesn't matter if expose to the right works for me. It only matters what exposure techniques work for you.

 

[manaheim]

well... i think term expose to the right pertains to the histogram not the direction of the meter......

Oh you know, I think I had figured that out once and forgot again.

regarding the meter... the d300 does allow you the option to reverse the display so you can read it like a canon... just don't blame me if someone roughs you up for your lunch money after they see you've done this.....

may as well coat your best lenses with liquid paper while ur at it...

hahahaha...

No, no... see, I assume Nikon is right. Even if it defies the laws of nature and physics, if Nikon chooses it to be so, then it must be so. :lmao:

 

[roadkill]

Can't you just reduce highlights in RAW?

 

[Overread]

You can only take highlights so far - and working with false HDR (ie editing the RAW twice and combining the results) takes a lot of time - I would prefer to get things right in camera rather than have to spend ages editing a shot to get the right effect

and a totally blown highlight holds no details to restore to anyway (same for a total underexposure as well)

 

[Josh66]

Can't you just reduce highlights in RAW?

A little, but if they're blown - they're blown...

 

[roadkill]

Correct exposure is what you want man.

 

[nynfortoo]

Who ever said exposing to the right meant purposefully blowing your highlights?

Exposing to the right means you let as much light in as possible without blowing the highlights, then darkening by X% in post to correct the exposure.

 

[Overread]

not me - I was just wondering if there was any way to expose more the right without blowing the highlights in cases where there are strong points of light in a shot, but not over the whole of the shot

 

[nynfortoo]

not me - I was just wondering if there was any way to expose more the right without blowing the highlights in cases where there are strong points of light in a shot, but not over the whole of the shot

I know — you know better than that, mate

 

[JerryPH]

13%, 18%... I could not really care much less what the exact numbers are. I'll work around it in the end. What I *do* think is more important, is to know *what* to meter against. In this manner, *I* choose both what I am metering against and what I want my final results to be.

There are limitations to both film and dynamic range in digital and film (film is known to have some greater dynamic range than digital, though), so what I strive to perfect is to expose that part of the picture that is most important for me, so that I get the final results that I want with the equipment that I own.

Though in film you expose to the right, in the digital world, one will *generally* get better results if they expose for the highlights. This prevents blowing out important parts of the picture.