Exposure

[Dave442]

I have to think you are referring to the exposure reading as given by the camera. You often need to adjust that to arrive at what you consider the correct exposure.

I recently shot some singers outside under a tarp with a background of sky at the beach. I could have spot metered, but it was easier to just open up the lens a couple stops to give good exposure of their faces. Even spot metering would have required an adjustment to the exposure. Then later I did some shots of a palm tree with the blue sky as a background and dropped the exposure a bit to not blow out the sky and have more of a silhouette of the tree.

I am in manual and just set the exposure where I want it, usually not what the matrix meter is giving. If using Auto-ISO will hit the EC button and dial in how much compensation I want.

Sometimes there is something throwing off the camera meter and you can get a meter reading without that in the frame and then consider that exposure reading with the one for the final composition and use that to come up with an idea of how much compensation to use.

An example is to go take a picture of a white sheet of paper, none of the exposure modes will give you the correct exposure and you will need to increase the exposure given by the camera (my Genius Scan App on the phone is smart enough to know to make this exposure adjustment automatically).

 

[Ysarex83 77]

What are some scenarios that would warrant a decision to under expose or over expose in camera using digital or film?

In the olden days of film, it was said that you should "expose for the shadows", meaning; make sure you get some usable image in the shaded parts of the frame.

With digital, if you blow out the highlights, you are left with no data in the highlights, so I would rather underexpose a bit with digital. (average scenes)

For shooting random scenes with a digital camera, you can take meter readings off the highlights, and work toward the shadows, bracketing a few shots.

If it's a dark scene, meter the most important parts.

For very bright scenes you would want to underexpose, particularly if you are using "averaging" metering because the meter will attempt to expose for an average scene, and it will end up way too bright, often blowing the highlights.

Unless I'm wrong.

Excellent, thanks. OK, now what Hedgecoe was talking about is making more sense. Appreciate it. Very hard to articulate when I don't have a clear understanding of the whole exposure triangle and various metering modes in cameras.

Sent from my XT1254 using Tapatalk

What are some scenarios that would warrant a decision to under expose or over expose in camera using digital or film?

In the olden days of film, it was said that you should "expose for the shadows", meaning; make sure you get some usable image in the shaded parts of the frame.

With digital, if you blow out the highlights, you are left with no data in the highlights, so I would rather underexpose a bit with digital. (average scenes)

For shooting random scenes with a digital camera, you can take meter readings off the highlights, and work toward the shadows, bracketing a few shots.

If it's a dark scene, meter the most important parts.

For very bright scenes you would want to underexpose, particularly if you are using "averaging" metering because the meter will attempt to expose for an average scene, and it will end up way too bright, often blowing the highlights.

Unless I'm wrong.

Excellent, thanks. OK, now what Hedgecoe was talking about is making more sense. Appreciate it. Very hard to articulate when I don't have a clear understanding of the whole exposure triangle and various metering modes in cameras.

Sent from my XT1254 using Tapatalk

You're not going to encounter Hedgecoe writing about the exposure triangle. He managed to take photos and understand exposure before the exposure triangle was invented.

Joe

 

[jcdeboever]

What are some scenarios that would warrant a decision to under expose or over expose in camera using digital or film?

In the olden days of film, it was said that you should "expose for the shadows", meaning; make sure you get some usable image in the shaded parts of the frame.

With digital, if you blow out the highlights, you are left with no data in the highlights, so I would rather underexpose a bit with digital. (average scenes)

For shooting random scenes with a digital camera, you can take meter readings off the highlights, and work toward the shadows, bracketing a few shots.

If it's a dark scene, meter the most important parts.

For very bright scenes you would want to underexpose, particularly if you are using "averaging" metering because the meter will attempt to expose for an average scene, and it will end up way too bright, often blowing the highlights.

Unless I'm wrong.

Excellent, thanks. OK, now what Hedgecoe was talking about is making more sense. Appreciate it. Very hard to articulate when I don't have a clear understanding of the whole exposure triangle and various metering modes in cameras.

Sent from my XT1254 using Tapatalk

What are some scenarios that would warrant a decision to under expose or over expose in camera using digital or film?

In the olden days of film, it was said that you should "expose for the shadows", meaning; make sure you get some usable image in the shaded parts of the frame.

