To underexpose slightly or expose to the right ? - that is the question

[achtungbarry]

I have heard both these pieces of advice and read excellent articles on both.

So the obvious choice I find myself with is which piece of advice to go with or perhaps both are valid depending on the situation ?

I have just made the transition to shooting mainly in RAW. Would image format be a factor ?

Any advice is welcome.

Thanks.

 

[JerryPH]

Are you shooting film or digital? If shooting digital, expose it neither over nor under for best results, unless you are trying something artsy-fartsy.

 

[Dubious Drewski]

Of course you always try for perfect exposure, but if I were to err, I highly recommend you slightly overexpose before you underexpose. It's all about the noise.

Bringing a picture up from the darkness creates a noisy mess, bringing a picture down will at worst exacerbate blowouts. You have to decide which is the lesser evil for the particular photograph.

 

[Mike_E]

Luke- use the bracket!

 

[Montana]

The best exposure is the correct exposure. Practice where to meter a scene. Only about 1/2 of my exposures are metered off of the main subject. I often use the sky, grass, or back of my hand then recompose the shot.

Derrick

 

[Dubious Drewski]

Bah! who has time for bracketing! Expose as best you can, shoot raw, and then fiddle with the 'recovery' and 'fill light' sliders in photoshop to bring it all in line.

Bracketing is great if you have the time and memory cards to do it, but I know I often don't have that luxury.

 

[Montana]

Bracketing also doesn't help one in honing their skills. I will bracket shots if it is something that I really want to get a great shot of or if its something new to me. Otherwise, I try and think to myself to treat each shot as if it was the only chance I had. Sure, you can post process any image, but maybe its just a more personal thing for me to challenge myself to get it right. i know its the digital age and it doesn't cost anything to shot a crap load of shots, but one cannot learn near as much. Sure, you can read the exif data from the correctly exposed shots, but most often than not the scene will not be exactly the same again.

Derrick

Just my 2 cents.

 

[manaheim]

Of course you always try for perfect exposure, but if I were to err, I highly recommend you slightly overexpose before you underexpose. It's all about the noise.

Bringing a picture up from the darkness creates a noisy mess, bringing a picture down will at worst exacerbate blowouts. You have to decide which is the lesser evil for the particular photograph.

+1 :thumbup:

Luke- use the bracket!

Could you make some loud metallic breathing noises when saying this please?

 

[mrodgers]

The best exposure is the correct exposure. Practice where to meter a scene. Only about 1/2 of my exposures are metered off of the main subject. I often use the sky, grass, or back of my hand then recompose the shot.

Derrick

This is what I do as well. Sky, grass, or, well, I use the palm of my hand.

 

[Mike_E]

Sorry guys. With my Nikon it's just a press of a button with my left thumb, a click on the command wheel with my right thumb and then I merely press the shutter two or three times depending on how I have it set.

I see no reason for regrets when CF cards are so cheap and I'm shooting my D200.

I don't know about the loud metallic breathing noises but the dark side has it's benefits.:lmao::lmao::lmao:

 

[firemedic0135]

I always lean to the underexposed side. I usually set my meter for 1/3 under and feel like it offers the best results. if you overexpose someting and it is washed out you cannot recover anything from that.You can always recover underexposed area( and yes you may/will get some noise) but from my experiance and the advice of other pros say to underexpose1/3-2/3 if needed.

 

[Dubious Drewski]

if you overexpose someting and it is washed out you cannot recover anything from that.

But that's a moot point, because you can say the exact same thing about a shot that is too far underexposed.

If you have two photographs of an identical scene, one shot is 3 stops under, the other is 3 stops too bright. In photoshop, bring both photographs to proper exposure - the previously overexposed shot will look nicer.

 

[usayit]

Doesn't this depend on the conditions under which you are shooting?
Doesn't this depend on the camera? knowing the camera's abilities?

Shooting in bright daylight with strong shadows at low ISO, I generally expose for the highlights.... my digital camera can blow out the highlights but recover the shadows quite nicely.

Shooting in dim lit areas at a relatively high ISO, I'll generally expose for the shadows where noise is a concern.

There is no single formula... just practice and knowing your camera. Yes.. .bracketing works as well.

 

[Bifurcator]

Well if it's too over or under exposed then yeah... it's gone. But what most people think is washed out actually isn't. There's quite a bit of unseen latitude in an 8-bit JPEG let alone a 12 or 14 bit RAW image. BTW the actual exposure latitude between a JPEG and a RAW is the same - it's just that the RAW image has more detail levels within that latitude.

Here's a JPEG created in-camera that most people would consider overexposed and write off as blown out. The image just to the right of it reveals hidden exposure levels just by moving the Exposure slider in PhotoShop. The image to the far right then applies the Shadows/Highlights tool to that in order to demonstrate that bracketing may not always be necessary.

You can usually get tone mapped looking images (some people call these "HDR") just by duplicating the layer, adjusting the exposures, and playing with the Shadows/Highlights tool. The amount you apply and how you blend is of course personal preference. The same thing can be demonstrated with an image that most people would consider under exposed and write off as unsalvageable. I would rather have to start with an over exposure than an under exposure but as mentioned in this thread a proper and correct exposure is what you should be aiming for!

"Exposure Blending" is also an option available when bracketing.

 

[Christie Photo]

I feel it's better to err on the side of underexposure.

Gross overexposure means no data, and with no data there's nothing to affect in processing.

I saw a lot of this as digital photography first took hold. Photographers shooting negative film were often less careful with exposure, letting the lab compensate. Reversal film photographers have always known accurete exposure is essential.

Rather than using the grass or your hand, why not carry a gray card?

I'm not sure, but aren't most modern cameras capable of auto bracketing? I think mine are. Or is that not available when shooting raw?

The old school-of-thought was shoot for the shadows, print for the highlights. With digital, I expose for the highlights, and print for the shadows.

-Pete