Exposure

jjssv · Oct 7, 2014

Hello,

My name is Julia and I'm new to this forum! I own a NIKON D610 with a 24-85mm lens.

I'm a relatively new photographer just entering a creative photography program in college. I am having some trouble obtaining the correct exposure using ISO setting LESS than 800.

I understand these basic settings for ISO:

100 or 200 ISO for sunny and bright daylight
400 ISO for cloudy days, or indoors for window light portraits
800 ISO for indoors without a flash
1600+ ISO for really low light situations

I also understand that a low aperture # (e.g. f/2.8) is a large hole in the lens and lets in more light, and that a higher aperture # ( e.g f/22) is a small hole in the lens and allows less light in.

Aswell, i'm aware that a slower shutter speed allows more light in and a faster shutter speed allows less light in.

So the problem I've encountered is that even in good lighting conditions where my ISO should be under 1000, (with the appropriate aperture and shutter speed settings) I cannot get a proper exposure without setting my ISO into the thousands.... this creates a lot of noise in my photographs and results in my assignments not being done properly. Even when I set my camera to AUTO ISO, it sends it into the thousands when in an indoor setting.

For example, I was doing a 45 degree window light assignment the other day, and I could not properly expose the picture without setting the ISO to 2000+

So using ISO settings under 1000, I am either getting completely underexposed dark pictures, or overexposed blown out pictures.

I'm not sure what to do... am I doing something wrong or maybe have a setting in my camera that could be set wrong? I would greatly appreciate any help or opinions or tips anyone has to offer... thank you!!

CameraClicker · Oct 7, 2014

It would probably help us to see an example or two, with the EXIF data attached. It would help to know what camera and lens you are using, and what the light source is/are.

At 6:55 p.m., here, sitting in the room with lights off, I would need ISO 12,800, to get any shutter speed. But if I turned on a light or two, I could probably use ISO 400 or 800, and have 1/30th or 1/60th, with a fairly fast lens. Without knowing what your conditions are, it is really difficult to advise.

jjssv · Oct 7, 2014

CameraClicker said:
It would probably help us to see an example or two, with the EXIF data attached. It would help to know what camera and lens you are using, and what the light source is/are.

At 6:55 p.m., here, sitting in the room with lights off, I would need ISO 12,800, to get any shutter speed. But if I turned on a light or two, I could probably use ISO 400 or 800, and have 1/30th or 1/60th, with a fairly fast lens. Without knowing what your conditions are, it is really difficult to advise.

Here is an example of one of the pictures I took for my window light assignment. It was about 4:30pm, and he was next to a screen door with the natural light coming in. To get a properly exposed shot in my frame, my settings were:

shutter speed: 1/125th
aperture: f/5.6
ISO: 3200

The assignment was to print and mount a window light portrait photograph with 8x10 dimensions.

The photograph looks okay on the computer screen, although when I go to print these images, it is not clear or sharp, and there is a lot of noise.

jjssv · Oct 7, 2014

CameraClicker said:
It would probably help us to see an example or two, with the EXIF data attached. It would help to know what camera and lens you are using, and what the light source is/are.

At 6:55 p.m., here, sitting in the room with lights off, I would need ISO 12,800, to get any shutter speed. But if I turned on a light or two, I could probably use ISO 400 or 800, and have 1/30th or 1/60th, with a fairly fast lens. Without knowing what your conditions are, it is really difficult to advise.

Also, I am using a NIKON D610 with a 24-85mm lens.

xzyragon · Oct 7, 2014

Are you taking pictures in RAW or jpeg? At 1100kb, that's an awfully small file, even for a jpeg. My RAW files are 18mb, and then are compressed down to 8-11mb when I convert to a jpeg.

jjssv · Oct 7, 2014

xzyragon said:
Are you taking pictures in RAW or jpeg? At 1100kb, that's an awfully small file, even for a jpeg. My RAW files are 18mb, and then are compressed down to 8-11mb when I convert to a jpeg.

We are instructed to always take our photos in RAW.