With digital, if you blow out the highlights, you are left with no data in the highlights, so I would rather underexpose a bit with digital. (average scenes)

For shooting random scenes with a digital camera, you can take meter readings off the highlights, and work toward the shadows, bracketing a few shots.

If it's a dark scene, meter the most important parts.

For very bright scenes you would want to underexpose, particularly if you are using "averaging" metering because the meter will attempt to expose for an average scene, and it will end up way too bright, often blowing the highlights.

Unless I'm wrong.

Excellent, thanks. OK, now what Hedgecoe was talking about is making more sense. Appreciate it. Very hard to articulate when I don't have a clear understanding of the whole exposure triangle and various metering modes in cameras.

Sent from my XT1254 using Tapatalk

You're not going to encounter Hedgecoe writing about the exposure triangle. He managed to take photos and understand exposure before the exposure triangle was invented.

Joe

Right, reason for confusion because they were written long ago and I am trying to merge it with digital era and terminology. Additionally, terminology gets a little overwhelming in that manufacturers call their metering system different thing but basically perform same functions. So studying exposure triangle, I have stumbled across EC but I called it over/ under exposure which was wrong. I am now moving in the right direction as I was searching the wrong term.

Sent from my XT1254 using Tapatalk

 

[Ysarex83 77]

What are some scenarios that would warrant a decision to under expose or over expose in camera using digital or film?

In the olden days of film, it was said that you should "expose for the shadows", meaning; make sure you get some usable image in the shaded parts of the frame.

With digital, if you blow out the highlights, you are left with no data in the highlights, so I would rather underexpose a bit with digital. (average scenes)

For shooting random scenes with a digital camera, you can take meter readings off the highlights, and work toward the shadows, bracketing a few shots.

If it's a dark scene, meter the most important parts.

For very bright scenes you would want to underexpose, particularly if you are using "averaging" metering because the meter will attempt to expose for an average scene, and it will end up way too bright, often blowing the highlights.

Unless I'm wrong.

Excellent, thanks. OK, now what Hedgecoe was talking about is making more sense. Appreciate it. Very hard to articulate when I don't have a clear understanding of the whole exposure triangle and various metering modes in cameras.

Sent from my XT1254 using Tapatalk

What are some scenarios that would warrant a decision to under expose or over expose in camera using digital or film?

In the olden days of film, it was said that you should "expose for the shadows", meaning; make sure you get some usable image in the shaded parts of the frame.

With digital, if you blow out the highlights, you are left with no data in the highlights, so I would rather underexpose a bit with digital. (average scenes)

For shooting random scenes with a digital camera, you can take meter readings off the highlights, and work toward the shadows, bracketing a few shots.

If it's a dark scene, meter the most important parts.

For very bright scenes you would want to underexpose, particularly if you are using "averaging" metering because the meter will attempt to expose for an average scene, and it will end up way too bright, often blowing the highlights.

Unless I'm wrong.

Excellent, thanks. OK, now what Hedgecoe was talking about is making more sense. Appreciate it. Very hard to articulate when I don't have a clear understanding of the whole exposure triangle and various metering modes in cameras.

Sent from my XT1254 using Tapatalk

You're not going to encounter Hedgecoe writing about the exposure triangle. He managed to take photos and understand exposure before the exposure triangle was invented.

Joe

Right, reason for confusion because they were written long ago and I am trying to merge it with digital era and terminology. Additionally, terminology gets a little overwhelming in that manufacturers call their metering system different thing but basically perform same functions. So studying exposure triangle, I have stumbled across EC but I called it over/ under exposure which was wrong. I am now moving in the right direction as I was searching the wrong term.

Sent from my XT1254 using Tapatalk

There's a lot of confusion and misunderstanding when it comes to digital era terminology no less than that exposure triangle. There may be a good reason John Hedgecoe never needed it. I'll bet he defined exposure as the amount of light striking the film as a function of shutter speed and aperture (adjusted relative to the ambient light intensity). Has switching from film to digital sensors changed that?

Joe

 

[jcdeboever]

What are some scenarios that would warrant a decision to under expose or over expose in camera using digital or film?

