What's good and bad exposure?

[alexnotalex]

Dear RFF experts,

Still less than 20 rolls into rangefinder and manual exposure technique, I'm wrestling with how to tell good exposure from bad. I understand that it's subjective, and there are many ways to expose the same shot... but I'd like to improve my exposure eye and, to tell you the truth, I'm not entirely sure of what to look for.

So, in your opinion, are these two shots under or over exposed, or pretty OK? Difficult lighting in both situations.

Canon P and uncoated Summar, ISO 200 Fuji Superia.

Many thanks for your comments, all are welcome!

best,
Alex

 

[Juan Valdenebro]

They're fine: there's no way to keep detail in both places at the same time... In the first shot it hurts less because the windows are small... The only solution -for real high contrast as in interiors / exteriors, is composing for the smallest possible washed zones...

Cheers,

Juan

 

[dmr]

It's hard to tell on this laptop, but I would say that if anything, you have a slight overexposure. The texture of the front of the fountain in the second shot, for example, appears to be blown out.

On the first one, however, stopping down may cause those details in the shadow area to the right of the desk to drop down into the mud.

I suggest bracketing, shoot identical frames at different exposures, over and under what you think the ideal one is.

 

[alexnotalex]

Thanks Juan, that helped!
I'll reshoot the lobby next time I stay there 🙂
best,
Alex

 

[Juan Valdenebro]

In the second shot the man near the door is clearly underexposed, but with more exposure, the clear zones in the image would be grossly washed out... I think the shots were as well exposed as could have been done...

Cheers,

Juan

 

[Juan Valdenebro]

Thanks Juan, that helped!
I'll reshoot the lobby next time I stay there 🙂
best,
Alex

Very nice chairs...! Were the giraffes out for a walk? 😀

Cheers,

Juan

 

[umcelinho]

to me a good exposure is the one that reflects what you were seeing at the moment, it's how I deal with it when exposing/editing.

they look fine to me, the 2nd shot may be brighter than how I'd expose it, but only you were there and knows what it looked like or what you wanted to capture (say, the hall was darker but you wanted to get the darker area details.

 

[charjohncarter]

Try some slide film. Then you will really know; you won't have to ask.

 

[Juan Valdenebro]

That's great advice! Nothing teaches us as much as slide film! By the way, Fuji Sensia is as good as pro Astia (the same film indeed), and it's a wonderful film for natural color at a great price... A few rolls of Sensia are a just a marvelous teacher! Both for exposure and selective focus...

Cheers,

Juan

 

[Mablo]

I think your exposures are fine. Many C-41 lab machines correct exposure automatically so it can be difficult to say exactly how well you did (I'm assuming you don't develop C-41 at home). Dmr has a good point. In a difficult situation bracket by changing shutter speed up and/or down.

Shooting chromes without a good meter can be frustrating and also quite expensive. If you do your own B&W you could use one film, one developer and one good recipe to find out your true exposure skills. But I wouldn't do it. Just bracket and you'll be fine 🙂

 

[Juan Valdenebro]

Alex,

One of the most interesting things about slide film for testing one's skills, from exposure to composition, to focus, to depth of field, etc., is that you can check your results now, and also check them in the future, when you'll be able to see more than in every present moment... Those slides (just cut and stored in 6-frame strips as negatives) won't get deleted, and will become in some time, an interesting body of work... You can mix everything in any roll: planned tests, suddenly decided tests in field, real shooting, friends and portraiture... If you buy one of those 3-roll packs of Sensia 100 and another one of Sensia 400, you'll have more than 200 shots for several months or a year: it's little money compared to how clear you'll see (and keep for the future) all kinds of concepts and images: you'll see your photography in the clearest way: you'll see camera, shutter and lenses behavior, technical and aesthetical skills, real tone, real contrast, real color temperature, filters effect... And looking at those strips is as important, and requires as much attention, as shooting them: it's not about shooting a lot of slide film, but about analyzing your results a lot... And about Sensia, lots of professional photographers use it massively: any great shot you get along that process, will be really great, and will always be there...

Cheers,

Juan

 

[Mister E]

I think your exposures are fine. Many C-41 lab machines correct exposure automatically

I hear this all the time, but how exactly do they do this? Check film density during development then shorten or lengthen development time?

 

[Juan Valdenebro]

I guess those opinions talk about the process of digitalizing the image... I haven't heard of machines analyzing film density before it's developed...

Cheers,

Juan

 

[alexnotalex]

i scanned from a print if that makes any odds. I'll ask at Jessops today, I think they must be correcting something, I'm not that consistent.
I'll give slides a try and see how it goes.
And Juan, you should have seen the giant spirit measures!

Thanks everyone for your advice.
Alex

 

[Mablo]

Mister E, Juan, you are absolutely right. Of course the C-41 exposure correction takes place in the printing phase, not during developing. So if one scans C-41 negatives the exposure is 100% original. Lab prints can differ. I'm sorry I wasn't thinking straight (too early in the morning perhaps).

 

[oftheherd]

Slides are indeed the least forgiving of exposure error, and you won't have errors covered by the commercial developing/printing process. When your film is developed at by machine, as it is about to be printed, the machine puts a known amount of light through the negative and measures that. It then attempts to compensate for any real or perceived problems in the exposure.

You would do the same in scanning. The difference is when you are doing it yourself, you have a better idea what you want emphacized. You may be willing to blow out highlights or loose detail in shadow.

As you become more experienced with any combination of light meter, film, and camera, you will get better at exposing for what you want. Just keep at it. It all comes with practice. And of course, ask questions when you aren't sure of something.

 

[alexnotalex]

I asked my photo lab if their equipment did any exposure fixing during development and scanning "erm no I don't think so it's just straight from the camera. We can do it but you'll have to pay" bla bla bla. Interesting.

These were scanned directly without printing (thanks Mablo and oftheherd for the info)

Here's a bracketing shot from my first roll with the Nikkor-HC. I think I prefer the first exposure. My built in incident lightmeter seems to be working ok...

what do you think?

best

+1 stop

+2 stops

 

[Roger Hicks]

The big problem is that metering for slides (exposure keyed to highlights) and negatives (exposure keyed to shadows) are not the same, unless the overall subect brightness range is quite short, so if you 'learn' metering with slides, you may end up with worse exposures, rather than better.

If you're getting prints that good, rather than scanning from negs, your exposures are very good indeed.

Cheers,

R.

 

[alexnotalex]

Very nice chairs...! Were the giraffes out for a walk? 😀

Cheers,

Juan

"Amy Winehouse and Marge Simpson met here every Tuesday afternoon for a quiet cocktail..."

 

[Mister E]

The big problem is that metering for slides (exposure keyed to highlights) and negatives (exposure keyed to shadows) are not the same, unless the overall subect brightness range is quite short, so if you 'learn' metering with slides, you may end up with worse exposures, rather than better.

If you're getting prints that good, rather than scanning from negs, your exposures are very good indeed.

Cheers,

R.

I meter both for my subject because otherwise I end up with peoples faces often stuck in muddy shadows.