histogram pushed to the left and available light

[stump4545]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

i shoot with available light often and i lot of my scenes are dark or at night.

 

my histogram a lot of times are pressed all the way to the left and my shots look fine.

 

should i really be trying to push the histogram to the middle or is a lot of times with night shots and available shots, the "right" exposure will be the one pushed up to the left?

[Advertisement]

The Leica Q3 is available for pre-order at B&H Photo Video and Adorama

[Jeff S]

Not much hasn't been covered around here. Took seconds to find this and this, just for starters.

 

Jeff

[algrove]

To me a histogram pushed to the left and high just means there is a lot of detail in the shadows. That then often makes sense for night shots.

[jaapv]

Detail or noise?

[stunsworth]

If you're photographing something that's dark, and you want the result to be dark, the histograms bound to be pushed to the left and it's nothing to worry about.

 

If you feel you are losing shadow detail you need to review your metering technique to push the histogram over to the right as required.

 

There's always a balance to be achieved when you are photographing something that has deep shadows and bright highlights - something has to give, it's your call as to which is the most important in an individual photograph.

[jaapv]

Yes, but available light does not necessarily mean high contrast with deep shadows. With anything approaching an even light distribution, a histogram bunched to the left means underexposure. If there are specular highlights in the measuring field they wil push the camera into underexposure, sometimes by many stops. The metering system of the M 8 and M9 is one of the causes of an unjust reputation for noisy high ISo

[stunsworth]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Jaap, that's why I put that comment in a separate paragraph. The point I was making earlier was that if a scene is dar,k and you want it to appear dark, the histogram is bound to be pushed to the left.

[jaapv]

I completely agree, Steve. The histogram cannot be read out of context, the light on the subject or lack thereof needs to be considered to interpret it. Maybe somebody should put a comprehensive article on measuring with the semi-spot meter in the M9 FAQ - the pattern as shown by Lindolfi is a good start. And, come to think of it, a post on how to read the histogram would be nice too...

[Paul J]

I've always shot to the left and then pulled highlights out preferably by lighting otherwise by RAW conversion. I find there is more you can pull out of shadows than you can recover in highlights. Also, I don't generally like bright images. Personal taste.

 

There is a bit ETTR (expose to the right) philosophy, and then you make it darker in RAW conversion, but I'm not so sure I fully subscribe to it. One thing I have noticed though with the M9 is it doesn't really like to be exposed to left in some cases. It tends to create more noise in the shadows.

 

So I'm trying to get into the habit and mind set of exposing to the right. and making it darker

[wda]

Detail or noise?

Or simply 'clipped'? I suspect a fair bit of the latter.

[dave_d]

I've always shot to the left and then pulled highlights out preferably by lighting otherwise by RAW conversion. I find there is more you can pull out of shadows than you can recover in highlights. Also, I don't generally like bright images. Personal taste.

 

There is a bit ETTR (expose to the right) philosophy, and then you make it darker in RAW conversion, but I'm not so sure I fully subscribe to it. One thing I have noticed though with the M9 is it doesn't really like to be exposed to left in some cases. It tends to create more noise in the shadows.

 

So I'm trying to get into the habit and mind set of exposing to the right. and making it darker

 

I follow the ETTR method also and have good luck. The idea behind ETTR is that by exposing to the right of the histogram (without clipping the highlights) you reduce noise in the image since the noise resides in the shadows. You then adjust your histogram in post production.

 

Of course if the latitude of the seen is beyond what the camera can capture then you will make a sacrifice by clipping at one or both ends of the histogram. Or of course you can add light to reduce contrast.

[Paul J]

I follow the ETTR method also and have good luck. The idea behind ETTR is that by exposing to the right of the histogram (without clipping the highlights) you reduce noise in the image since the noise resides in the shadows. You then adjust your histogram in post production.

 

Of course if the latitude of the seen is beyond what the camera can capture then you will make a sacrifice by clipping at one or both ends of the histogram. Or of course you can add light to reduce contrast.

 

True, as soon as you put contrast back in though you start seeing the noise again. I've also found it far harder to recover high lights than shadows. I've only had the M9 a short while though and it definitely favours a little to the right. it certainly can be, and it seems quite randomly, more noisy in the shadows though, particularly if you make adjustments.

 

It really does reward good exposure though and I I try and control the light instead and fill the histogram best I can with lighting.

[stunsworth]

ETTR is a good idea if you have a linear AD conversion, but the M8 - and the M9s in its compressed DNG mode - don't have a linear AD conversion. They allocate a higher percentage of the available bits to the shadows than the rather wasteful linear system.

[dave_d]

Paul - I have not noticed the noise appearing when I adjust the histogram for the shadows. I am not saying you are wrong, I just haven't noticed or tested the ETTR theory extensively. Now I am curious about it. I shoot a DMR, RAW, and under controlled lighting conditions. How about you?

 

Steve - Good to know. I assumed all digital cameras did a linear conversion. So much for assumptions.

[stump4545]

by using ETTR then in post reducing exposure to push the histogram back to the left to darken the photo, is there any image quality penalty for doing this?

[Jeff S]

Did you read the first link I provided, especially the discussion between Jamie and Sandy? Not every scene is the same, and sometimes trade-offs are required.

 

Jeff

[charlesphoto99]

The best bet I find is to zoom into the area that's most important and check the histogram there. For example if I'm shooting in dark ambient light but my subject has some light on them the overall histogram will be to the left. But if I zoom in on the face the histogram should be more to the middle (or where you want it). Best to protect your highlights with the M9.

[Jaybob]

My adage...For ease in post processing, digital and E-6 photography should be exposed for the highlights (don't blow 'em out), C-41 and B&W film photography, expose for the shadows (don't block em up).

 

Clipping on either side of the histogram, RAW or not, is usually never good.

 

by using ETTR then in post reducing exposure to push the histogram back to the left to darken the photo, is there any image quality penalty for doing this?

 

As long as your histogram's not blown out in your highlights, you should be golden.

I have never encountered an unfixable problem working back toward the left.

I cannot say the same for working the other direction.

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Interesting Leica gear

[Paul J]

by using ETTR then in post reducing exposure to push the histogram back to the left to darken the photo, is there any image quality penalty for doing this?

 

If it's by a 1/3 of a stop it's fine. The M9 seems to respond to this with a bit less noise I've found. But then you risk clipping the highlights as the meter is not so super accurate which is not so easy to recover. You just have to keep an eye on it closely.