In the olden days of film, it was said that you should "expose for the shadows", meaning; make sure you get some usable image in the shaded parts of the frame.

With digital, if you blow out the highlights, you are left with no data in the highlights, so I would rather underexpose a bit with digital. (average scenes)

For shooting random scenes with a digital camera, you can take meter readings off the highlights, and work toward the shadows, bracketing a few shots.

If it's a dark scene, meter the most important parts.

For very bright scenes you would want to underexpose, particularly if you are using "averaging" metering because the meter will attempt to expose for an average scene, and it will end up way too bright, often blowing the highlights.

Unless I'm wrong.

Excellent, thanks. OK, now what Hedgecoe was talking about is making more sense. Appreciate it. Very hard to articulate when I don't have a clear understanding of the whole exposure triangle and various metering modes in cameras.

Sent from my XT1254 using Tapatalk

What are some scenarios that would warrant a decision to under expose or over expose in camera using digital or film?

In the olden days of film, it was said that you should "expose for the shadows", meaning; make sure you get some usable image in the shaded parts of the frame.

With digital, if you blow out the highlights, you are left with no data in the highlights, so I would rather underexpose a bit with digital. (average scenes)

For shooting random scenes with a digital camera, you can take meter readings off the highlights, and work toward the shadows, bracketing a few shots.

If it's a dark scene, meter the most important parts.

For very bright scenes you would want to underexpose, particularly if you are using "averaging" metering because the meter will attempt to expose for an average scene, and it will end up way too bright, often blowing the highlights.

Unless I'm wrong.

Excellent, thanks. OK, now what Hedgecoe was talking about is making more sense. Appreciate it. Very hard to articulate when I don't have a clear understanding of the whole exposure triangle and various metering modes in cameras.

Sent from my XT1254 using Tapatalk

You're not going to encounter Hedgecoe writing about the exposure triangle. He managed to take photos and understand exposure before the exposure triangle was invented.

Joe

Right, reason for confusion because they were written long ago and I am trying to merge it with digital era and terminology. Additionally, terminology gets a little overwhelming in that manufacturers call their metering system different thing but basically perform same functions. So studying exposure triangle, I have stumbled across EC but I called it over/ under exposure which was wrong. I am now moving in the right direction as I was searching the wrong term.

Sent from my XT1254 using Tapatalk

There's a lot of confusion and misunderstanding when it comes to digital era terminology no less than that exposure triangle. There may be a good reason John Hedgecoe never needed it. I'll bet he defined exposure as the amount of light striking the film as a function of shutter speed and aperture (adjusted relative to the ambient light intensity). Has switching from film to digital sensors changed that?

Joe

No change as I understand it. I was confusing exposure and exposure compensation. I try to get he exposure center on either type of camera. So meter mode, what to meter, and how to adjust is direction I am now looking into. Also gaining a better understanding how each of my cameras meter would help. Thanks for your patience in my ignorance.

Sent from my XT1254 using Tapatalk

 

[JacaRanda]

What ever you do, don't make it harder than it is. Sounds simple eh!

 

[GHK]

What are some scenarios that would warrant a decision to under expose or over expose in camera using digital or film? Hopefully this is not too generic of a question.

Sent from my XT1254 using Tapatalk

A) I can't really envisage a situation in which I would want to make a positive decision to do either.
B) Factors in making exposure decisions are different for film and digital. For film, they are different for negatives and transparencies, and are firmly based in the generalisations 'expose for the shadows' - neg, and 'expose for the highlights' - trans.
C) With digital, things are a little easier because modern sensors have a greater dynamic range than film.
In those cases in which the tonal range in the subject is still too great for the sensor the advice is to expose for the shadows. This is because the sensor response to light is linear, resulting in the recording of much less information in the shadow areas compared to the highlights.
When the sensor can fully record all the tones of the image, there can be a number of exposure levels which are nominally all correct (I am not referring to exposure time/ aperture combinations here). In these cases the histogram levels will all display real tones as opposed to some tones being piled up at the 0 and 255 levels. In such cases an exposure should be chosen which places the displayed levels as far to the right as possible without overshooting up the 255 axis. The reason for making this choice is, as above, because of the linear response of the sensor.
GHK

 

[Ysarex83 77]

What are some scenarios that would warrant a decision to under expose or over expose in camera using digital or film? Hopefully this is not too generic of a question.

