Kozhe
Well-known
Hi everybody,
Got a 450D some days ago and coming from film (mostly black and white) I´m getting crazy with the Canon exposures. Using the sunny f16 rule at daylight brings really underexposed pictures.
I made some tests yesterday. At night or indoors, what I know from experience are good settings for bw (for example F2 at 1/30, ISO 400 in a well lighted restaurant at night) works perfect with the Canon, but during the day what gives me a good result with the Leica (F8, 1/400, ISO 400 on a partially shadowed street in the morning, sunny day) gives me really dark result with the digital camera.
I checked and it was usually like 4 stops darker. Yesterday I had some time to walk the streets and most of my shoots where around f2, 1/500. f8 to f2 is quite a change eh?
Now I guess there´s nothing really wrong with this (tested with diferent lenses btw) but just a diference between how to use film and digital. Any input on this?
- Is digital latitude really that low compared to Tri-X ?
- Are these "underexposed" shoots the way to go on digital and correct them in Lightroom, for example? After all I like the idea of getting the pictures correct directly from the camera, I´m not that involved with digital stuff!
- Should I really care?
I guess I can live with diferent setting on the Leica and the Canon, but having diferent settings on two bodies I´m using at the same time just feels weird, isn´t it?
Thanks!
Got a 450D some days ago and coming from film (mostly black and white) I´m getting crazy with the Canon exposures. Using the sunny f16 rule at daylight brings really underexposed pictures.
I made some tests yesterday. At night or indoors, what I know from experience are good settings for bw (for example F2 at 1/30, ISO 400 in a well lighted restaurant at night) works perfect with the Canon, but during the day what gives me a good result with the Leica (F8, 1/400, ISO 400 on a partially shadowed street in the morning, sunny day) gives me really dark result with the digital camera.
I checked and it was usually like 4 stops darker. Yesterday I had some time to walk the streets and most of my shoots where around f2, 1/500. f8 to f2 is quite a change eh?
Now I guess there´s nothing really wrong with this (tested with diferent lenses btw) but just a diference between how to use film and digital. Any input on this?
- Is digital latitude really that low compared to Tri-X ?
- Are these "underexposed" shoots the way to go on digital and correct them in Lightroom, for example? After all I like the idea of getting the pictures correct directly from the camera, I´m not that involved with digital stuff!
- Should I really care?
I guess I can live with diferent setting on the Leica and the Canon, but having diferent settings on two bodies I´m using at the same time just feels weird, isn´t it?Thanks!
kully
Happy Snapper
Latitude - yes!
I had the same problems when moving to digital late last year. You really do need to pay attention more (or perhaps make use of all the sweat that went into the cameras matrix metering mode?). With B&W I used to always give more exposure to make sure the dark areas were OK and not worry about the highlights too much. With digital it is the other way around - make sure the highlights are OK and not worry about the shadows as much.
I had the same problems when moving to digital late last year. You really do need to pay attention more (or perhaps make use of all the sweat that went into the cameras matrix metering mode?). With B&W I used to always give more exposure to make sure the dark areas were OK and not worry about the highlights too much. With digital it is the other way around - make sure the highlights are OK and not worry about the shadows as much.
N
Nikon Bob
Guest
Similar experience to Kully when first shooting with a DSLR, in colour thought, but I guess it would be the same as in B&W shooting. I found that even with matrix metering I had to carry between -.3 and -.7 exposure comp to avoid blowing out highlights in most case. Say what you want about chimping but if you have the option to set highlight to flashing if overexposed on review mode you can dial in just enough comp to stop highlights from blowing out. You can then bring back shadows in PP.
Bob
Bob
Roger Hicks
Veteran
Digi + tranny = keyed to highlights, i.e. overexpose and highlights blow to white; shadows recoverable easily in digi, tolerably in tranny.
Neg (colour or mono) = keyed to shadows, i.e. underexpose and the shadows block to black; highights recoverable.
Different metering techniques.
Cheers,
R.
