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

[Bifurcator]

Yeah even most P&S cameras do bracketing. It's usually a camera exposure modification so it's available in RAW np.

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

You can say the exact same thing about "gross underexposures". The reason I said I would rather come from over rather than under is that sometimes when you come from under too much noise is introduced.

 

[ksmattfish]

I shoot raw, and follow the expose to the right school of thought. Expose to the right does not mean blown out highlights.

 

[Village Idiot]

I shoot raw, and follow the expose to the right school of thought. Expose to the right does not mean blown out highlights.

:er:

WTF. People actually think if you under expose and bring the exposure up, it helps? You people should try the above. As Bifurcator explained, just because your eyes see something as overexposed, doesn't mean that the data is lost. We can't see data.

Also, over expose, means +1/3 - +2/3 of a stop, not three whole stops. When I'm shooting with my flash in TTL mode and using direct flash, it's usually at least at +1/3 FEC. slight over exposure can help with the total dynamic range of the image when the exposure is brought back to nuetral.

 

[JerryPH]

Well:
...in underexposure, in severe cases you increase noise in shadow areas.
...in overexposure, in severe cases you lose data.

My initial suggestion rings best to me:

- First, KNOW what you want from the picture
- Expose for what YOU NEED (hand, sky, background, foreground, whatever!)
- Take the shot.

For me I shoot only in RAW because in those times that I screw things up (still happens quite often ), I have the increased latitude for correction that JPEG can only dream of.

 

[usayit]

There is a misunderstanding in translation from film to digital in this thread. There is a difference. The differences are also camera by camera..... just like differences between slide and negative film.

 

[Village Idiot]

Well:
...in underexposure, in severe cases you increase noise in shadow areas.
...in overexposure, in severe cases you lose data.

My initial suggestion rings best to me:

- First, KNOW what you want from the picture
- Expose for what YOU NEED (hand, sky, background, foreground, whatever!)
- Take the shot.

For me I shoot only in RAW because in those times that I screw things up (still happens quite often ), I have the increased latitude for correction that JPEG can only dream of.

+1/3 of a stop is not severe over exposure. If you read articles about "shooting to the right", none of them state that you should severely over expose your shots. That's just retarded. But even with one or two thirds of a stop of under exposure, you can still get noise by bumping it back up. Not like where you can see additional dynamic range by bringing down a slightly over exposed shot.

 

[usayit]

:er:

WTF. People actually think if you under expose and bring the exposure up, it helps?

Yes... it depends on the camera and sensor. Many Slide film shooter purposely underexpose slightly and negative film shooters do the opposite. Sensors in a digital camera behave in similar ways.

Some cameras sensors maintain more details in the shadows... some don't. Some are contrasty and blow out highlights... some don't.

 

[Village Idiot]

Yes... it depends on the camera and sensor. Many Slide film shooter purposely underexpose slightly and negative film shooters do the opposite. Sensors in a digital camera behave in similar ways.

Some cameras sensors maintain more details in the shadows... some don't. Some are contrasty and blow out highlights... some don't.

But no matter how much more detail is in the shadows, you're still going to have a much more noisier image than if you would over expose by 1/3 of a stop. Over exposing by about 1/3 of a stop will not blow out highlights unless you're shooting in an environment that has that much of a dynamic range where even a regular exposure will blow out highlights. Like shooting outside on a sunny day.

 

[ksmattfish]

With film the problem is zero density; shadows with neg film and highlights with slides. Too much density is a b*tch, but it can usually be dealt with. With digital the problem exists at both ends, but I think instant preview, histograms, and processing by inspection make it pretty easy to work with. As long as the exposure isn't dropping off either end of the histogram the file will be workable, but my own experience is that reducing exposure in raw processing also has the effect of reducing noise.

The things they talk about in this article make a lot of sense to me.

http://www.luminous-landscape.com/tutorials/expose-right.shtml

 

[JerryPH]

+1/3 of a stop is not severe over exposure.

I totally agree. Any minor + or - in exposure will also have minimal effect on a given picture in the digital world... unless one is extremely anal (we are now getting beyond technical and entering into artistic preferences).