Sent from my XT1254 using Tapatalk

When the sensor can fully record all the tones of the image, there can be a number of exposure levels which are nominally all correct....

Isn't "nominally correct" one of those oxymoron figures of speech like military intelligence, compassionate conservatisim, jumbo shrimp, etc.?

Joe

 

[jcdeboever]

What are some scenarios that would warrant a decision to under expose or over expose in camera using digital or film? Hopefully this is not too generic of a question.

Sent from my XT1254 using Tapatalk

When the sensor can fully record all the tones of the image, there can be a number of exposure levels which are nominally all correct....

Isn't "nominally correct" one of those oxymoron figures of speech like military intelligence, compassionate conservatisim, jumbo shrimp, etc.?

Joe

Ha ha... Like Microsoft works, clearly confused, pretty ugly... Lol

Sent from my XT1254 using Tapatalk

 

[Gary A.]

In your case JC, exposure starts with the light meter. So let's look at the meter. All meters read for medium gray (period). Spot meters only read a very small area of the frame, an average meter reads across the entire frame, center-weight reads more from the center than the surrounding edges, matrix/evaluative metering divides the frame up into many segments then does an analysis of each segment and then looks at the focus point and adds additional importance to the focus point segment and then compares its solution to a database of solutions.

Back to simple, what does metering for medium gray truly means? It means if you fill the frame with a white wall, center the needle, take a snap and then make a print without any post processing manipulations ... you will end up with a medium gray image. Similarly, if you fill the frame with a black wall, center the needle, take a snap and then make a print without any post processing manipulations ... you will again end up with a medium gray image.

Arguably, it is up to the photographer to determine the final/proper/correct exposure using the meter as a guide and determining what mode matches up with the particular scene/subject that you are determined to capture.

If you're shooting a subject which is lighter than medium gray, (sometimes/typically referred to as 18% reflective gray), then you need to overexpose from what the meter is suggesting to obtain a final/proper/correct exposure.

If you're shooting a subject which is darker than medium gray, (sometimes/typically referred to as 18% reflective gray), then you need to underexpose from what the meter is suggesting to obtain a final/proper/correct exposure.

How much to underexpose or overexpose from the suggested meter reading is determined by the subject and the photographer.

Landscape photogs will often take many spot reading from different areas and determine an exposure middle ground or average from all the various readings.

A news photog may just read of the principal subject and determine a proper reading off the face, (a person of color will be underexposed and a white person will be overexposed), and not giving a rat's to the rest of the frame as long as the photog captures the main subject/the story.

There are aids to help determine a correct exposure, gray cards, incident light meters, matrix/evaluative modes, et cetera. But it all starts with medium gray and understanding how the meter works.

(Reading material "The Negative" by Ansel Adams, is a very good starting point.)

 

[Gary A.]

PS- As you seem to have a penchant for B&W, the Adam's Zone System may be particularly useful and interesting.

 

[jcdeboever]

PS- As you seem to have a penchant for B&W, the Adam's Zone System may be particularly useful and interesting.

Is that kind of like curves in photo editing software?

Sent from my XT1254 using Tapatalk

 

[Gary A.]

PS- As you seem to have a penchant for B&W, the Adam's Zone System may be particularly useful and interesting.

Is that kind of like curves in photo editing software?

Sent from my XT1254 using Tapatalk

Actually it is an exposure methodology, with film and digital you have a range of Zones the film and digital sensor can capture (Dynamic Range). For discussion purposes, if you're ... say ... shooting a landscape with ten different Zones and your film/sensor can only capture five zone, then you pick a Zone, (as an example), close to the Zone reflected by your principal subject, (say a barn at Zone 4), then if you expose for Zone 4, Zones 2, 3, 5 and 6 will fall within the dynamic range of the film/sensor ... et cetera.

 

[Gary A.]

PS- With dynamic range increasing, ISO-less sensors, modern post processing programs, the Zone System is rapidly losing converts, but it is a great place to learn and understand exposure and metering.

 

[unpopular]

You're looking at it the wrong way. The question isn't "when to under expose", but rather, what is "under exposed" in the first place?