Exposure: Right or Wrong

[JBPhotog]

Google UniWB and it may help explain how the RGB channels differ in exposure with digital and methods to set it up with your camera. For personal work this can be of some help, commercially, it is a pain when the AD is looking at the tethered monitor, lots of 'splainin' to do.

 

[Ysarex]

Google UniWB and it may help explain how the RGB channels differ in exposure with digital and methods to set it up with your camera. For personal work this can be of some help, commercially, it is a pain when the AD is looking at the tethered monitor, lots of 'splainin' to do.

That's what I do -- my cameras are set to unity WB. That's why the camera JPEG in this post: Exposure: Right or Wrong is green.

In exchange for a green camera JPEG (and green viewfinder image) neither of which I care about I get the last bit of exposure uncertainty removed. No need to bracket no need to question which highlight is the brightest in the image. Every exposure is simple and the same; adjust EC until the highlight warning activates & I know at least two channels in the raw file are clipped. Reduce exposure by -.3 until highlight warning goes out and click -- always the best possible exposure. The only assessment I have to make is to identify diffuse versus specular highlights and decide to let the specular highlights go as appropriate for the image.

 

[mrca]

Alan, you can use one spot for metering on your digital camera, spot meter the darkest shadow where you want detail and the in camera meter gives you that at zone V, middle gray. Since it is the darkest shadow with detail it should be 2 stops darker so decrease exposure 2 stops. For added insurance for not blocking up shadows and since negative film does well with brighter areas, Only decrease exposure one stop to zone IV. With HP5, 4 stops over exposed looks IDENTICAL to proper exposure. Try that with digital and you get a white rectangle.

 

[AlanKlein]

Alan, you can use one spot for metering on your digital camera, spot meter the darkest shadow where you want detail and the in camera meter gives you that at zone V, middle gray. Since it is the darkest shadow with detail it should be 2 stops darker so decrease exposure 2 stops. For added insurance for not blocking up shadows and since negative film does well with brighter areas, Only decrease exposure one stop to zone IV. With HP5, 4 stops over exposed looks IDENTICAL to proper exposure. Try that with digital and you get a white rectangle.

Thanks. I'm aware that I have spot metering built into the digital camera. However, I don't use the zone system. I'm trying to develop intuitive exposure settings based on how it looks on the camera's screen and in conjunction with the histogram and clipping blinkies.

 

[vintagesnaps]

Once I got familiar with my digital camera and set it to the Raw setting (my camera is DNG so I get a Raw image and an automatically generated JPEG which I don't use often). Since then there's been no going back...

I've done sports and events and there are often reasons to shoot JPEGs but it's not like I'm a working photojournalist, so I have the luxury of shooting Raw if I want. Most of the time I can save images as PSDs or JPEGs as needed and go from there. But for me getting a proper exposure enables me to do that. I don't want to waste time editing when a decent exposure gives me a good photo that needs little work.

Same with darkroom work. If I have a nice negative I don't have to do much dodging or burning (I like playing with my Dodgette set but not burning in a light corner, etc.). I guess I like to work efficiently and not mess around! Not that I couldn't get lost in time in the darkroom; I'm a darkroom rat! But having used a shared darkroom at a local university I couldn't stay in there forever.

So for me learning how to get proper exposures has enabled me to get good photos efficiently. No blinkies for me!! lol Hate those things...

 

[VidThreeNorth]

Some of the replies reminded me of my B&W days. I enjoyed it all back when I did it, but I would hate to try it now. My darkroom was a small basement washroom (no bath, just sink and toilet). If I was careful I would move around just enough to get stuff done. I recall setting up stop on the toilet seat and fix on the floor. Sometimes I left the wash till after a developing session -- yes, I know it is not a good idea. As I said, I enjoyed it at the time, but now, I do not consider it the "good old days".

 

[VidThreeNorth]

On July 8, 2022, we had a major Internet outage in Canada (caused by Rogers Communications), so I took the opportunity to watch Villeneuve's "Dune" and "The Adjustment Bureau" DVDs again. It seems to me that a lot of movies that I like are dark and "flat" compared to movies I watched, maybe 20 years ago, so maybe there is something to that aspect of the situation. But maybe that has to do with the movies I tend to watch these days.

The more I think about it, I have not really seen that many movies at all in, say the last 10 years. I have been too busy. Looking at still photo books, there does not seem to be any corresponding trend. So, inconclusive?

 

[mrca]

On July 8, 2022, we had a major Internet outage in Canada (caused by Rogers Communications), so I took the opportunity to watch Villeneuve's "Dune" and "The Adjustment Bureau" DVDs again. It seems to me that a lot of movies that I like are dark and "flat" compared to movies I watched, maybe 20 years ago, so maybe there is something to that aspect of the situation. But maybe that has to do with the movies I tend to watch these days.

The more I think about it, I have not really seen that many movies at all in, say the last 10 years. I have been too busy. Looking at still photo books, there does not seem to be any corresponding trend. So, inconclusive?

I wonder if movies switching to digital has something to do with it. Tarantino still uses film and movies like Once upon a time in Hollywood or Djanjo seem to be pretty brightly lit for the most part. The colors of that film stock, the same one used on Girl with a Pearl Earring has gorgeous skin tones. Similar to Kodak Portra but slightly different but then it is a Kodak film also. The scene of Sharon Tate in her bedroom had me stop the movie to enjoy those skin tones. Same with Girl stanting next to the studio wndows. That film stock is available in 35 mm film cassettes but requires and extra step in development to wash off a layer on the non emulsion side of the film that only labs doing movie films will do. At home, it's just an extra step.

 

[VidThreeNorth]

I wonder if movies switching to digital has something to do with it. Tarantino still uses film and movies like Once upon a time in Hollywood or Djanjo seem to be pretty brightly lit for the most part.. . .

I looked through some DVDs and could not reach a conclusion whether used or available technology had much effect. The only thing I can say so far is that I think there has been a stylistic evolution, but what contributes to it is unclear. I could not find my copy of "Lawrence of Arabia", but I did look at "Ben Hur" and I compared it to the new "Dune", and also to "Black Widow". "Ben Hur" had night scenes with typical Hollywood lighting shining off the armour. It was just shot darker and with deliberate vignetting. Black Widow never really gets very dark (which surprised me). "Dune" gets pretty dark at some points. But it looks darker than it is. I do think that a flatter gamma is used for "Dune". But that might have to do with Denis Villeneuve's style. But again, "why"? He has all the tools available that anyone else does. So far, I have no conclusion.