kshapero
South Florida Man
I get so confused, why would I want to under or over expose my exposures? I use an external spot meter, take a reading and shot. Admittedly this does not always result in a pleasing shot. So help me out here.:bang:
Under/Over exposure, UGH!
- Thread starter kshapero
- Start date
- Latest activity Latest activity:
- Replies 19
- Views 3K
kzphoto
Well-known
If you need to make something more white, ADD exposure. (over expose)
If you need to make something more black, REMOVE exposure. (under expose)
Your camera meter is designed to read middle grey. So if I point my camera at a black wall, it will over expose the black wall to make it look grey.
If I point the camera at a white wall, it will under expose the white wall to make it look grey.
If I use an incident meter pointed towards the main light source, I don't have to worry about any of this. 🙂
If you need to make something more black, REMOVE exposure. (under expose)
Your camera meter is designed to read middle grey. So if I point my camera at a black wall, it will over expose the black wall to make it look grey.
If I point the camera at a white wall, it will under expose the white wall to make it look grey.
If I use an incident meter pointed towards the main light source, I don't have to worry about any of this. 🙂
charjohncarter
Veteran
Kzphoto is right on, but practice is the best way to learn. Use your spot meter determine the exposure. The if you don't have a incident meter get a gray card and shoot it with the spot meter. If they are different ask yourself why.
Also if you have a DSLR set it to manual and adjust the shutter, ISO, f-stop. Then look at the read out screen; you will be able to do this so many time in an hour that you will be bound to learn something.
Also if you have a DSLR set it to manual and adjust the shutter, ISO, f-stop. Then look at the read out screen; you will be able to do this so many time in an hour that you will be bound to learn something.
Roger Hicks
Veteran
Under = darker, moodier. Over = lighter, airier.
There is no such thing as a correct exposure, but there is such a thing as a perfect exposure. A perfect exposure is the one that creates the effect you want.
Cheers,
R.
There is no such thing as a correct exposure, but there is such a thing as a perfect exposure. A perfect exposure is the one that creates the effect you want.
Cheers,
R.
thegman
Veteran
Say you're taking a picture of a cityscape, with the sky in the background.
A meter (not spot) aimed at an area containing both buildings and sky will give a reading so the buildings and the sky are *adequately* exposed. In reality, you probably don't want that. You'll likely either want to expose the buildings well at the expense of the sky, or expose the sky well at the expense of silhouetting the buildings.
Or indeed, you *want* to silhouette the buildings, so you under expose a few stops. Maybe you want to ensure the detail in the building is kept, you'd over expose a couple of stops.
Under exposing will retain highlight detail, and often make colours a lot more contrasty.
Over exposing brings out detail in dark areas and also washes out skin imperfections.
Like Roger says, it's about getting the effect you want. I think digital is good for practising this, although it can be a bit less tolerant of over exposure, so it's not mirror image of what you'd get from film.
A meter (not spot) aimed at an area containing both buildings and sky will give a reading so the buildings and the sky are *adequately* exposed. In reality, you probably don't want that. You'll likely either want to expose the buildings well at the expense of the sky, or expose the sky well at the expense of silhouetting the buildings.
Or indeed, you *want* to silhouette the buildings, so you under expose a few stops. Maybe you want to ensure the detail in the building is kept, you'd over expose a couple of stops.
Under exposing will retain highlight detail, and often make colours a lot more contrasty.
Over exposing brings out detail in dark areas and also washes out skin imperfections.
Like Roger says, it's about getting the effect you want. I think digital is good for practising this, although it can be a bit less tolerant of over exposure, so it's not mirror image of what you'd get from film.
dave lackey
Veteran
Is there anyone who actually uses a grey card? Gave that up long ago....
mdarnton
Well-known
kshapero, think about it this way: you say you use your spot meter, but where do you point the spot? If you point it at something bright, you get one exposure; point it at something dark in the shadows, you get another. Which one do you use?
The "art" of metering involves choosing the right thing to meter, and how to adjust your exposure based on how you want that thing to appear. If you do those two things correctly, every exposure will give you what you wanted to see--the pleasing shot. The meter doesn't know if you pointed it at white sheets, meant to appear white, or coal, so it doesn't really know what to do to give you the right exposure. Right?
