Getting exposure right?

[TheStupidForeigner]

I am still quiet new to photography and am having problems telling if my photos are correctly exposed or not. And especially in photos where different parts of the image intentionally have different exposures like low-key portraits, but also when the subject has very dark hair which seems to be under exposed while the face is not.

Is there any software that could help me with this? Or is there any advice for being able to judge exposure by eye. I do not have a light meter at the moment and not able to get one at this time.

Here are two photos I have had trouble with for example:

With the next photo I increased the shadows to bring back detail to the hair but I'm not so sure about it, it feels a little washed out now... I'm also not so sure about the exposure of the whole picture in general.

 

[tirediron]

I'm not on a calibrated monitor, but both of these seem to be pretty decently exposed to me. Remember that proper exposure is whatever YOU, as the photographer decide is proper. I might not agree, but it's not my image. As far as software goes, the histogram that your camera produces is one guide; theoretical ideal exposure should produce a bell curve-like histogram, but that's only a very rough guide as there are many cases such as your first image, where when the image is correctly exposed the histogram is going to be pushed to one side. Work on getting the exposure YOU like, that's the only correct exposure.

 

[astroNikon]

I always used to underexpose my photos.
Then I would compare mine to folks photos that I really liked.
I then would take a photo, and produce a couple copies of it all brighter.

I slowly went from the dark side to the bright (and better) side.

Your 2nd subject has black hair, shirt, dark eyes, etc. But her skin looks good.
Try a couple tweaks lighter and see if you still like it making sure detail around the nose isn't washed out.

Just experiment to see what you like and compare.
It looks pretty good to me. I'd pull her left hair back to expose her ear and shoulder more than worry about the total "light" exposure. I think it would brighten it up a bit by minimizing all the black color around her.

 

[WayneF]

I am still quiet new to photography and am having problems telling if my photos are correctly exposed or not. And especially in photos where different parts of the image intentionally have different exposures like low-key portraits, but also when the subject has very dark hair which seems to be under exposed while the face is not.

Exposure seems OK, more than 1/3 stop more would be too much.

The dark hair against the dark background simply does that, all runs together, cannot differentiate hair from background. The answer is to NOT use the dark background behind dark hair.

In Portraiture, a hair light is used to highlight the hair, and a background light is used to lighten the background.

 

[paigew]

Use your histogram. I'm on my phone but yes they look underexposed. The histogram should stretch from one side all the way to the other. The top image especially is underexposed. I'm thinking the histogram falls very short of the right side


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[KmH]

Beginners forum - Moderator Notice Photography Forum

Photography Beginners Forum
Use one of the forums in the - Photo Galleries - Photos submitted by members for general display or critique - section of TPF if you want C&C improvement tips on some of the photos you have taken.

Not every part of a photograph can be 'correctly' exposed.
For portrait type shots pros gauge exposure by the skin highlights, which are generally on the forehead, bridge of the nose, cheek closest to the main light source, and the chin.

In the top photo his skin is correctly exposed by the sclera in his camera right eye is not. His sclera is not white, it's a medium gray, an indication of under exposure of his eye socket.

Light direction, light quality and exposure all factor in.

 

[Solarflare]

Use your histogram.

Yes, exactly. The historgram is the thing you're looking for.

A well exposed picture has nothing to the right side of the histogram, or exactly a single pixel at that position.

And you want a histogram per color channel, not a summarized one.

However, many lighting situations are so harsh that you'll have to compromise. Its better to have parts of the picture overexposed, as long as the subject of the photograph is well exposed.

Theres also techniques like HDR to help with too harsh lighting situations - assuming a static enough scene, one takes a series of pictures at different exposures and later combines them in the computer.

 

[yellow ant]

I'm not on a calibrated monitor, but both of these seem to be pretty decently exposed to me. Remember that proper exposure is whatever YOU, as the photographer decide is proper. I might not agree, but it's not my image. As far as software goes, the histogram that your camera produces is one guide; theoretical ideal exposure should produce a bell curve-like histogram, but that's only a very rough guide as there are many cases such as your first image, where when the image is correctly exposed the histogram is going to be pushed to one side. Work on getting the exposure YOU like, that's the only correct exposure.

Both seems to fit the subject matter, especially the first one.

Just a thought about the composition of the first one and what people thing - would it be better if there was no ear showing on the left hand side or more ear showing? Do you have some more examples with more and less ear?

 

[Ysarex]

The first photo is too dark and both photos are flat.

I avoided using the term "exposure" in the above sentence because it can cause no end of confusion and argument.

Your question always get's complicated because it mixes personal preference and expression with more objective technical rules. There are always exceptions to the rules but before you decide you have an exception you should try the rule first.

The portrait of the young woman has no black in it. There isn't a single pixel in that photo that get's anywhere near black. That's rule #1: Reach black. How do we know the photo has no black? We use processing software and examine the numbers -- histogram.

Here's that photo adjusted now so that the photo reaches black:

Now the photo has no white it in. Hang on for another post.

Joe

 

[soufiej]

IMO your first shot is very difficult to make on a low budget since there is an abundance of black. I would expect the histogram for that shot to be off the chart on the dark side of the graph. I would say making other choices in clothing and background would make your life easier and the shot appear more balanced. Even a low level light behind the subject would pull them forward and push the background further back. The high contrast between light and shade on the subject's face could have been helped by an inexpensive reflector or some other off camera light source to give a more even look to the photo. Possibly, you were going for the drama of the light/shade contrast but, IMO, you've over done the idea. If you want this sort of image, I would think some HDR or shadow balancing software either in the camera or in your processing could have made for a better looking shot overall. Some top light would have made for a more distinct subject IMO. One top or two 45's crossing at the subject would have been a more dramatic shot IMO since you would have pulled the subject from the shadows with highlights.

Your second shot also suggests you are either without sufficient lighting equipment or have yet to learn how to effectively use lighting to your benefit and to the benefit of your subject. IMO the subject's face shows as very flat dimensionally. I don't know if it's your shot, my computer or the way the shot appears on the site but it appears to me you placed your subject too close to the background surface. If this was the case, the available light is likely to bounce a good deal of reflected light back towards the subject's back and your camera. A top light certainly would have helped here IMO to pull the subject away from the background and provide a nice "halo" look to her hair and shoulders. A less straight on lighting effect to her face would have provided some dimension and some interest IMO.

Overall, the shots are nice but, if you're working on a budget, I would invest in some equipment to provide better lighting and better light control before I invested in a light meter at this time. If these are "studio"shots in a controlled environment, then you can even go with DIY stuff for now to improve the distinction between the subject you want me to look at and all the rest that doesn't matter.

 

[Ysarex]

Rule #2: The highlights in a photo should reach as near white as possible unless they are specular in which case they reach white. The woman's portrait has now highlights anywhere near white. With no black in the photo and no white in the photo the overall tone response is compressed: the photo is flat.

Here's the photo adjusted with both black set and the highlights reaching near white:

More to come.

Joe

 

[480sparky]

......With the next photo I increased the shadows to bring back detail to the hair but I'm not so sure about it, it feels a little washed out now.........

It's a decent exposure. The issue that causes the 'washed out' look is levels. You don't have the dark areas dark and the light areas light. This can be corrected with the Levels too, or Curves can do in a pinch.

With the image posted, see how the histogram doesn't cover the entire dynamic range possible?

Result: Flat look, or as you call it, washed out.

Bring the black level up to where the histogram starts on the left, and the white level on the right down to where the histogram ends.

I also brought the mid-level marker down a bit to retain details in the dark areas.



Bam! No more washed out look.

 

[Dave442]

I think the first photo would need a light from the back to separate the subject from the background. Other than that is looks fine to me with a split lighting that works for the subject, it could use a tad more light before a hot spot on the skin.
The second, if the wall was white then the camera may have lowered the exposure. You could try a spot meter off the wall, add a couple stops and see how that compares to the matrix meter reading. Lighting is flat and it would be easier to advise on lighting if no post processing was done, but if you had to raise shadows on the main subject then it was probably underexposed.
I hope your camera has a meter.

 

[Ysarex]

Here's the histograms for the original image and the adjusted image that reaches both black and near white:

In the original you can see that the graph fails to reach either side (black on the left and white on the right). In the adjusted histogram the graph reaches the black side -- touch black -- get there. Notice that the graph just begins to fill in at the left corner. We don't want to get close to black we want to get there. On the right side the histogram gets as close to the right corner as possible without piling into it. Again here's the photo with the adjustment applied:

Now is it under or over exposed?

Often the the question of exposure is confused by other concerns having to do with tone response and lighting. I think the photo now is a little too dark and the lighting was flat and more adjustment is in order.

Hang on,
Joe

 

[Ysarex]

Tweaked is personal preference. So first by the rules and then go from there.

Back to your original post and your question. When you looked at this photo and decided to put it here with the question was it well exposed or not -- at that point how had you arrived at the photo and what did you do to evaluate it? I'm curious about your statement that you don't have a light meter. There's a meter in the camera. Is the original photo processed by the camera (camera JPEG) or did you process it and if so how?

Joe