exposure importance digital capture

[Ecar]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

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

Jaap,

Whilst I find most of your post entirely to the point, allow me to disagree on this.

Depends on one's way of working and/or particular circumstances.

If you visualise the area covered by the (rather accurate) built-in meter, and lock exposure before recomposing, I find that one can get perfectly good exposure, as long as you know what you are measuring.

Unless, of course, you want a fast shutter speed to freeze movement or, conversely, a slow one to create movement blur, which require manual - or like to use the soft shutter release mode.

Equally, when you need to capture action in fast-changing lighting conditions, the A mode is quicker and can make the difference between hit or miss.

As always, whatever method one chooses to use, the histogram is your friend.

[roydonian]

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

 

Others prefer to lasso just 1.

 

 

I sometimes wonder if getting the exposure right is a dying art. Last autumn I took some pics in the fish market in Venice, where the main light source was sunlight leaking through blinds. I took my pics according to the M9 meter, and they came out OK, but I repeated a couple with a one stop EV correction just to be on the safe side.

 

Also present were a group of photographers with a teacher. After he had expounded at length about what they should do, off went all the DSLRs in rapid-fire continuous mode - kerchunk - kerchunk - kerchunk. . The resulting racket went on for some time, so I can only suppose that they were doing very extensive exposure bracketing.

 

As I left the fish market, I recalled reading about an ancient Greek who said that he thanked to gods that he was born not just a Greek, but a Spartan. I thanked the gods that I was not just a photographer, but a Leica man.

 

Best regards,

 

Doug

[pgk]

Exposure is both subjective and variable IMHO. There are times when it is important to be as precise as possible - to avoid odd effects in the highlights when post processing for example. There are other times when setting the camera to A is a perfectly acceptable option - when needing to work very quickly as an example. Exposure depends on circumstances and output requirements. Trying to be prescriptive over just how accurate exposure needs to be can all too easily become a self limiting process.

[Peter H]

Doug, if I may be really, really pedantic, I don't think an ancient Spartan would have thought of himself as Greek at all!

[lct]

Some digi photogs use the A mode extensively and expose for the highlights or a bit below like they did with slides last century. The A mode helps to choose the "bit below" if any and this works quite well with a bit of habit actually. My best advice to those who don't know what an histogram is like yours truly.

[Peter H]

If using a light meter isn't appropriate, I often take a test shot with the A setting and the aperture I want to use, look at the histogram and then adjust/select the exposure manually.

 

So I find the A setting very helpful. And surprisingly often its spot-on.

[roydonian]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Doug, if I may be really, really pedantic, I don't think an ancient Spartan would have thought of himself as Greek at all!

 

My memory of the original quote is that it ran something like:

 

"I thank the gods that I was born a man and not a woman.

I thank the gods that I was born a Greek and not a barbarian.

I thank the gods that I was born a Spartan, and not an ordinary Greek"

 

But it is possible that the author of the book in which it appeared may have 'improved' the quote to make it more understandable to modern ears.

 

But I do wonder how the "kerchunk - kerchunk - kerchunk" brigade can consider themselves photographers rather than mere camera-pointers. At the last Farnborough air show I went down to the public area to buy a burger, and was amused by the fact that the average 'photographer' simply started rapid fire as an aircraft approached, and kept it up for the aircraft's entire flypast.The noise generated by the massed ranks of DSLRs was amazing.

 

Personally. I've only used continuous mode on a DSLR once in my life, when I was trying to photograph two re-enactors demonstrating their sword-fighting skills while in full plate armour. I was aware that my retirement-age reflexes were nor quick enough to catch the resulting 'decisive moments', so switched to rapid-fire mode. But for an aircraft flypast, I keep my eye to the viewfinder and trip the shutter when the image I see pleases me.

 

Best regards,

 

Doug

[Peter H]

As I remember the quote it was:

 

I thank the gods that I was born Greek & not a Barbarian, a free man & not a slave, a man & not a woman, but above all,that I was born in the age of Socrates.

 

But this is getting away from exposure methods somewhat.

[jaapv]

Exposure is both subjective and variable IMHO. There are times when it is important to be as precise as possible - to avoid odd effects in the highlights when post processing for example. There are other times when setting the camera to A is a perfectly acceptable option - when needing to work very quickly as an example. Exposure depends on circumstances and output requirements. Trying to be prescriptive over just how accurate exposure needs to be can all too easily become a self limiting process.

Yes - but if the process is unknown it can become hit or miss.

Deviate from a method once you have mastered it imo.

[algrove]

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?

 

IMHO, a big difference between slide and digital photos is the histogram which tells you if you have blown anything. Ok, it's based on the JPEG, but better than the old days.

[algrove]

I sometimes wonder if getting the exposure right is a dying art. Last autumn I took some pics in the fish market in Venice, where the main light source was sunlight leaking through blinds. I took my pics according to the M9 meter, and they came out OK, but I repeated a couple with a one stop EV correction just to be on the safe side.

