Interesting question. I actually have many things I would like to comment on and reply to. I hope I won't miss any of them ....
Kelton Sweet wrote:.
I find that I am often using exposure compensation (EC) to adjust theexposure way down (darker) in many interior shots..
When shooting in a room with dim lights, the camera will naturallytry to expose the shot as though everything is bright and airy (youget a slow shutter too, but that's not the issue here)..
So I will sometimes turn the exposure way, way, down to produce alighting effect that is as close to reality as possible..
I do this the same way, unless I want to achieve / force a particular effect. In order to achieve correct exposure there often isn't another way than to adjust exposures for very dark objects and scenes (same goes for very bright - beach or skiining/snow scenes).
The Question:So is this good protocol?... or should I shoot at the standardexposure setting and "dim it down" with software?.
The way I see it is, if you can create a perfectly exposed picture without any need to post process, you are right on the money. (I am sure there are others contracting this opinion, due to the fact that you may be able to tickle a minute amount of better IQ out of a picture following a certain technicque, but at what price?)..
Are you using a separate light meter?.
The disadvantage of doing a negative EC (in camera) is that if, forsome reason, I need to take a look at some details in the shadows..they are somewhat hopelessly compromised. By dimming it withsoftware, I can always choose to keep the brighter exposure if I needto view those shadow details..
Recovering details from shadows (underexposed) scenes is easier and better than trying to recover details from highlights (overexposed parts of the picture). The latter is often impossible. Once you clipped the highlights - they are come for good. On the other hand, especially when you shoot RAW, you will have surpisingly much room to recover seemingly lost details from underexposed parts. You will seldomly have such dark tones where all recovering efforts are lost..
Sometimes photographed scene offers too wide of a dynamic range for the sensor to capture everthing - from the shadows to the highlights. In this case it's best to try to save the highlights from clipping and than to lift and recover details from the shadows via postprocessing later (again RAW works wonders). Alternatively you could bracket the shot and "merge" the bracketed images later, using the shadows from one image and the highlights from the other - just be careful as those fusions can make an ambient light photograph look quite artifical..
Lastly you could make a decision as photographer right then and there and choose between highlights or shadows to be the priority..
Am I thinking correctly on this?.
Let me counterask you something? Is there something you think you are lacking in your images by applying this technique?.
Cheersbecksi..
Several 'correct' exposures...
Kelton Sweet wrote:.
I find that I am often using exposure compensation (EC) to adjust theexposure way down (darker) in many interior shots..
As you shoot more, you may find you have a 'personally preferred' exposure.. or you may change your exposure depending on the situation...
When shooting in a room with dim lights, the camera will naturallytry to expose the shot as though everything is bright and airy (youget a slow shutter too, but that's not the issue here)..
Slow shutter speed is only a necessary result of small aperture and low ISO... bump those to open and high, and you get a fast shutter speed...
So I will sometimes turn the exposure way, way, down to produce alighting effect that is as close to reality as possible..
You are talking about a 'creatively correct exposure'... a personal preference... I usually shoot in full Manual exposure mode to achieve the effect I want, consistently..
The Question:So is this good protocol?... or should I shoot at the standardexposure setting and "dim it down" with software?.
Learn to shoot in Manual exposure mode and learn how different scenes respond to different settings..
The disadvantage of doing a negative EC (in camera) is that if, forsome reason, I need to take a look at some details in the shadows..they are somewhat hopelessly compromised. By dimming it withsoftware, I can always choose to keep the brighter exposure if I needto view those shadow details..
You decide if the important details are contained in the shadows or in the highlights... my opinion is that if you are looking to keep details in the shadows, you need to expose to fully develop those same dark areas, often at the expense of the highlights - the sensor can only capture a certain range of tones from black to white without losing detail in one or the other area...
Am I thinking correctly on this?.
You are correct in your thinking, but you need to think about what you are trying to achieve with your photos, and expose effectively for that, not just to 'get detail in shadoows'...
Cheers,S.**My XT IS Full Frame APS-C/FF of course!*****So is my 5D 35mm/FF**..
This issue has been around for a while! Have a look at Ansel Adams' zone system of metering....
Http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ansel_Adams.
