Lonestarchitect Posted May 10, 2009 Share #1 Posted May 10, 2009 Advertisement (gone after registration) So I've searched this forum (and others) looking for a good explanation of what is actually happening when I use the 'exposure', 'recovery', and 'black point' sliders in Aperture 2 . . . . I used to push/pull film back in the day, and it wasn't 'free' - there was a quality difference - not necessarily bad, just a difference. These days, I shoot with a Digilux 2, ISO 100, RAW, and use ambient light, so I have a tendency to intentionally underexpose my shots so I don't have to carry/set up a tripod. Normally, I plan on fixing it during processing, but I got to thinking . . . there's always a price to be paid, the software isn't magic (I don't think - but it does seem that way sometime.) So, anyone actually know what's happening to the image? I get the feeling that a properly exposed image would be superior - but I shoot a lot of images, and I'm not carrying a tripod around, and I can't hand-hold for 2 seconds, so . . . . does anyone know if shifting the exposure negatively impact the image? Is there actually a significant difference between changing the EV on camera vs. upping the exposure off-camera? And just what happens when you peg that 'recovery' slider all the way to the right? Thanks! Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Advertisement Posted May 10, 2009 Posted May 10, 2009 Hi Lonestarchitect, Take a look here Every action has a consequence . . .. I'm sure you'll find what you were looking for!
Julian Thompson Posted May 10, 2009 Share #2 Posted May 10, 2009 I am no expert but I would say that you are correct - there is no free lunch. If you learn about using the histogram you will start to understand it more. So - for example, today I shot some things under a bright but overcast sky. By metering the sky I had fantastic detail in the clouds but had to pick up the grass and scenery - I was losing 'headroom' in the shadows - compressing the dynamic range. By metering the grass I had fantastic detail in the scenery but had to either accept a blown out sky or try to 'recover' the damage in the highlights. - the loss of dynamic range here was due to clipping of the sky. The solution? Manual exposure at 'just right' level !! Once you get that on the computer you can see that very little work is needed unless you want 'an effect' and you have the dynamic range in a accross desirable brightness points. As I say, I am absolutely no expert so please only use my post as a starting point for your research! Good luck! Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest joewehry Posted May 10, 2009 Share #3 Posted May 10, 2009 An article in LFI once mentioned that the human eye has a better ability to discern a range of shadows compared with highlights and the M8 file (as I recall) computes shadow details differently than highlights. If you need the widest range, I'd say expose for the shadow detail and if needed, compress any highlights post processing. (watch for totally blowing out the highlights or there will be nothing to recovery.) But ultimately, expose for the type of image you want. If you think of Boza Ivanovic's photos in LFI 02/2009, his exposures turn the background black. ( So much for shadow detail!) But his images are outstanding. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lonestarchitect Posted May 11, 2009 Author Share #4 Posted May 11, 2009 Thanks for the replies . . . I do understand the histogram (it's an excellent tool). In conventional film, the axiom is 'expose for the shadows', but in digital, it's reversed - I read somewhere that the upper end of a RAW file contains double the information of the darker end . . . so to me, that would seem like there's more information to capture by overexposing a bit and then pulling the exposure down in post-processing. Unfortunately, this would exacerbate the problem I already have . . . anyone else got any ideas/information/reference suggestions? Surely there are some experts out there . . . . and the Leica forum seems to collect them Thanks! Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jaapv Posted May 11, 2009 Share #5 Posted May 11, 2009 (edited) Basically what you do when underexposing is to throw a way the righthand side of the histogram. The exposure slider will increase the amplification in such a way as to stretch it to the right, but you will have lost dynamic range.A better way to fix under or over exposed shots is to go into photoshop, make a layer and use screen or multiply respectively, and repeat as necessary. Nothing has changed since Ansel Adams: A proper exposure is the starting point of a good photograph. Would it not be a better to use a higher ISO when shooting instead of underexposing? Edited May 11, 2009 by jaapv Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest joewehry Posted May 11, 2009 Share #6 Posted May 11, 2009 LFI 02/2007 has a good article on how the M8 processes data, with 07/2007 giving suggestions and software tips on exposures. Their take is to "expose to the right" of the histogram such that you get a good range without overexposure and losing data. Turn on the clipping warning to help make those decisions. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Julian Thompson Posted May 11, 2009 Share #7 Posted May 11, 2009 Advertisement (gone after registration) What is the clipping warning on the m8.2? Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jaapv Posted May 11, 2009 Share #8 Posted May 11, 2009 Press info and the overexposed areas turn red, if you have activated the feature in the menu (menu>histogram>RGB with clipping). The problem with the clipping warning in the M8 (and any other camera) is that it shows the clipping for in-camera jpg-s. In reality you have about one additional stop in DNG, or maybe a bit more if you use higlight recovery in you RAW converter. The histogram is more reliable. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Julian Thompson Posted May 11, 2009 Share #9 Posted May 11, 2009 Thanks that's great - had not noticed that feature. Sorry to hijack the thread :-) Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lonestarchitect Posted May 11, 2009 Author Share #10 Posted May 11, 2009 Thanks for the replies (even the attempted thread hijacking , I'll do a bit more reading and see what I can turn up. I generally avoid shooting about ISO 100 w/ the Digilux 2 (for obvious reasons - it doesn't do it well), and I generally try to expose to the right of the histogram, but I guess I was hoping for more of a technical "This is what Aperture is doing to the RAW data" type of reference, a deeper understanding of the digital development process . . . Thanks! Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jaapv Posted May 11, 2009 Share #11 Posted May 11, 2009 Actually I find that the D2 jpeg engine often surpasses what I can get out of RAW. It is pretty good. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
johnwolf Posted May 11, 2009 Share #12 Posted May 11, 2009 . . . there's always a price to be paid, the software isn't magic Actually, I'm often surprised at just how magical the software can be with shadows. You should be able to fill and recover significant shadow detail. I guess it depends on how far to the left you are. If you are are compensating for a handheld exposure that would otherwise take two seconds, that's not likely. But when the D2 came out there was a popular approach to addressing its high ISO limitations by deliberately underexposing 2 stops (as I recall) and recovering in post. -- John Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.