exposure importance digital capture

[stump4545]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

it seems so far in my experience that accurate exposure in the digital domain is not as critical as with film?

 

it seems that you can be + or minus a stop without penalty in digital capture.

 

is it fair to say that when shooting negative films that exposure is not as forgiving as digital is?

[Advertisement]

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

[Michael Geschlecht]

Hello stump4545,

 

Why would you want to NOT have an appropriate exposure? It's not that hard to do.

 

This is a Forum where there are a number of people who seem to have an aversion to light meters, tripods, cable releases & lens hoods. Silly little accessories that often add more to a photo than spending an extra $4,000 to buy a better lens.

 

Would you say the same thing about appropriate focus?

 

Another $4,000 or so thrown away.

 

Best Regards,

 

Michael

[Jeff S]

Simplistically speaking, negative film is less forgiving for underexposure errors, while digital (and slide film) is less forgiving for highlight errors (blown highlights). Of course the subject is much more complex than this...type of film (including color vs b/w), exposure latitude, dynamic range, reciprocity failure, post-processing issues, subjective intent, etc.

 

Good exposure technique is important in either realm.

 

Jeff

[Jaybob]

blown highlights? no thanks.

proper exposure makes everything easier.

[kanzlr]

All in all that's also my experience. Digital blows highlights faster, but under exposed shots can be pushed quite well.

 

Gesendet von meinem Galaxy Nexus mit Tapatalk 2

[jaapv]

That depends entirely on the circumstances. If you are at high ISO you have no chance of getting decent shadows if you underexpose with digital. In that case the highlights will have to go. ( at least as far as you dare)

[mjh]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

it seems so far in my experience that accurate exposure in the digital domain is not as critical as with film?

 

it seems that you can be + or minus a stop without penalty in digital capture.

Overexpose a sensor by one f-stop and one f-stop’s worth of dynamic range is gone for good. It’s not quite as bad with underexposure but on the whole, sensors are no more forgiving than silver-halide film is. Nothing beats a perfect exposure.

[stump4545]

thanks for the advice

[leicamann]

Digital or film, for me the same rules apply, try to get it right the first time around.

The beauty of digital and its strongest point, is the immediate sensory feedback, from the image preview and histogram you can see if there is any clipping happening.

I will often use the histogram as well as image preview to judge whether I need to keep bracketing my exposures.

So in ANY photoshoot..best not to be happy with "just one frame" take many and if uncertain, bracket them.

 

Cheers, jRM

[Michael Geschlecht]

Hello Everybody,

 

Some people prefer to throw a large net @ a gaggle of geese.

 

Others prefer to lasso just 1.

 

Best Regards,

 

Michael

[earleygallery]

Digital capture does seem to encourage bad habits as so much can be undone in Photoshop.

 

I read in BJP that a well known fashion photographers files were always under/over exposed, he didn't bother trying to get it right first time and just left it to the editors to sort in PP.

 

Just like using filters. Yes you can emulate the effect of a filter in PP but why not get the result you want in camera??

[Bobitybob]

Isn't it accepted technique to under or over expose in some circumstances with film and in particularly with digital, hence the infamous Exposure To The Right process of trying to improve the amount of detail and adjusting the exposure in post processing.

[giordano]

Isn't it accepted technique to under or over expose in some circumstances with film and in particularly with digital, hence the infamous Exposure To The Right process of trying to improve the amount of detail and adjusting the exposure in post processing.

 

In the days before scanning and PhotoShop, if you used reversal (slide) film there was virtually no scope for adjustment after the exposure. In that situation deliberate under- or over-exposure was sometimes useful as a means of controlling the saturation of the colours in the image.

 

Slight under-exposure (usually much less than 1 stop) increased saturation at the cost of some loss of shadow detail and a denser (darker) image; density could be corrected to some extent when reproducing the image but not when projecting it.

 

Slight over-exposure (at most 1 stop) could be used to desaturate the colours in a short-range image (one with no real highlights or shadows), e.g. a scene on a misty morning. The cost was of course a less dense image which looked unnaturally bright when projected. This could be corrected in reproduction, and for projection by binding a suitable neutral density filter into the slide mount.

 

Everywhere else, it's best to use an exposure that captures as much as possible of the detail of the scene (which, with a digital sensor, includes taking care to avoid burnt-out non-specular highlights). That's the best starting point for any post-processing.

[M9reno]

Why would you want to NOT have an appropriate exposure? It's not that hard to do.

 

This is a Forum where there are a number of people who seem to have an aversion to light meters, tripods, cable releases & lens hoods. Silly little accessories that often add more to a photo than spending an extra $4,000 to buy a better lens.

 

Would you say the same thing about appropriate focus?

 

Another $4,000 or so thrown away.

 

With respect, Michael (especially since I find many of your past contributions constructive), what entitles you to belitle certain people's preferences for how to measure light, hold a camera, focus, etc, etc, and claim they are wasting their money if they don't agree with your own?

[Bobitybob]

In the days before scanning and PhotoShop, if you used reversal (slide) film there was virtually no scope for adjustment after the exposure. In that situation deliberate under- or over-exposure was sometimes useful as a means of controlling the saturation of the colours in the image.

 

I'm sure thats absolutely right, for everything other than slide film you get two bits of the exposure cherry. In the camera, and either in the physical darkroom or the digital darkroom.

 

Unfortunately, this seems to disagree with the OPs suggestion that film needs to be more accurately exposed in the camera for negative film, or does it?