Neg (colour or mono) = keyed to shadows, i.e. underexpose and the shadows block to black; highights recoverable.
Different metering techniques.
Cheers,
R.
sojournerphoto
Veteran
Exactly.
spend some time with the (very clever) matrix metering first - sunny 16 is not really suitable for trannys or digital. Use the histogram or flashing highlights in the review image to let you know how the exposure is on the fly. be careful with highlights as you will reciover more shadow detail than you can imagine.
Finally, the histogram and preview image is based on a jpeg not the raw data. If you shoot raw the canon will usually give you a bit more headroom than sugested by the preview. You can get around this with techniques like uni-whitebalance (you can google if you like, but I'd wait a while) or just set the camera to the lowest contrast rednering (neutral or faithful I think) and try not to blow any of the channels (generally try very hard not to blow the green channel if you have a colour histogram).
Don't believe all you read on the internet about digital exposure...
Mike
Kozhe
Well-known
Thankis for the replies guys!
It´s not about a click or two compensation, it´s up to 4 stops! Maybe I´m just pushing my negatives too much? I don´t think so, my settings are not that strange. I´ll test more and more and check histograms.
It´s not about a click or two compensation, it´s up to 4 stops! Maybe I´m just pushing my negatives too much? I don´t think so, my settings are not that strange. I´ll test more and more and check histograms.
sojournerphoto
Veteran
Strangely the OPs original exposure was less than the camera required. If the neg film was underexposed he would have struggled with shadow detail I would think. Plus the Canon's I've used have been more not less sensitive than film of 'equivalent' rating.
I'm sure it'll be fathomed out in due course.
Mike
Tin
Well-known
Why didn't anybody mentioned slides. In my mind, digital behaves like slides, hence you need to expose for the highlights.
When digital first came up a while ago, I asked a former professional photographer whether digital was a negative or a slide. He answered "Both." After further observations on my own, his answer didn't make sense to me. I then dawn on me that digital behaved like slides, and I treat it that way. I usually dial in a -0.3 when using auto exposure and I don not usually run into trouble unless the lighting situation is very unusual. But if you had to use a -3 or -4 correction, then I'd say that there is something wrong, although I don't know where did it go wrong.
With regards to latitude, my impression is that exposure latitude in digital appears to be slightly narrower than slides, although I don't know by how much.
When digital first came up a while ago, I asked a former professional photographer whether digital was a negative or a slide. He answered "Both." After further observations on my own, his answer didn't make sense to me. I then dawn on me that digital behaved like slides, and I treat it that way. I usually dial in a -0.3 when using auto exposure and I don not usually run into trouble unless the lighting situation is very unusual. But if you had to use a -3 or -4 correction, then I'd say that there is something wrong, although I don't know where did it go wrong.
With regards to latitude, my impression is that exposure latitude in digital appears to be slightly narrower than slides, although I don't know by how much.
Roger Hicks
Veteran
Toby
On the alert
It's not really true that digital has less dynamic range than film, especially the latest DSLR's it is rather that the dynamic range is in a different place (the shadows) and that digital has no 'shoulder' in its characteristic curve so when highlights go they go more quickly than film.
Below are examples of two photos one digital one film both with the same exposure (I think I may have actually given the film image 1/3 or 2/3 of a stop more exposure)
You can see in the top one how digital has blown the highlights, but to the same extent see how the shadow areas in the film image are darker. Both these images are recoverable though. Digital image 5d. Film Pentax67 and FP4
Below are examples of two photos one digital one film both with the same exposure (I think I may have actually given the film image 1/3 or 2/3 of a stop more exposure)
You can see in the top one how digital has blown the highlights, but to the same extent see how the shadow areas in the film image are darker. Both these images are recoverable though. Digital image 5d. Film Pentax67 and FP4
italy74
Well-known
To be honest, I see darker shadows on the top image ,while the bottomest looks more balanced between highlights and shadows.
Kozhe
Well-known
Wow Toby, that´s a great example. Thanks!