If you read articles about "shooting to the right", none of them state that you should severely over expose your shots. That's just retarded. But even with one or two thirds of a stop of under exposure, you can still get noise by bumping it back up. Not like where you can see additional dynamic range by bringing down a slightly over exposed shot.

I agree that underexposing and then trying to capture back a 1/2 stop or more can cause a noticeable increase in noise (likely only really visible in the shadows, though).

The concept of "Shooting to the right" was a technique developed for FILM, not digital. There are times when film has advantages that digital will not have anytime soon (dynamic range) and visa versa for film (which will NEVER have the same high ISO/low noise of today's top end cameras).

In this case, there is absolutely ZERO advantage to shoot + or - 1/3rd of a stop because anyone can adjust that range (and further) in post (we don't have that gradual compression of the hilight saturation like film does). Therefore, what we need to watch for is not minor adjustments, but the "severe" issues of blow-out vs noise and more importantly, that you are metering off of the PROPER object... a task many new camera users have no concept or understanding of.

ksmattfish's link kinda supports my feelings:
QUOTE:
"For film based photography, the highlight end of the scale is compressed by the shoulder portion of the D/log E curve. So as brighter and brighter objects are photographed, the highlight detail gets gradually compressed more and more until eventually the film saturates. But up until that point, the highlight compression progresses in a gradual fashion. Solid state sensors in digital cameras behave very differently. As light falls on a sensor, a charge either accumulates or dissipates (depending on the sensor technology). Its response is well behaved right up until the point of saturation, at which time it abruptly stops. There is no forgiveness by gradually backing off, as was the case with film."

In the digital age, it's just not an issue anymore... or rather, it should not be. That's just my opinion, of course!

 

[Big Mike]

With digital, exposing to the right means that you are utilizing more the color information from the sensor...because there is more information at the bright/right end of the scale than there is on the dark/left side.

http://www.luminous-landscape.com/tutorials/expose-right.shtml

 

[manaheim]

I did some "exposure to the right" stuff at the circus one day with some amazing results. I was doing it because of high ISO and trying to compensate for the noise, but it makes sense that the methods would apply in any situation, regardless of ISO... though it had not occurred to me prior to this thread.

Here is an example shot. There's a touch of motion blur because I kept having to take longer shots to overexpose, but you can see the consistency and lack of noise on the areas that are in the light.

 

[Bifurcator]

In the digital age, it's just not an issue anymore... or rather, it should not be. That's just my opinion, of course!

With digital, exposing to the right means that you are utilizing more the color information from the sensor...because there is more information at the bright/right end of the scale than there is on the dark/left side.

I agree with both these. If it's properly exposed the color saturation is supreme so there is no need to expose to the right - or left.

On the other hand in a complex scene where there are also many dark areas lightening it up will give you more vivid saturations to work with.

Yet on the third hand in an equally complex scene where there are many bright areas darkening it slightly will give you saturated colors to work with in those bright areas and also allow you later to selectively lighten the key subject - just as you would darken it in the above sentence.

So now we're talking about scene dependent exposures.

What's your scene? What do you want? Let that be the deciding factor. Where light and object shades are relatively even though (with digital) shooting the gray card reading right smack in the middle will always produce the best results. :thumbup:

 

[achtungbarry]

Wow, thanks for all the answers. Very insightful indeed and some great links and samples. thanks. Obviously I try to get exposure as correct as possible withot underexposing or exposing to the right where possible but it is those weird and difficult lighting situations when merging exposures may not be an option where I wonder whether to underexpose or expose to the right.

Would I be correct in saying that when shooting RAW there is a tiny bit more latitude than the histogram is telling me due to the fact that it represents a jpeg of the image rather than the raw ?


"Luke- use the bracket!"

I nearly fell off my chair laughing at this one.

 

[JerryPH]

There is always going to be a little more play room in a file that is 16-bit vs 8-bit.

A histogram is not really involved with it. By the time the histogram is available (in most cameras), the picture is already taken and it is not the source of why RAW has more latitude than JPG, it is in the properties of the file contents themselves.