Exposing to the right

[Eagle74]

Hi everyone,

I need some expert advice. I want to shoot in manual as much as possible but zero'ing out the meter often gives unexpected exposures.

As a newbie shooting Raw and post processing should I be checking the histogram and adjusting until I am at the edge of clipping the hightlights?

I read somewhere on the "internets" that this is a good idea, but I simply don't know enough to know if this will be a good practice to adopt.

 

[SCraig]

If all you are doing is picking a scene, zeroing the meter, and shooting then you might as well just shoot in auto mode. All you are doing is setting the dials the same way the camera would, so what's the difference? If you are going to shoot in manual mode, which in my personal opinion is frequently overrated, then the goal is to UNDERSTAND exposure and not just mimic what the camera picks out.

Meter on something that will correspond to neutral gray in direct sunlight, set that as your manual exposure value, and then compensate when the light changes or you point in a different direction. Crushed stone, light-colored asphalt, grass, even the palm of your hand will work. LOOK at the light. See what the differences are. Then compensate for them; is it brighter or dimmer, is the subject in shade instead of direct sunlight? In time you'll understand WHY the adjustments do what they do.

As to exposing to the right, read This for a good understanding.

 

[apaflo]

Hi everyone,

I need some expert advice. I want to shoot in manual as much as possible but zero'ing out the meter often gives unexpected exposures.

As a newbie shooting Raw and post processing should I be checking the histogram and adjusting until I am at the edge of clipping the hightlights?

I read somewhere on the "internets" that this is a good idea, but I simply don't know enough to know if this will be a good practice to adopt.

The "right" way is to learn the advantages of each exposure mode and then pick the appropriate mode as required for whatever you are doing.

That said, the most common configuration that I use is Manual Exposure, with AutoISO, and then fine tuned with whatever amount of Exposure Compensation is required. Generally I use a center weighted light meter setting.

None of that is ever cast in concrete and for any given shot or for an entire job I may well switch to something else. (I don't think I've ever really used a "Programmed Mode" for other than testing. I also never use Matrix Metering or Active D Lighting, which are Nikon specific light metering variations.)

So what's that all mean??? I set Aperture and Shutter Speed for artistic effects. I let the camera adjust ISO to get an appropriate image, though I might "recalibrate" the light meter a little up or down using Exposure Compensation. This absolutely invovles monitoring the camera's Blinking Highlight display and the RGB histograms. Maybe not for every shot, but absolutely for the first few shots until I've got it "right", and every now and then or anytime the light changes to make sure things stay "right".

 

[Eagle74]

You guys who can just pick something in a scene to meter off of seem like Camera Jedi's to me..lol.

This is good stuff.

SCraig- Thank you for that link and your advice, I have Bryan Peterson's "Understanding Exposure" on the way. Seems like there is more to know than just zero'ing out the meter. And that link you provided is Gold!

Apaflo- I just started experiment with Auto-Iso and It works well. I set it to maximum 1600 indoors and the images look great, well..as far as noise goes they look great...composition now that's another story!

 

[apaflo]

composition now that's another story!

Here's a link about composition for you:

"Entropy and Art" by Rudolf Arnheim

It's about the philosophy, not the specifics. And it isn't even specific to photography, but applies to any visual art. Worse, Arnheim isn't exactly an easy read (he emigrated to the US from Germany, and was a classically trained psychologist before that)

"When nothing superfluous is included and nothing indispensable left out,
one can understand the interrelation of the whole and its parts,
as well as the hierarchic scale of importance and power
by which some structural features are dominant, others subordinate."

Rudolf Arnheim (1904-2007) had a very profound effect on the world of art during his lifetime. If you can understand composition in the terms of the above quote and implement it in photography, that will be your "another story".

 

[KmH]

it helps a great deal if you understand metering - Understanding Camera Metering and Exposure

 

[ShootRaw]

Shooting manual is not over-rated..It is the most accurate way to shoot once you understand it..

 

[bratkinson]

Shooting manual is not over-rated. It is the most accurate way to shoot once you understand it..

There should be emphasis on the 'once you understand it' part of the statement. But I'm also of the camp on the side of manual IS overrated.

It seems to me that manual is overrated by inexperienced photographers erroneously believing it is 'the perfect way' for all photography. All too often, we see threads on this forum and others asking 'what settings do I use for...'. And, as always, there are NO magic 'settings to use for...' that will always work. Not even the Sunny 16 rule will work unfailingly on bright sunny days…shooting into a shadow, or backlit, for example. Without an understanding of WHY a particular combination of ISO, shutter speed and aperture provides a specific result, one can only blindly try to get some combination that gives decent results under those specific lighting conditions. 　