 

Also present were a group of photographers with a teacher. After he had expounded at length about what they should do, off went all the DSLRs in rapid-fire continuous mode - kerchunk - kerchunk - kerchunk. . The resulting racket went on for some time, so I can only suppose that they were doing very extensive exposure bracketing.

 

As I left the fish market, I recalled reading about an ancient Greek who said that he thanked to gods that he was born not just a Greek, but a Spartan. I thanked the gods that I was not just a photographer, but a Leica man.

 

Best regards,

 

Doug

 

Doug- Have to comment. I recently took a high country overnight in Indian country out West in the US. I was with a guy who had a whatever DSLR-Nikanon. Every time we stopped for a shot, I walked around looking for "my" composition and then setup tripod and brought out what he called my "relic" camera-an M9. He asked why I changed lenses all the time instead of using a 20-200 zoom or something like that. I replied that Leica glass was about the best you could find. After the zoom discussion he called my setup "some exotic camera & lens combo".

 

His camera would go kerchunk at what amounted to at least 5-9 times and then he would walk a couple of feet and repeat the kerchunk. One sunset he was hand holding a long lens doing his kerchunk and I had finished since the glow had diminished and offered him to use my tripod. He said he did not need one since when in Alaska he shot bears fishing for salmon without a tripod and they all were very sharp. I put my tripod away and thought to myself, I bet his sunset shots were not sharp as his bear shots taken in bright sunlight.

 

Our Indian guide was fabulous and well known for taking photographers to very good locations, but I tried to stay away from that kerchunk sound which got on my nerves out in the wild where there was not a sound except for the occasional coyote calling its young. The true sound I kept hearing was my heart & head wanting me to take another composition with my "relic".

[Blindjock]

Useful thread for me so thanks to all.

 

I'm still getting to grips with my D2 and was very disappointed with yesterday's shots. A few were okay but many were drab and even PP didn't rescue them (without resorting to over-processed-hipster style)

 

I realised after browsing this thread that I'd switched off the histogram from the viewfinder at some point in the last week. All the dull images (on a bright day) had nothing in the top quarter of the graph so seemed flat.

 

My instinct would be to mess about with EV compensation but as pointed out above, it would be quicker to just move the shutter dial from "A" to whatever was required.

 

Still learning and far to go

[Jeff S]

Doug- Have to comment. I recently took a high country overnight in Indian country out West in the US. I was with a guy who had a whatever DSLR-Nikanon. Every time we stopped for a shot, I walked around looking for "my" composition and then setup tripod and brought out what he called my "relic" camera-an M9. He asked why I changed lenses all the time instead of using a 20-200 zoom or something like that. I replied that Leica glass was about the best you could find. After the zoom discussion he called my setup "some exotic camera & lens combo".

 

His camera would go kerchunk at what amounted to at least 5-9 times and then he would walk a couple of feet and repeat the kerchunk. One sunset he was hand holding a long lens doing his kerchunk and I had finished since the glow had diminished and offered him to use my tripod. He said he did not need one since when in Alaska he shot bears fishing for salmon without a tripod and they all were very sharp. I put my tripod away and thought to myself, I bet his sunset shots were not sharp as his bear shots taken in bright sunlight.

 

Our Indian guide was fabulous and well known for taking photographers to very good locations, but I tried to stay away from that kerchunk sound which got on my nerves out in the wild where there was not a sound except for the occasional coyote calling its young. The true sound I kept hearing was my heart & head wanting me to take another composition with my "relic".

 

While this discussion is OT, just a quick observation. I think the conclusions here should be less about the camera choice, i.e., 'relic' versus 'automatic weapon,' and more about the photographer and the photographer's mode of shooting. And, for the record, I primarily shoot with M8.2s, but have used most all formats up to 8x10.

 

The M9 and the 'Canikons' are all digital cameras, hence not exactly relics. Some photogs use these for contemplative work on tripods, some not. I have a friend who still uses view cameras (mostly 5x7), but when he wants to travel 'lighter,' he uses a 5DIII on a tripod with Zeiss primes and a Zacuto finder that allows him to view and contemplate his 3x magnified live view screen. Every shot is slow, exacting and deliberate. He also owns an M9, btw. But his Canon allows him to get closer to the VF and focusing experience that he associates with LF work. And he thinks the 5DIII is about as quiet as the M6 he formerly used.

 

Leicas are fantastic. I use them. But Leica users don't own the market on 'old school' photography. The photographer dictates the mode of operating, and while different tools may accommodate those operating modes for better or worse, it's not about the tool IMHO.

 

Jeff

[philipus]

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?

 

My experience is the opposite. Film is more forgiving. I've recently begun using Kodak Portra 400 which has a ridiculous exposure latitude. That is not so unusual amongst films, perhaps; many B/W films have similarly wide exposure latitude and allow push and pull processing. What differs with Portra 400, imho, is that it is possible to expose several stops above and below box speed (I've tried +/-3 stops, ie EI50-3200), develop at box speed and still get workable results (for my own amateur purposes, naturally). It's almost like having an EV dial on the film camera.