For this assignment, I was asked to crop it to 1800pixels on the largest side (height), and convert it to JPEG when submitting it online.

I tried to upload the original NEF/Raw file on to this forum but it would not allow me.

CameraClicker · Oct 7, 2014

More questions. I like the light. Exposure looks good. It was edited with Photoshop CC on a Mac. But, there is no colour space assigned.

As was just asked, did you shoot it as a raw file or a JPEG? Raw files are sensor data, and Adobe Bridge would have to figure out how to convert it. JPEG files are converted in the camera, and unlike film cameras, a digital can be configured a vast number of ways to process the exposure into a JPEG.

Your post just arrived! So, it was a raw file. Did you add any additional exposure, fill light or brightness?

Crop at 1800 on the longest side is good for posting. I seldom make a file that big for posting to the Internet. Usually 640, 900 or 1024 px depending on the site. If you are printing 8 X 10 at 300 ppi, the long side would be 3000 px. This site limits the size of JPEG files, too.

Is the screen door on an exposed outside wall, or is there an awning or large cover over it? Does it have a screen or just glass?

Overread · Oct 7, 2014

jjssv said:
I understand these basic settings for ISO:

100 or 200 ISO for sunny and bright daylight

400 ISO for cloudy days, or indoors for window light portraits

800 ISO for indoors without a flash

1600+ ISO for really low light situations

Remember this - whenever someone tells you the "settings" that you should use to take a shot of a certain subject; remember that they are not telling you exactly how to photograph that subject. Instead what they are telling you is how "they" would photograph that subject and get a specific end result that they want.

A common example would be flower photography - most people you ask will say "you want a small aperture, f8 or f13". This is a correct answer, if you want a deep depth of field. However you can shoot at f2.8 or f1.4 if you want - its no more nor less correct; so long as you can get the result you want.

ISO is very much the same; you can get some standard ideas for what ISO will "generally" be useful to start with in certain situations or subjects; but you must always be ready to adapt to the light you've got.
In your portrait if you've got the aperture you want for sharpness and depth of field - if you've got the shutter speed fast enough for a person at rest - and a camera likely on tripod or handheld with a shorter focal length lens - then the ISO that you use is determined by those already set settings and by the light present at the time of the shot.

If the ISO winds up really really high then you can either;
1) Change part of your creative choices so that you may be use a wider aperture so that more light gets in.

2) Change the ISO and raise it up to meet the demands in the current light.

3) Add more light to the scene (this can be as simple as a reflector up to flash setups with multiple flash units).

So in your example above if you need a higher ISO then you need it - or you change part of your vision or the lighting.

jjssv · Oct 7, 2014

CameraClicker said:
More questions. I like the light. Exposure looks good. It was edited with Photoshop CC on a Mac. But, there is no colour space assigned.

As was just asked, did you shoot it as a raw file or a JPEG? Raw files are sensor data, and Adobe Bridge would have to figure out how to convert it. JPEG files are converted in the camera, and unlike film cameras, a digital can be configured a vast number of ways to process the exposure into a JPEG.

Your post just arrived! So, it was a raw file. Did you add any additional exposure, fill light or brightness?

Crop at 1800 on the longest side is good for posting. I seldom make a file that big for posting to the Internet. Usually 640, 900 or 1024 px depending on the site. If you are printing 8 X 10 at 300 ppi, the long side would be 3000 px. This site limits the size of JPEG files, too.

Is the screen door on an exposed outside wall, or is there an awning or large cover over it? Does it have a screen or just glass?

I shot it as a raw file. The photograph I uploaded onto this forum was opened with Photoshop CC, cropped to 1800px, and saved as a jpeg.

When I open in the Camera Raw Nikon program, the file dimensions of the RAW photograph are 4016 by 6016 (24.2 MP), 72 ppi, 8 bit. The colour space is adobe RGB (1998). My problem is that after uploading it to photoshop and changing the dimension to 1800px on the longest side (as the instructor asked as assignment requirements) that because of the ISO setting so high, when I printed my image the photograph was not clear and sharp as I needed, and the noise from the high ISO setting was evident in the print.