The "art" of metering involves choosing the right thing to meter, and how to adjust your exposure based on how you want that thing to appear. If you do those two things correctly, every exposure will give you what you wanted to see--the pleasing shot. The meter doesn't know if you pointed it at white sheets, meant to appear white, or coal, so it doesn't really know what to do to give you the right exposure. Right?
Bob Michaels
nobody special
The concept of there being an "over" or "under" is based on their being some fixed point of reference, such as a meter reading.
The correct exposure is sometimes not the reading one gets from either an incident or reflected meter reading. It is whatever the photographer wants it to be to visually convey the scene as he wants it to be conveyed.
So it is perfectly normal to be "over" or "under" the meter reading to get the "correct exposure".
It is a matter of using your brain and not blindly following what a meter tells you.
timor
Well-known
And you are rightly confused. I would use terms over or under exposure in conjunction with readings from camera meter. Which is averaged value of reflected light. Incident light is not taking in account real reflectance of the subject, but cannot be fooled by bright spot in the subject, which is a good thing. I would not use those terms while using spot.
How Roger says : "There is no such thing as a correct exposure,but there is such a thing as a perfect exposure." Perfect for you. The real question is, how do you use your spot meter.
Pablito
coco frío
Of course. in the studio it is very useful. especially with digital or with transparency film, especially with a spot meter.
Pablito
coco frío
That, plus knowing how to use the meter.
timor
Well-known
How do you use it ?
kshapero
South Florida Man
Yes that's it!!🙂
kshapero
South Florida Man
Excellent folks, I am learning a lot from this.
Gumby
Veteran
I certainly don't want to be anyone's publicist, but there is a book out there (maybe out of print but easy to find) called "Perfect Exposure" and it's a good explanation of all involved in determining exposrue. I recommend it.
Roger Hicks
Veteran
Thanks, Ed.
At least, I hope it was my book you were referring to. There's another one with the same title, which has come put since, but I've not seen it. I think my book is indeed out of print now.
And of course there's a lot about exposure on my site:
http://www.rogerandfrances.com/subscription/meters and metering.html (meters and metering basics)
http://www.rogerandfrances.com/subscription/ps expo neg.html (negatives)
http://www.rogerandfrances.com/subscription/ps expo slide.html (slide and digital)
Cheers,
R.
Gumby
Veteran
I didn't know there was another one by that title. I was writing about yours, Roger.
JoeV
Thin Air, Bright Sun
Of course, no meter or in-camera metering system actually knows or understands what the "real world" should look like when photographed. So they are engineered to assume the world is middle-gray, and expose accordingly.
It is the job of the photographer to understand that his metering system is unintelligent, and he must therefore apply adjustments to the recommended exposure as he deems necessary. This takes a bit of human intelligence. For instance, shooting in bright sand or snow. The real world, in this case, is brighter than what the meter assumes (middle gray), so you must provide more exposure than what's recommended.
There are more common experiences of this closer to home than the desert or ski mountain. If your in-camera meter is center-weighted, and you point the camera at some brightly lit building, you are going to get the rest of the picture under-exposed.
It also depends on what is the principal object of importance within the image; the metering should be applied so as to properly expose this most important subject.
Again, humans provide the intelligence to any metering system; on their own they can't be completely trusted in every situation.
~Joe
It is the job of the photographer to understand that his metering system is unintelligent, and he must therefore apply adjustments to the recommended exposure as he deems necessary. This takes a bit of human intelligence. For instance, shooting in bright sand or snow. The real world, in this case, is brighter than what the meter assumes (middle gray), so you must provide more exposure than what's recommended.
There are more common experiences of this closer to home than the desert or ski mountain. If your in-camera meter is center-weighted, and you point the camera at some brightly lit building, you are going to get the rest of the picture under-exposed.
It also depends on what is the principal object of importance within the image; the metering should be applied so as to properly expose this most important subject.
Again, humans provide the intelligence to any metering system; on their own they can't be completely trusted in every situation.
~Joe
Gary Briggs
mamiyaDude
I can't rem how it went, but I've heard you should overexpose film and underexpose digital - or - visa versa.
It had to do with your best chance to get all the data to work with (photoshop).
Has anyone heard this ?
It had to do with your best chance to get all the data to work with (photoshop).
Has anyone heard this ?
timor
Well-known
I think you are mocking us.
Similar threads
- Article