 

From using a Canon 5D2 extensively I'd say that it does not have the same latitude and that it blows highlights quite easily. That said, Photoshop can rescue a lot of images, both digital and analog. In addition, I've found that to "develop" images using ColorPerfect, the Photoshop plugin, can result in almost miraculous improvements to under-exposed Portra shots.

 

My recently-acquired D2 is supposedly constructed in such a way that its exposure magic protects highlights. I have noticed this in the short time I have used it. The output of this camera is actually pretty amazing. I use the A mode on the shutter dial almost always and it works very well.

 

cheers

philip

[lars_bergquist]

Neg film has a very long 'characteristic curve', that is, a wide dynamic range. My experience was that even in bright sunlight, you could expose black-and white film more than three stops above the minimum exposure that adherence to the ASA/DIN value printed on the box would give you, without any adverse effects such as permanently blocked up highlights and lack of edge sharpness. The printing paper had a dynamic range that was far less than that of the negative. If you wanted more, you had to resort to those standard techniques of burning-in and shading parts of the image. This meant that you could make essentially identical prints from a number of exposures that differed quite widely – as long as they differed on the plus exposure side. Hence 'exposure latitude'. This is old hat to several of you, but there are lots of people out there who have never spent time in a darkroom. Hence the explanation.

 

We often heard that slide film had less exposure latitude. In fact it had none at all. The piece of film that you exposed in the camera was the end product you put into your projector and viewed. Plus or minus one quarter of an f-stop did irrevocably change the look of the picture. What people meant by the 'latitude' of slide film was that they themselves had a good deal of latitude, meaning that they personally found pictures with varying exposures acceptable. People in Film Days were just as sloppy in their thinking and their terminology (and often bestially ignorant too) as they are today, on the average.

 

The thing to remember in the Digital Age is that latitude existed because the negative was a semi-finished product only. Printing – all that hocus-pocus and arcane hand-waving – provided the leeway.

 

The image file too is semi-finished, but it is not a negative. It does not have the long, slowly planing-out 'shoulder' that the negative has, and where you can go fetch even wayward highlights. The response of the photon trap that constitutes a sensor pixel – and hence of the sensor itself – is fundamentally straight, i.e. straightforwardly logarithmic, from the lower limit of the noise threshold (the counterpart of film's 'base and fog' density) until the pixel well is full and there is an abrupt and totally unforgiving cutoff.

 

Now, does a digital imaging sensor system have latitude? Well, as you remember, latitude existed because the dynamic range of the paper was less than that of the negative. And a digital print from an inkjet printer has no more range than a well-made BW print, especially on glossy paper. So yes, there can be a digital exposure latitude.

 

If the file holds all the detail that you want to put on the paper, then you can put your diffuse highlights a certain distance away from the right edge of the histogram, and compensate in PP the way you did in the darkroom, when you increased the overall paper exposure to compensate for a dense negative. But blow your diffuse highlights, and all is lost because you cannot retrieve them the way you could with negative film. With nearly every conceivable subject except flat copy, there will be some shadow cutoff in any case, because you cannot pour one liter into a half-liter botttle. Similarly, with insufficient exposure of neg film, shadow detail was hopelessly lost. So the situations are really symmetrical.

 

Quite unnecessary talking for people who know the difference between hypo and hype, but again, only old men remember ...

 

The old man from the Age of Farmer's Reducer

[tobey bilek]

There is some margin for error with film or digital. The further you stray, the more the final result suffers.

 

A photog who depends on editors to fix his mistakes would never be rehired by me.

 

Over the years of doing this, I find the best exposure is one that gets the histogram in the center of the graph. You can brighten or darken best from there.

 

If the subject brightness range is low and you are at high ISO, then ETR helps a bit.

 

But the fact remains, there is a histo on the camera and there is no excuse not to use it

[Michael Geschlecht]

Hello Al,

 

I've been thinking about the 2d paragraph of your Post # 20, this Thread.

 

stump4545 is an intelligent person with a genuine desire to learn about photography. This Thread is a vehicle he is using to do so. He has invited people to present their perspectives.

 

I would think the rhetorical questions & statements I used to answer his questions fall well within the limits of appropriate Forum etiquette.

 

I don't see this as an issue of: Someone's right to spend money as they choose to be able to do something a certain way.

 

But rather: Why should a person artificially limit their ability to produce a better photo by acting as if a readily available, easy to learn & use, important mechanism for fine-tuning their work does not exist &/or is not necessary?

 

& why replace it w/ a much more expensive &/or time consuming alternative that does not produce an improved effect?

 

Best Regards,

 

Michael

[Paul J]

Part of the skill, the art, the craft of being photographer is based on exposure. Getting it right, or at very least trying to, is very important.

[lars_bergquist]

You should not disregard anything until you know what it is that you disregard. Then you are free to make your own choices.

 

The old man from the Kodachrome Age

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Interesting Leica gear