... which, in a nutshell, suggests that you manually meter (e.g. with a spot meter) for the darkest part of the image which you want to have any detail / texture, and set the exposure for 2 stops less than this. The zone system recognises the facts that (i) real life has a higher dynamic range than film (or digital sensors) so either shadow or highlight detail has to go in some circumstances, and (ii) different viewers may wish to record a scene in a different way... hence the emphasis on deciding which parts of the scene YOU think are the most improtant to preserve detail in, and exposing accordingly..
I haven't tried this myself yet but I will soon and am looking forward to having a good play with the camera on 'manual' for once.Mike..
"..So I will sometimes turn the exposure way, way, down to produce a lighting effect that is as close to reality as possible...".
I think the heart of the problem is in our interpretation of "realistic". To me, it means I'd like to record the image as I perceive it in real life. Unfortunately this isn't completely possible because our brain does quite a bit of contextual interpretation & image modification as we look at a particular scene..
Say that a digital camera with a sufficiently large dynamic range can accurately record the entire range of light intensities from a scene and a printer can faithfully print the results. Will the resultant print look realistic? I doubt it..
When you look at a large high contrast scene in real life you don't really look at it all at once - you actually look at it as an assembly of sub-scenes & your brain assembles those sub-scenes into a short trem memory representation of "reality.".
When you look at a scene with dark shadows under some trees your eyes are able to refocus & open their apertures to see what's in those shadows while your brain ignores the newly over-exposed portions of the scene (instead of over-writing the already properly exposed portions of the image, the brain just ignores the new info about that region of the image because the old info is better.).
Your best hope with a camera is to record the broadest range of intensities you can and using raw data or multiple exposures then manipulate that data into a display that "looks ok" with HDR & tone-mapping approaches..
The result of HDR & tone-mapping is often said to "look like a painting" because it does what a landscape artist does - s/he looks into the dark portions of the scene and records an impression of them, then looks at the bright parts and records them, etc... then assembles these sub-scenes into a composite image..
I'm no expert in human visual perception but what little I've read about it has been a big help to my understanding the challenges faced by the photographer..
See: http://www.clarkvision.com/imagedetail/eye-resolution.html for example...
Kelton Sweet wrote:.
So is this good protocol?... or should I shoot at the standardexposure setting and "dim it down" with software?.
There is no such thing as "perfect exposure". Shoot to get the exposure you want. It's better to get things right (in terms of what you want) in-camera..
Seen in a fortune cookie:Fear is the darkroom where negatives are developed..
I agree with the last poster. Try to get the exposure right (what you think it should be) in camera. Given the present affordability of memory there is no excuse not to automatically bracket one's shots and/or shoot RAW provided that the camera's buffer can cope..
Sometimes it can be really difficult as here against the light in a dark location, and software is the only way to get what's needed:.
Image control:Zoom outZoom 100%Zoom inExpand AllOpen in new window.
John.Please visit me at:http://www.pbase.com/johnfr/backtothebridgehttp://www.pbase.com/johnfr..
I would suggest you expose using the "expose to the right" principle, meaning as close to the right-hand side of a histogram as possible without over-exposing ( unless unavoidable )..
You have then captured as much light as possible, which in turn gives you the best data to work from in post processing. This is the best way to ensure you can get detail in darker areas. You can discard this if you don't want it, but you at least have the option if you captured it in the first place..
There's absolutely nothing wrong with PP to adjust white-balance, exposure and colour tone. No camera produces perfect reproductions, so PP is there to help you tweak an image for the most pleasing effect ( for yourself or your client or the intended audience )..
"Realistic" is different to everyone, so don't get to hung up on realism..
StephenG.
Fuji S9600Fuji S5200Fuji F30Fuji E900Canon A710ISPCLinuxOS..
Thanks..
I think the responders understood my post, but to be clear..
The last post... just before this one... seemed to "get" one of my questions:That is, should I expose the scene such that maximum data is collected..
So, in a darkened room with lots of darker shadows (in which my eyes can't quite see details), should I expose the shot so those dark shadows are, indeed, dark? This is what I am calling "realistic" exposure..
... or should I expose it so that the shadows and the rest of the room reveal maximum details. This is the sort of exposure one would get if you just set the camera on auto. The scene would appear to have been a well lit room, but that wouldn't be "realistic"..
