Is there a tendency to overexpose our pictures?

[FMB]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Please don't answer to me. I know this topic can be an endless and assorted row of replays I could not  be able to correspond because I wouldn't had, as an amateur, enough technical and artistic knowledge, but I would like to know other points of view about the theme.

My leitmotiv to ask this question only comes from lately I've observed seeing the pictures made with M 10 shown in this Forum that IMHO a very big and notorious proportion  are overexposed and the colors can't be recognized as in the mean of the Leica standard.

May be my monitor is bad calibrated,  may be my personal workflow of edition is mistaken, may be I  belong to the race  of  those who like colors much more saturated and highlights less brilliant, may be I'm fully wrong. In that case sorry for your time...forgive and forget this post.

 

 

Francisco.

[Mark II]

Keep in mind that there is an artistic choice in how to expose and compress dynamic range for display on the web, print, etc. It is quite normal to deliberately overexpose a scene burning highlights to retain shadow detail given that the alternative is to force every image in to an unnatural HDR look.

 

That said, even some of Leica's sample DNG images for the M10 have scenes in which the notionally cloudless blue sky is burned out. Whether this was a deliberate choice of the photographer or simply a failure to accommodate the poor highlight headroom of the M10 at ISO100 is not stated...

[6bit]

I generally shoot underexposed by 2/3-1 stop to help me from having hot spots that are not accounted for when using the OVF on the M10. I do agree with Mark II and artistic choices. I imagine if Lightroom had better tools to lower or maintain highlights while recovering shadows, more of the general photographic community would have more balanced colors and exposure. But that is just my take.

[otto.f]

FWB I agree with you but it’s like slides and negatives formerly. The images you see on the internet are not prints. The ‘overexposure’ is good for printing. Prints have a smaller contrast range than a screen of your tablet or PC, so for presentations on screen a little underexposure is better. If you print those underexposed captures, mostly with -2/3 indeed, they will always be too dark.

[pgh]

I generally shoot underexposed by 2/3-1 stop to help me from having hot spots that are not accounted for when using the OVF on the M10. I do agree with Mark II and artistic choices. I imagine if Lightroom had better tools to lower or maintain highlights while recovering shadows, more of the general photographic community would have more balanced colors and exposure. But that is just my take.

Lightroom is quite good at this when the sensor has the information to work with in the first place. This is more on the M10, which captures less than some other common cameras today. If you work with a current Sony or Nikon file it's easy to get a well balanced frame. Usually on the M it's better to underexpose because the shadows come back more smoothly and the highlights go pretty easily and the transitions can be a little abrupt, even at the optimum 200 ISO.  

[Luke_Miller]

I tend to keep the images a bit underexposed when processing my shots for web galleries.  Since most viewers will have uncalibrated monitors set way too bright. 

[FMB]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I was very much afraid expecting no unique answer to my post. Nevertheless thank you for all opinions.

 

Francisco.

[jaapv]

I think there are a couple of false assumptions in the original post.

 

1. Cameras do not determine exposure, photographers do. I think there is a tendency to let the camera do the thinking.

2. Correct exposure does not exist and is the photographers choice. 

 

" The AF put the focus in the wrong place " No, the photographer lacked the technique of using the AF tool. Fortunately the M10 is free of his complaint  , so we concentrate on the only automation the camera has. 

 

" The camera exposed wrong " No, the photographer used the exposure meter incorrectly or did not understand exposure.

To begin with every exposure meter needs getting used to since the things exist. There has always been a need to "Shoot exposure in" which is completely easy on digital. No more  waiting for the film to be developed or polaroid exposure trials. Just get to know your camera.

Then we have artistic intention. High key? Low key? What parts of the image should be in the middle of the tonal range? What highlights must be burned out? What shadows blocked? How am I going to handle the darkroom work/postprocessing?

And nowadays: Am I going to turn it into HDR? Will I use exposure stacking?

 

And in the end there may be a dissonance between the appreciation of the resulting resulting image by the maker and the viewer.

[Stonewall Brigade]

When I moved from the Leica M262 to the M10, I noticed a higher potential for over exposure and blown highlights.  However, Leica's latest firmware and some internet discussion suggests the true base ISO for the M!) is 200, and not 100, in order to better handle dynamic range and limit highlight problems.  Also, I routinely set me cameras at -2/3 EV exposure compensation, and that works well for me.

[FMB]

My "tendency" is in 98% of the cases to fix always the center-weighted meter in MY subject /object picture goal, lock the mesure with my finger in the shutter and shoot when it is in its place in the frame. Exceptionally some compensation and the rest left to the miracles of Photoshop  because I always give my priority to my  goal and what I expect to capture of it into its surroundings. No more no less.

 

For me photography is so simple so I'm not slave of the histogram. Ah! And my first objective is that my pictures like me.

 

Francisco.

[ajayk]

Straight out of camera using auto exposure the pictures are over exposed. I usually fall back on exposure compensation or darkroom processing to make them up to my liking. On color rendition I am also observing that M10 Colors are not up to mark.

[otto.f]

 

For me photography is so simple so I'm not slave of the histogram. ...

 

 

Me either, until I learned that for printing it's the most easy way to just read the histogram instead of trusting your screen-printer calibration at face-value

[FMB]

Me either, until I learned that for printing it's the most easy way to just read the histogram instead of trusting your screen-printer calibration at face-value

f you make a good calibration from time to time is the easy way.

 

Francisco

[Etruscello]

Of course it is true that photographers set exposures, not cameras, but should not the photographer expect any camera to provide a starting point that is balanced, I.e., does not excessively clip highlights nor block detail from shadows? The more “biased” a camera’s initial exposure is, the harder the photographer must work to find his or her’s sense of correct exposure, possibly leading to missing a critical moment. I do not know if the M10 does have excessive bias in this sense — I do not own one — but hearing freely from owners on camera exposure issues is valuable for a future purchase decision, especially with the M10-P now announced. Tom

[jaapv]

The starting point can only be balanced once the photographer understands the properties of his tool

[FMB]

But, is it true that the tendency towards the milky images as a rule of thumb? Are they more easy edited?

May be am I too much influenced by my old times of slides shooter when the highlights were almost forbidden? Lagarto! Lagarto!, we said in Spanish…

 

Francisco

[otto.f]

No your slide habit is ok and you should stick to it, because when the highlights are blown they’re blown. Shadows can always be better recovered than highlights, and much more so than with slides. I only meant that if you start printing you’ll have to put the histogram in the middle because if not, your on the screen so beautiful image becomes too dark in print. Once you’ve got that histogram in the middle you can bring back the highlights, which is not possible when you overexposed.

BTW this is another discussion than the one about the true base ISO of the M10 which seems to be about 135. You can find that one on the forum too. So let’s say that what I said here counts for 200 ISO and up

Edited August 22, 2018 by otto.f

[FMB]

I start always my editing workflow doing what you say. Then I agree with you and mainly what you say about the true base ISO, may be the hidden reason of the general tendency that worries me. 

 

Thank you  for your interest and collaboration.

 

Francisco.

[JDFlood]

JAAPV is of course correct. But I like to let the camera set the ISO, so the M10 generally does this to me... actually all my cameras. I set EV to -2/3 on all of them. Then, adjust if circumstances are different... which they can be. JD

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica M

[albertknappmd]

I have also found that -2/3EV works very well for me as a baseline...

Albert