XTI underexporure test

[DeadEye]

I almost always have to brighten any photo taken with the xti so I did this test . 2/3 f stop dirrerance. Witch photo is properly exposed?

I am very new at photography .

 

[neogfx]

Second image for sure. Although it loses it slightly in the sky. But definitely the better of the two.

 

[Alex_B]

well, the problem outdoors is that often you have scenes which are either exposed correctly for the foreground or for the sky. But hardly ever both

Your shot does not have a too extreme difference in that respect, since the brightness difference s within what a digital camera can handle. The first one seems to bring out slightly more detail in the sky, although the sky is a tad too dark for me personally. The foreground is slightly underexposed.


In the second one the foreground is well exposed and the sky maybe a hint too bright.

But we have to face it, none of them is really exposed incorrectly, both are a good starting point. Just give them a bit more contrast in postprocessing and both will look nice, ust one a bit darker and one a bit brighter

 

[DeadEye]

Thank you . I guess I got one that needs 2/3 bump up on meter to get it right. Seems lots of the xti are that way. I figured it was my inexperance it first but Im learning.:mrgreen: Read Alex post after posting this one Thanks Alex your explaination has good detail Ill leave the factory settings and post process.

DeadEye

 

[Alex_B]

better to underexpose a little bit, than to lose details in the highlights which you later cannot recover.

 

[neogfx]

Just be careful not to lose the details in the shadows instead lol
If you are unsure when you take the image do what you have here, and take two exposures. Or even 3, 1 at the 'correct' exposure, then one say 2/3 stops underexposed and another 2/3 stops overexposed. When you get them home see which has turned out best, or if you're feeling ambitious use photoshop to pick the best parts from each one.

 

[Alex_B]

Just be careful not to lose the details in the shadows instead lol

That easily happens with Fuji Velvia But in the digital world, it is by far easier to recover at least some detail in the shadows, even though it leads to noise. I consider the bright end of the histogram much more touchy

 

[cigrainger]

That easily happens with Fuji Velvia But in the digital world, it is by far easier to recover at least some detail in the shadows, even though it leads to noise. I consider the bright end of the histogram much more touchy

When I look at Velvia on a light table, all the details in the shadows are there, but the scans and prints I have seem to lose them. Quite frustrating, especially because if you want to take advantage of "disneycolor", you get more saturation from very slight underexposure.

On digital, I do find the bright end much more touchy.

 

[EOS_JD]

I say understand why your camera is under or over exposing in certain situations then you can make a more informed decision as to how to get a correct exposure.

Read "Understanding Exposure" by Bryan Petersen. A great book that explains exposure in simple terms.

Cheers
Jim