It was shot at f/5.6, 1/125 s, ISO 3200, 62mm focal length. I did not add any fill light with a reflector or add any brightness. (Which I probably should have done?) The screen door is an exposed outside wall but there were some curtains that I had moved to the side.

This picture comes out okay when I upload it, but again the problem is when I print. (Attached are screen shots of my printer settings) Not shown is the image size box, in which my dimensions were 8x10 printed at scale 100%. As shown, it is set to make photoshop handle the colouring.

I think ultimately my problem is the HIGH ISO. If my ISO would have been lower, I think the print would have come out clear and sharp. But when shooting that day, even putting my shutter speed slower and my aperture larger, I could not get proper exposure at low ISO settings. The pictures kept coming out under exposed.

xzyragon · Oct 7, 2014

Well your picture doesn't look overly noisy to me. I'm sure you could open up the aperture a little bit to drop the ISO, or lower the shutterspeed to drop the ISO, but I don't see noise in the version you shared.

Furthermore, I like how sharp it is, which could be sacrificed by either allowing the subject more time for movement (slower shutter speed) or a larger aperture.

I would wager your problem lies more on the printer's side of things.

CameraClicker · Oct 7, 2014

Nice printer! Did you remember to turn off the printer managing colour, as it states in the window?

I'm surprised a file that looks clean in the editor looks noisy when printed. Ink spreads a little and some noise is covered up. Usually I sharpen a little for screen, and a lot (relatively) when printing, again due to ink spread.

Is the Camera Raw Nikon program from Nikon? Or is it Adobe Camera Raw working on a Nikon file? If the latter, make sure you are transferring it from ACR into Photoshop as a 16 bit file using the Prophoto colour space. In the Windows version, there is a link at the bottom of the ACR window. Click on it to set the options.

When the file gets into Photoshop, set the crop tool to "8 in " wide and "10 in" tall, and "300" for Resolution, then crop. Everything I print on my Epson is too dark. So, I add a copy layer at 70% set to screen. I flatten it, add some sharpening and send it to print.

WayneF · Oct 8, 2014

jjssv said:
So the problem I've encountered is that even in good lighting conditions where my ISO should be under 1000, (with the appropriate aperture and shutter speed settings) I cannot get a proper exposure without setting my ISO into the thousands.... this creates a lot of noise in my photographs and results in my assignments not being done properly. Even when I set my camera to AUTO ISO, it sends it into the thousands when in an indoor setting.

For example, I was doing a 45 degree window light assignment the other day, and I could not properly expose the picture without setting the ISO to 2000+

So using ISO settings under 1000, I am either getting completely underexposed dark pictures, or overexposed blown out pictures.

There is nothing wrong with your camera, or your picture. It was a quite good picture.

The problem is simply that there are many situations of window light.... a window facing south, or north, or on a cloudy day, or in the shade of a tree, etc. Everything varies.

Sunny 16 rule says for a shutter speed of 1/ISO (1/100 second ISO 100). (Wikipedia here):

Aperture	Lighting conditions	Shadow detail
f/22	Snow/sand	Dark with sharp edges
f/16	Sunny	Distinct
f/11	Slight overcast	Soft around edges
f/8	Overcast	Barely visible
f/5.6	Heavy overcast	No shadows
f/4	Open shade/sunset	No shadows
Add one stop	Backlighting	n/a

[TBODY] [/TBODY]

Clearly window light is in the shade, and is not illuminated as well as "open shade" (outside with clear view of much overhead bright sky, but no direct sun).

shutter speed: 1/125th
aperture: f/5.6
ISO: 3200

So (just as example, without knowing about the window situation):
f/4 to f/16 is 4 stops (ISO 3200 to ISO 200), and your f/5.6 to f/4 is one more stop, to ISO 100.

It seems very close to ballpark to me. And regardless, of course it is what it is. Situations vary.

400 ISO for cloudy days, or indoors for window light portraits

So I think you're doing great. Only issue is maybe blindly believing very crude guesses about window light.