While it’s a goal to shoot as the professionals do, going from "A" to "M" is considerably more difficult than simply turning the little wheel on the top left. In my learning curve to go from A to M I spent a lot of time shooting in P, Av and Tv. Too often, some decide that manual is the silver bullet that will make every picture they take perfectly exposed, perfectly sharp, perfect contrast, perfect saturation, etc. It is. But ONLY if one knows what are the benefits and consequences of every exposure adjustment they make. Granted, failure is a great teacher. But having hundreds of overexposed, underexposed, or blurred pictures caused by trying to shoot everything in manual mode can ruin a vacation, or a family wedding, etc. By the way…on my upcoming vacation in May, I expect to shoot mostly in Auto mode! 　

Manual is also overrated and used as a ‘snob’ tool by those who purport to use it 100% of the time or stating it’s the ONLY way to shoot. It’s akin to saying that they only drive Ferraris and everyone else is beneath them. I drive a Chrysler. I guess that makes me a loser in photography as well as choice of cars.​

 

[Gavjenks]

In my opinion, manual is pretty much only good for studio shoots, where the lighting stays the same for dozens of shots in a row. Simply as a way of stopping the camera from messing with stuff.

Yeah the meter is often wrong, but you can correct for that just as easily with exposure compensation in any other "Creative" mode as you can in manual, and for those times when you don't need correction, it's faster and does more of the tedious math for you.

But I digress from the real question being asked. "Exposing to the right" is a concept that cuts across any single shooting mode. You can ETTR in manual or aperture priority, or whatever. And yes, it is often a good idea. Always a good idea, in fact, if you have the time to do it, and if you don't have weird artistic goals for the shoot. But it does take awhile to do constantly, and requires more than one shot. So you really shouldn't rely on it as a 100% of the time, this-is-all-I-do sort of thing, because you'll miss any brief momentary shots, and you will lower your output and harmfully distract your cognitive resources at times when the action is fast and furious.

 

[ShootRaw]

It is quite the opposite^^^Manual is more important outside because light is always changing..So adjusting it manually will be more accurate ...
Now for events, A-priority with exposure compensation is a norm...

 

[bribrius]

I almost always try to use manual mode. Auto is like cheating on a test. Plus I heard once that they made auto mode to try to mimick great photographers adjustments. Key I suppose is auto TRIES to mimmick. That means auto isn't as good as great photography or photgraphers but second best.
who wants to come in second place or second best?

plus honestly, I don't know how the hell you people are using auto mode. I try to and a good portion of the pics I take in auto come out like crap. I have to use manual sometimes. like I have no choice. lower shutter drop iso notch up exposure lower aperature. I dunno what you would do in auto in some cases. Do you just take the picture and then say "damn, it didn't work" and give up?
My biggest problem however, seems to be I forget to change crap back. Pull the camera out again, take a pic. "what the hell????"
Then I have restore back to orginal settings. Other thing is modes. shutter app or different landscapes. My dam camera only allows you to adjust the ap and shutter so much. So spin down trying to go to the lower and the thing wont go beneath f4.2 or something. wth? oh. mode??? So I get annoyed in modes and go back to manual. Another reason. I hate not being able to adjust things where I want. But im still learning so...............
But auto, go outside at night or dusk. put it in auto. take a pic,. crap. that didn't work. okay, put it in landscape mode, take a pic. crap. that didn't work. okay. put it in night landscape mode. take a pic. crap. that didn't work. okay. put it in automatic scene selector. take a pic. crap. that didn't work.
okay. hell with this. time to try out manual again.

I just started trying to get used to manual to save myself the headache....
But then... okay. try to keep low iso . take pic. wth. that didn't work. lower ap. take pic what the hell? blurry. increase shutter take a pic. wth? dark. lower shutter, raise iso a notch. bring ap up . crap... almost. better... lower app again. take a pic. crap.. too far.. raise ap slow shutter .. finally... FINALLY...
And .. no ****...
I just did it. That mofo came out...
unless you play with zoom or something then that throw it off.
exposure compensation manual meter click okay? yes. usually works . I do it sometimes? sometimes just think"oh its dim" and click it up a couple?
And a thousand times later...
maybe you get better at manual. Im better than I was, It doesn't take fifty tries anymore at least....
im still learning though.

 

[manaheim]

My suggestion to you... as a newbie... is to put your camera in aperture mode, possibly program mode (not Auto), and just worry about your compositions.

Shoot in manual when you realize that shooting in an automatic mode failed you.

Photography, and the artistry of photography, are INSANELY steep learning curves as it is. The last thing you need to do is overcomplicate them by throwing away perfectly useful tools that are available on your camera on day one.

 

[apaflo]

It is quite the opposite^^^Manual is more important outside because light is always changing..So adjusting it manually will be more accurate ...
Now for events, A-priority with exposure compensation is a norm...