Again, I suppose I could just dim the scene with software. In that way, I could preserve the details in the original just in case I wanted to take a look at the stuff that would have been hidden in the shadows..
The advantage of shooting for maximum brightness would be that I could have the flexibility of having all of the details *and* the option of darkening the room with software..
So does this make sense, or is there a disadvantage to this idea?..
Kelton Sweet wrote:.
That is, should I expose the scene such that maximum data is collected..
You should expose the scene so that the data you are interested in is collected..
So, in a darkened room with lots of darker shadows (in which my eyescan't quite see details), should I expose the shot so those darkshadows are, indeed, dark?.
Not if you want to preserve detail in the shadows..
... or should I expose it so that the shadows and the rest of theroom reveal maximum details..
If you expose for the shadows the highlights will be blown out. But that's OK if you are looking to get the shadows..
One exposure is not going to get all the details you eyes can see. Your eyes have a wider dynamic range. So you've got to select what detail you do want, and what detail you can live without..
Again, I suppose I could just dim the scene with software..
But if you overexpose too much you'll blow an awful lot of the highlights..
Seen in a fortune cookie:Fear is the darkroom where negatives are developed..
So, in a darkened room with lots of darker shadows (in which my eyescan't quite see details), should I expose the shot so those darkshadows are, indeed, dark? This is what I am calling "realistic"exposure.... or should I expose it so that the shadows and the rest of theroom reveal maximum details..
As others have pointed out, many scenes will exceed the dynamic range your camera is capable of capturing in a single exposure so no matter what you do, you will lose information at one end or at the other. Expose for the shadows and you will not capture detail in the highlights ... or expose to preserve detail in the highlights and you will fail to capture detail in the shadows..
Assuming you wish to make only one exposure (vs. several exposures blended with HDR techniques):.
If your goal is only to make an image with dark, featureless shadow areas, you can accomplish this by.
(a) setting an exposure which will render the shadow areas dark.
Or.
(b) setting an exposure which renders the shadow areas brighter (with lots of detail) then post-process to throw that detail away and make those areas dark again..
Option (a) will require less post-processing, and will preserve more detail in the highlights..
If your goal is to make an image with dark, featureless shadow areas, but also have the option to make an image with detail in the shadow areas, option (b) is your only choice. Option (b) will yield images with less (or no) detail in the highlights..
You must decide if you care about the highlight detail..
In some circumstances, the highlights are irrelevant I choose to let them get completely blown out, in order to get good shadow detail:.
Image control:Zoom outZoom 100%Zoom inExpand AllOpen in new window.
In other circumstances, the highlights are essential, and the shadow areas are irrelevant:.
Image control:Zoom outZoom 100%Zoom inExpand AllOpen in new window..
I guess I should describe a shooting situation..
It's a dark room. There are few, if any, highlights to worry about..
In print, I want the "darkness" of the real photographic situation. I do not want to give someone the illusion that the shot was taken in a well lit room which is what a normal exposure will look like (on a tripod/slow shutter)...
Even if you don't care about the highlights, do you care about having the *option* to make an image with shadow detail?.
If no, then shoot with exposure compensation to get the image you want..
If yes, then shoot without EC. The camera's default metering will give you shadow detail, but too bright an overall effect. Darken the image in post-processing...
Yes, thanks... I was thinking that shooting for detail and then dimming in software would be the trick, but does using the software to create the "dimly lit room" effect going to make it look sort of like "faked" darkness?.
That would be the big disadvantage: shooting for shadow detail, and then getting stuck with using software manipulation that produces a "manipulated" looking image. (I'm not the greatest photoshop user!... you can probably tell by now).
I should experiment, but I'm not going to be near my real computer for a while...
Kelton,.
If you want to shoot a darkened room (minimally lit) and want to achieve the effect of showing the darkness and pools of light (this is what I think you are wanting), you will actually be recording a severe underexposure except in the lighted areas, and detail WILL be lost to shadow/noise... consider starting with a matrix metered (full scene) exposure of -1EC and then converting to monochrome on the computer afterward.. this will minimize the shadow detail (as it is in real life) and also minimize the 'noise' in the dark areas..
Cheers,S.**My XT IS Full Frame APS-C/FF of course!*****So is my 5D 35mm/FF**..