Exposure question...

[Stradawhovious]

It seems to me that any time I have a pic I really like, "photographers" will tell me it is slightly underexposed. Every time I see a pic that "photographers" say is perfectly exposed, I see it as slightly overexposed. Is this as simple as personal preference, or is it because I haven't acheived the elite "photographer" rank?

 

[rainking]

It could be your monitor. I had the same problem till I realized my monitor was on full brightness. Try turning it down and better yet, have it properly calibrated.

 

[Stradawhovious]

It could be your monitor.

It very well could be. I have done the visual calibrations, but not had it calibrated by machines.

 

[Robin Usagani]

Personal preference but they should not be that far off.

 

[Stradawhovious]

Personal preference but they should not be that far off.

And they aren't. Its not a drastic difference, but enough to notice when you're looking for it. Let's just say My Mom wouldn't notice, but my photography instructor would.

 

[Robin Usagani]

Care to show one example of yours that people say underexposed?

 

[Stradawhovious]

Care to show one example of yours that people say underexposed?

Here's one. Sorry about the soft focus, I know that is like garlic to vampires to some here. I was trying my hand at manual focus.... and not doing so well.

 

[Robin Usagani]

On your example there are not a whole lot of bright area. So the range of exposure you can set it at without blowing anything is pretty big. It is more of personal taste. A good reference would be the histogram. You want to put the peak of the mountain shape in the middle.

 

[Overread35]

It could be your monitor.

It very well could be. I have done the visual calibrations, but not had it calibrated by machines.

The problem is visual tests with your eyes don't work because your eyes adapt to the light you see - so you can't get a solid calibration. The only way you can is with a hardware based system such as a Spyder 3 screen calibrator.

That at least gives you a starting point - however you can also view the light in a shot by reviewing the histogram (both in camera and in the computer). For a good guide on histograms and understanding them have a look here:
Reading Histograms-- Part I
Histograms - Part II

ps it looks like a lot, but the core is quite simple and very well worth learning

 

[keethjon]

If there is nothing wrong with your screen, I agree with schwettylens. It can boil down to personal preference. If your pics look ok to you, and are just for your personal use, then they are ok. However, if you are delivering a product for the general public and the majority of the general public finds them to be off.. exposure wise, then you might want to make an adjustment.
Don't worry too much if others don't feel exactly the way you feel about your work. Picasso paintings sell for millions of dollars and I still don't get it!


http://easybasicphotography.com

 

[clanthar]

Hi,

Based on the example you provided:

The exposure is ok, but the photo is very flat -- the tonal distribution is compressed. This is an error and should be corrected in processing.

Did this photo come from the camera as a JPEG or did you process it from a RAW file?

Here's a correction: Do not think of what I did as altering the exposure; I altered the tonal distribution.

I also altered the color of the photo as the dog appeared too blue given my experience of similar dogs and the grass in the background.

Take Care,
Joe

 

[oldmacman]

Hi,

Based on the example you provided:

The exposure is ok, but the photo is very flat -- the tonal distribution is compressed. This is an error and should be corrected in processing.

Did this photo come from the camera as a JPEG or did you process it from a RAW file?

Here's a correction: Do not think of what I did as altering the exposure; I altered the tonal distribution.

I also altered the color of the photo as the dog appeared too blue given my experience of similar dogs and the grass in the background.

Take Care,
Joe

I would agree that the exposure is a little flat, but the edit has made the blacks into browns (which is good if the dog turns out to be brown). My take is that the dog is mostly black. How about this edit? As schwettylens indicated, there can be many takes on what is perceived correctness. I guess only the OP knows the correct colouring and needs to find the tweak that will give him the pop he is looking for.

 

[Stradawhovious]

Hi,

Based on the example you provided:

The exposure is ok, but the photo is very flat -- the tonal distribution is compressed. This is an error and should be corrected in processing.

Did this photo come from the camera as a JPEG or did you process it from a RAW file?

Here's a correction: Do not think of what I did as altering the exposure; I altered the tonal distribution.

I also altered the color of the photo as the dog appeared too blue given my experience of similar dogs and the grass in the background.

Take Care,
Joe

Thanks, and perfect edit! With the original, there wasn't really any PP other than cropping because I'm really only worried about the exposure in this thread. I figured the best way to get an opinion on exposure was to show something that I didn't hack up with photoshop first.

Also, This one was taken in the shade on a fall day a month or so ago.... it's my understanding that this will sometimes put a bluish tint on things..... Its kind of a pain in the ass.

 

[sobolik]

It seems to me that any time I have a pic I really like, "photographers" will tell me it is slightly underexposed. Every time I see a pic that "photographers" say is perfectly exposed, I see it as slightly overexposed. Is this as simple as personal preference, or is it because I haven't acheived the elite "photographer" rank?

HA HA HA! The people paying cash money are your judges. If they are not paying you then you can safely consider such opinions as curious at best.

 

[mrpink]

It seems to me that any time I have a pic I really like, "photographers" will tell me it is slightly underexposed. Every time I see a pic that "photographers" say is perfectly exposed, I see it as slightly overexposed. Is this as simple as personal preference, or is it because I haven't acheived the elite "photographer" rank?

HA HA HA! The people paying cash money are your judges. If they are not paying you then you can safely consider such opinions as curious at best.

So you are saying it is better to have paying customers tell you your work is sub par? After they say that, I doubt they will remain a paying customer.. does that mean that their original opinion doesn't matter anymore?

Costly belief there sobo.....

I will take all the free advice I can get, what I do with said advice is up to me.






p!nK