You might consider placing a reflector (large white foamboard or white paper or cardboard) close on opposite side from window, to provide a little reflected fill back to fill the darkest shadows on that side.

dennybeall · Oct 8, 2014

ISO is an interesting subject. I think back to my early working days and the film was rated at ASA100, 200 or 400 (the equivalent of our current ISO numbers) In extreme cases we'd push process the film as if it was ASA1600.
Now we routinely up the ISO to 1200 or 4000 or much more. Same problem arises though in that higher ISO, like higher ASA, results in more grain(noise) in the picture.
Personally, I don't go above about ISO 600 unless I've tried everything else that can be done and I'm willing to deal with a noisy picture. Better cameras allow for higher ISO numbers without getting noisy.

bratkinson · Oct 9, 2014

Call me a rebel, a renegade, or whatever. But my response is that the OP should
QUIT FOLLOWING SOMEBODY ELSES' PHOTOGRAPHY RULES!!

What RULES is the exposure triangle...plain and not so simple as many may be inclined to believe. Through the years, I've learned to think almost exclusively in terms of 'what is the critical issue(s) for this shot?'.

Is the subject moving/running/racing/flying?...then shutter speed better be 1/125th or faster to stop subject-motion caused blur. Jet plane? 1/500 or even 1/1000. Stationary? Do I have a tripod with me? No, then 1/<focal length> starting point to stop camera shake (some may call this one a rule, but it's more of a recommendation). Tripod handy? Long exposures are fair game for mountain vistas or fancy architecture.

What kind of depth of field (DOF) do I want? Thin? Then go wide open or nearly so as few lenses are at their sharpest wide open. Group shot? f5.6 or even f8 to ensure everyone is in focus. Mountain vista? f10-16 gets just about everything in focus.

Note that ISO speed is usually my last consideration. I generally let the shutter speed and aperture determine where I should set the ISO to get a decent exposure.

But too often, it ends up an exposure triangle 'battle' to get the right exposure. Maybe a year ago, someone on this forum called it making an 'acceptable compromise'. And that's what it is. What if I want to photograph a dancer on a stage? I'll need a fast-enough shutter speed (1/160th or 1/200th), and with an f3.5-f5.6 lens, when zoomed to the max, 'wide open' is f5.6, so I'll need ISO 10,000 or some other fast ISO. Unfortunately, except for higher prices full-frame cameras, ISO 2400-3200 is where the noise levels gets unacceptable in the darker areas of the picture. So now what? OK, try ISO 3200, wide-open aperture then half-press the shutter to see where the exposure needle lands. Adjust the shutter speed downward until the needle is at zero or nearly so. And where do you end up? 1/20th or even slower shutter speed. So now, in all likelihood, there will be both camera shake and subject movement causing blurred shots. At 1/20th, I know I will most likely have to take 15-20 shots just to get ONE where there isn't a blurred subject. OK...maybe try ISO 3200 to get a faster shutter speed and then it's only 1 in 10 or 15 that's a keeper. Or...settle for blurred subjects. I've kept a good number of shots where a guest speaker is talking and he is fairly motionless but his hands are moving. So, I keep the blurred hands but the face is clear shots...but not more than 1-2 for that speaker. Or...get an external flash to light up the place. But some places don't allow the use of flash.

Or outdoors, on a nice, sunny day. I'll make the same choices as before...what aperture do I want to get the DOF I want, then the shutter speed based on subject motion, or mine. Earlier this year, I was on a train taking pictures out the window. I started with shutter speed 1/200 to stop the motion blur of the scenery outside the window. Once I got the shutter speed I wanted and aperture, then adjust the ISO speed down to perhaps 100 to 400, and when the meter tells me it's good, take the picture.

There's a million or more possible lighting situations 'out there' to deal with. Trying to follow someone elses' idea of what settings to use may be a starting point, but not the solution. Every camera is different. The lenses on that camera are different. So what works for you may not work for me...or it may not be the results I want to capture. Let your mind decide what you want, and let your camera tell you what it needs. Then make the best settings you can to get that shot.