The idea that manual exposure produces a more accurate result is incorrect. Whether the camera is configured manually or automatically the accuracy depends on how accurate the light meter is. The same light meter is used for manual exposure as for automatic exposure! In fact, the camera can autormatically read the meter and set exposure with finer granularity than can be done manually, though the difference is insignificant.

With either Manual Exposure mode or one of the auto modes the meter can be offset using some form of Exposure Compensation. It all works out to exactly the same accuracy either way.

What might be different is either the ease with which an accurate setting is perceived or obtained and how quickly it is done. That might well be easier and faster using Manual Exposure mode for some people and might just as well be faster for some others using an Auto Exposure mode. (To be very honest, the only time Manual Exposure is faster or easier is when you don't understand how to decide what is needed and set it!)

It is correct that straight Manual Exposure mode is more likely to be useful in the studio than not. Set once, and no change is needed unless the lighting is changed. Auto Exposure means making sure what you are measuring is the same every single time, and even a minor change in the framing of a scene will change what is measured. The result, for precise exposure, is tedious work unless Manual Exposure is used.

Outdoors however, the same might apply for some types of work, but the lighting is not totally under the control of the photographer and that "tedious work" is necessary for every significant time interval anyway.

It is pure nonsense when people make statements such as Shutter Priority is best 90% of the time, or the same about Aperture Priority or Manual Mode. That might well be true for their style, their talent, and/or their work. It will absolutely vary with different photographers.

The only valid way to approach which mode is to learn them all and be able to choose the right one and know how to use it. For example, some events might well work best using Aperture Priority because subject isolation is the most significant artistic effect for those particular images. That would be true if the subjects being photographed are not moving in a way that needs to be accounted for. Weddings, birthday parties, and other social events are examples. Sporting events are different, and Shutter Priority is commonly more important because subjects need to be "frozen" in just the right amount! Some motion blur, but not too much, requires a very specific shutter speed.

And often enough it is far better to let ISO float using AutoISO while the actual exposure (shutter speed and aperture) are both set manually for artistic effect.

In any case, all of these exposure modes are only as accurate as the light meter. They are only as easy as how well they are understood. And each of them is best in some circumstances and not appropriate in others.

 

[bribrius]

My suggestion to you... as a newbie... is to put your camera in aperture mode, possibly program mode (not Auto), and just worry about your compositions.

Shoot in manual when you realize that shooting in an automatic mode failed you.

Photography, and the artistry of photography, are INSANELY steep learning curves as it is. The last thing you need to do is overcomplicate them by throwing away perfectly useful tools that are available on your camera on day one.

that's THE THING. the twenty or so modes confuse me more than being in manual. :mrgreen:

 

[TCampbell]

Manual is only more accurate if you use an incident light meter to take your meter reading and dial in the exposure based on that and not based on the in-camera meter -- and especially if you're taking multiple meter readings (highlight readings, shadow readings) and then using an exposure which does not clip or blow the range of the camera. You could put your camera into spot metering mode then look for the brightest point and darkest point you can find in the scene, meter those separately, then find the middle exposure -- although matrix or evaluative metering mode will try to do this for you anyway.

Otherwise consider this:

You activate the meter in your camera while on Manual mode. You see an arrow through the viewfinder which indicates if you are over-exposed or under-exposed. You adjust ISO, shutter, and aperture until the arrow points to the "0" ... indicating a correct exposure for the amount of light the camera metered.

OR

In any of the semi-auto-modes you select either the aperture (possibly used to control the depth of field of the shot) or shutter (to control the motion of the shot) priority and dial in what you need... then the camera meters the scene and automatically sets the complementary parts of the exposure to provide a correct exposure for the amount of light the camera metered.

Now think about this... in BOTH scenarios... the final exposure was based on producing a correct exposure for the amount of light the camera metered. Neither is "more accurate" then the other.

This is why I say the ONLY time it would actually be MORE accurate is if you use an incident meter, because an incident meter is checking for the amount of light falling on the subject you care about and NOT using the amount of light being reflected off the subject you care about. Incident meters are thus more accurate -- but they are more cumbersome and if the shot you're taking is a "landscape", you may not want to hike out 10 miles to "meter" that mount and then hike back to your tripod to dial in the exposure -- so a reflected meter reading is a huge time saver (chimp the histogram if you're worried.)

Go ahead and use ALL the modes on your camera. There is a reason they are there. Use the mode most effective for the shot at hand. Don't fall in the trap of believing that Manual is somehow "better" than the other modes... manual is not necessarily better or worse... it just offers you absolute control. But if your plan was to just go with whatever it takes to get the meter to zero out in the middle then you're not gaining anything by shooting in manual... you're just taking more time to dial in the exposure then the computer would have used.