Well, I´m really starting to think that it´s just the way I´m working with film. I do mostly street shooting where I use to set an aperture (f8 for 35mm) and change the speeds up to 2 stops whether I´m aiming at dark or light places. It works great and in fact I have had always a lot of space for highlights (little subtle clouds still visible on shoots under a lot of trees or covered by huge walls or rocks...)
Next time I shoot film I´ll do it 1 or 2 stops over my current settings and check the results vs digital.
Well, I´m really starting to think that it´s just the way I´m working with film. I do mostly street shooting where I use to set an aperture (f8 for 35mm) and change the speeds up to 2 stops whether I´m aiming at dark or light places. It works great and in fact I have had always a lot of space for highlights (little subtle clouds still visible on shoots under a lot of trees or covered by huge walls or rocks...)
Next time I shoot film I´ll do it 1 or 2 stops over my current settings and check the results vs digital.
chris91387
Well-known
don't underexpose too much with your digital of you'll get noisy when you bring them back up later. i usually keep my (no outdated) d80 at -2/3 to control the highlights some.
- chris
- chris
charjohncarter
Veteran
It's not really true that digital has less dynamic range than film, especially the latest DSLR's it is rather that the dynamic range is in a different place (the shadows) and that digital has no 'shoulder' in its characteristic curve so when highlights go they go more quickly than film.
Below are examples of two photos one digital one film both with the same exposure (I think I may have actually given the film image 1/3 or 2/3 of a stop more exposure)
You can see in the top one how digital has blown the highlights, but to the same extent see how the shadow areas in the film image are darker. Both these images are recoverable though. Digital image 5d. Film Pentax67 and FP4
You can guess which one I like the best. Hint; bottom.
Mcary
Well-known
One thing to remember about digital is most of the data is record in the brightest FStop 2048 out of 4096 total levels available 12Bit.
http://www.luminous-landscape.com/tutorials/expose-right.shtml
Mike
http://www.luminous-landscape.com/tutorials/expose-right.shtml
Mike
Al Kaplan
Veteran
"Time is money" is one expression I've been hearing all my life!
The others include "Film is cheap!"
"Read the light, not the subject!" referring to making an incident reading.
How about "When in doubt bracket!"?
The others include "Film is cheap!"
"Read the light, not the subject!" referring to making an incident reading.
How about "When in doubt bracket!"?
Roger Hicks
Veteran
Dear Al,
True, except when shooting neg of a subject with a long tonal range.
To ram the point home (not to you, who know already), incident pegs the exposure to the highlight (digi and tranny), spot (shadow) to the shadow (neg, colour or mono).
Otherwise, yes.
Cheers,
R.
Al Kaplan
Veteran
The incident reading is close enough 98% of the time but you really need to run tests to discover what the true exposure index (ISO) might be of your film/developer/agitation. If you want to meter quick and dirty you'll have to really master your printing skills.
Roger Hicks
Veteran
Sorry, Al, but no. I don't disagree with you often, but this is one of the times.
Not the true ISO, which is almost certainly as advertised, but the EI thst works for you.
And close enough 98% of the time except in contrasty lighting where shadow detail matters.
Q&D? Sure: use incident. Or broad-area reflected. And add on 1-2 stops if shadow detail matters in contrasty light, when you've learned when not to trust the meter blindly. I realize you don't trust any meter blindly, but many of us did for years.
Cheers,
R.
Al Kaplan
Veteran
I said "true exposure index", meaning on the ISO scale, and went on to say that was with YOUR "film/developer/agitation". I supppose we could get into a discussion about how ISO is a compromise between ASA and DIN because DIN measures from a point on the toe where any gradiant at all just become noticeable while ASA was based on a mid point of the straight line portion of the H&D curve. Not all ASA 100 films were DIN 21.
I mostly expose TRI-X for ISO 250 and use D-76 1:1 at ISO 400 times. It works for me but probably not for everybody.
I mostly expose TRI-X for ISO 250 and use D-76 1:1 at ISO 400 times. It works for me but probably not for everybody.