[jaapv]

That is because the supposition is 180 degrees off.

That it is more convenient to slide an exposure slider than to fiddle with times, dilutions,agitation and temperature does not mean that it is less critical. It is the other way around. Digital is more intolerant of exposure errors than film

On digital we are struggling with dynamic range and noise floor. Each “ exposure correction” eats up dynamic range and each hint of underexposure increases noise.

 

So it is essential to get it right in the camera, unless you want your shots to be flat and/or noisy.

You should notwork to a fixed recipe, the worst offender of which is setting a blanket EV compensation.

 

Digital blows highlights, so that is where your attention should be.

First the definition of a highlight: “ The brightest significant area of then image. That is where you want your 5,5,5, in print.

So you have to look at your subject. Will you be able to get any detail in the darkest area if you preserve that highlight? No? - now you need your mind to decide which area to expose correctly.

You dialed in - 2/3rd minus EV? You just killed your shadows and took a noisy shot.

So you have to sacrifice that highlight - or resort to HDR techniques.

 

This happens far more easily that it would on film, because your dynamic range is maybe 10 stops as opposed to something like 13-15 on negative film.

 

And if you have a low contact subject? It does not matter, right? because it will be somewhere in the histogram anyway, right?

 

Wrong - the noise is least if you put your light bump as far to the right as you can. Even at ISO 160.

 

Summary: On digital expose as precisely as you are able to and keep your attention on the righthand side of the histogram. Highlight management is the A and O of digital exposing.

And please - never use EV compensation as a cure-all.

The best setting on your shutterspeed dial is any setting but A.

[kdriceman]

That is because the supposition is 180 degrees off.

That it is more convenient to slide an exposure slider than to fiddle with times, dilutions,agitation and temperature does not mean that it is less critical. It is the other way around. Digital is more intolerant of exposure errors than film

On digital we are struggling with dynamic range and noise floor. Each “ exposure correction” eats up dynamic range and each hint of underexposure increases noise.

 

So it is essential to get it right in the camera, unless you want your shots to be flat and/or noisy.

You should notwork to a fixed recipe, the worst offender of which is setting a blanket EV compensation.

 

Digital blows highlights, so that is where your attention should be.

First the definition of a highlight: “ The brightest significant area of then image. That is where you want your 5,5,5, in print.

So you have to look at your subject. Will you be able to get any detail in the darkest area if you preserve that highlight? No? - now you need your mind to decide which area to expose correctly.

You dialed in - 2/3rd minus EV? You just killed your shadows and took a noisy shot.

So you have to sacrifice that highlight - or resort to HDR techniques.

 

This happens far more easily that it would on film, because your dynamic range is maybe 10 stops as opposed to something like 13-15 on negative film.

 

And if you have a low contact subject? It does not matter, right? because it will be somewhere in the histogram anyway, right?

 

Wrong - the noise is least if you put your light bump as far to the right as you can. Even at ISO 160.

 

Summary: On digital expose as precisely as you are able to and keep your attention on the righthand side of the histogram. Highlight management is the A and O of digital exposing.

And please - never use EV compensation as a cure-all.

The best setting on your shutterspeed dial is any setting but A.

 

Could not agree more. Well said. I have nothing to add.

[Michael Geschlecht]

Hello Al,

 

I was not trying to belittle anyone w/ my comments & I was not trying to limit people's options in terms of how they take pictures. What I was doing was reminding people that the increase in quality of a photographic image from using a number of relatively simple & easy to use accessories can be significant. Sometimes it can be as much or more than what can be gotten from an improved lens design w/o them.

 

When I hear someone say they take photos w/o a light meter because they can guess exposures reasonably closely. To me this is the same as someone saying they can erase the distances on the lens barrel & remove the range/viewfinder & guess distances & focus & frame reasonably well.

 

Why go to the trouble of having a camera made of many finely tuned links & then metaphorically throw some of those links away?

 

That is what I was saying.

 

Best Regards,

 

Michael

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Interesting Leica gear

[giordano]

I was not trying to belittle anyone w/ my comments & I was not trying to limit people's options in terms of how they take pictures. <snip>

 

When I hear someone say they take photos w/o a light meter because they can guess exposures reasonably closely. To me this is the same as someone saying they can erase the distances on the lens barrel & remove the range/viewfinder & guess distances & focus & frame reasonably well.

 

One very big difference is that until photoelectric exposure meters became common in the 1950s most photographers did "guess" their exposures with fair success in ordinary circumstances (actually, educated estimates informed by exposure tables and experience). And in many circumstances this "guesswork" is still good enough if you're using ordinary sorts of negative film and aiming for a print as the end product.

 

But as Jaap has illustrated, digital sensors are significantly more demanding because of their "hard" highlight limit and lower dynamic range compared with negative film. This greatly reduces the circumstances in which "guessed" exposures will be good enough.

[M9reno]

Hello Michael,

 

Occasionally (or even frequently) the photographer perceives reality differently from the electronics and dials in his/her camera. This may be caused by human error, but it may also be the result of judgement based on acquaintance, or simply creative emotion. Technology might eliminate human error (though even this is arguable), but photography is an art for many of us, not a science in which this kind of perfection is possible or even desirable.

 

At any rate, what we do with our own money (admittedly, for this brand, considerable amounts of it, which the sceptic technologist might question), and in pursuit of this art is our own business. I would have thought this a basic rule of forum etiquette.

 

With best wishes,

Al