Left or Right?

Bill Pierce

Bill Pierce

Well-known
Local time
7:23 PM
Joined
Sep 26, 2007
Messages
1,407
Underexposing digital - not so bad. Overexposing digital - very bad. Once the highlight detail is truly beyond the sensor’s limit, it’s gone forever.

To a certain extent there is very little difference in image quality with many sensors and their processors between controlling brightness with the camera exposure or with the post exposure processing programs like Lightroom, Photoshop, Capture One, e.t.c.. Obviously, this is an oversimplification, but what it means is that in situations where you don’t have the opportunity to meter carefully, you can get away with intentional underexposure. One or two stops of intentional underexposure with a camera’s auto exposure program will guarantee highlight detail when you are shooting quickly or in a situation that can’t be metered appropriately.

Truth is, most of the time I’m shooting digital, I’m underexposing a little with the full intention of correcting in post. My highlights are happy, and I recommend it as a general practice far more that the adage of “expose to the right.” I expose to the left.

Any thoughts?
 
Bill Pierce said:
Truth is, most of the time I’m shooting digital, I’m underexposing a little with the full intention of correcting in post. My highlights are happy, and I recommend it as a general practice far more that the adage of “expose to the right.” I expose to the left.

Any thoughts?
Click to expand...

I completely agree with today´s modern sensors. I`d rather see a little more noise than blown highlights. I never look at a histogram.
 
I keep an eye on the histogram and try to keep it manageable with the compensation dial. And I agree, backing off the exposure is more desirable than punching it up when the lighting is tricky. In that way, it's like shooting Kodachrome and Ektachrome in the 1970's.
 
I was dissatisfied with the images I was getting from my Fuji X100F until I started shooting 1/3 stop underexposed. Made all the difference to me. Likewise on my X-Pro2.

Mike
 
I was taught ETTR with an elaborate technical explanation, but, having shot a lot of slides back in the day, never believed it. I ETTL. You cannot use the highlight slider to recover what isn't there, and printing paper white is undesirable. You don't get ink on the paper above 242.
 
If light is normal I might set M-E to underexpose.
If light is low I might still underexpose, but not so much.
If light is bad (next to none) underexposing leads to comments of photoforums how bad this or that camera high ISO is. In reality they just underexposing.
I'm not. I'm exposing normally or sometimes to the right. If light is bad (next to none) here is no high_lights. Right?
 
If the scene has potential for blowing highlights, I just dial in any negative EV I feel might be suitable between -1 to -3 EV and pull everything up in post. With Sony ISO invariant sensors it doesn't really make much difference to the image but at least you keep your highlights.
 
Digital exposure the same as when I used color transparency film.

A wee bit under.

Histogram is a nice tool.

Smiles and fun!
 
Except if one is shooting an old Fuji S5 Pro. Highlight recovery and roll off unlike any digital camera ever. Begs the question what happened with that sensor tech?
 
I expose neither to the Left or the Right. I expose properly for any scene in such a way that I can render it the way I perceive it.
 
I understand that the marketing boys call it "ISO-less", which I always understood to mean that there was a wider range of adjustment available in the gamma correction. With the Fuji x100f that is certainly the case. In addition I tend to prefer a bit of minus correction when shooting the newer digital cameras.
 
I generally set all my digital cameras to minus 1/3 stop but in the harsh Australian outdoors I often go to minus 1 stop or more, I don't think I've ever deliberately overexposed. All to preserve highlights, when they burn out it's my pet peeve with digital. With my black and white film I never worry about burnt out highlights, I'm much more likely to slightly overexpose to give me meaty shadows.


http://filmisadelight.com
 
I do a lot of shooting indoors, in natural light. The light sources (windows) are often behind my subjects and an incident reading at the subject is often the way to go. But when I must use autoexposure, I tend to dial in a bit of overexposure, because I don't care whether the outside scenes are overexposed. They usually will be, because of the huge difference in dynamic range between indoors and out. And I hate the HDR "look" -- it always looks unnatural to me, although that is straight up personal preference, of course.
 
Canon DSLRs set a half stop underexposed and that produces useable JPEG files. With my Leica M8, using a tip from Leica User Forum from a number of years ago, I set the ISO at 160 and the compensation at either -2 or -3. Shooting raw files, both give good results without the notorious noise produced by high ISO settings on this camera. And setting the compensation to underexpose on both cameras also avoids blowing highlights. BTW, the Canons have a setting in the menus to prioritize highlights and I leave that on all the time.
 
So let me ask all those who use negative EV compensation regularly: How heavily do you rely upon noise reduction tools to produce a smooth, clean look when you're viewing your photos at 1:1 magnification?

I ask the question because most of what I'm reading here makes perfect sense if you're using the in-camera JPEG engine, but given the metering calibration of most of the cameras I've owned is conservative (to preserve highlights) and the fact that I save exposures almost exclusively in raw format, I almost always find myself adding exposure (usually +1/3 to 2/3 stop) in order to minimize the need to use noise reduction. In fact, on most of my exposures, I find myself reducing the noise reduction defaults that Lightroom applies because they tend to increase the noisy appearance that wasn't there to begin with.

G
 
Godfrey said:
How heavily do you rely upon noise reduction tools to produce a smooth, clean look when you're viewing your photos at 1:1 magnification?
Click to expand...

I think it might depend on the camera... I find that there is a big difference between (for example) the 5DII and the x100f. In my experience the latter manages the noise much better when adjusting in post. I am using SilkyPix with my Fuji X-Sensor images.

With the Fuji I might dial in a little minus compensation knowing that I will get a good capture and can lighten it up in post with zero problem... with the 5DII I don't seem to have that leeway.
 
In the middle or a little to the left! A lot of my images are landscapes that include clouds so I try to expose to maintain as much detail in the clouds a possible without making the rest of the image too dark. Just me but I don't like increasing the exposure slider in LR by more than +1.
 
I always underexpose ...
... but then my photos are always somewhat dark!
skull.gif



x4-Deaths-head-hawkmoth.jpg


x1-Still-life.jpg
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom