"Exposing to the right" is over exposed, what now?
in [Photoshop]
|
From: Luis Ortega on 4 Oct 2009 10:38 Porte Rouge wrote: > I set my exposure to slide the histogram to the right, without clipping > ( when I have time), to capture the most tonal levels . So, now when I > am editing the photos they are over exposed(not clipped). A sunrise is > a good example. The deep colors are washed out. The obvious fix(to me > anyway) in Lightroom or CS4 is to reduce the exposure. Now my question > is, by reducing exposure in post, am I just ending up in the same place > (histogram to the left) as if I had just ignored the histogram when I > was shooting and set the exposure to properly expose the image using > my light meter? I guess in short I am asking if Lightroom or CS4 loses > tonal values when you reduce exposure in editing. > > > Porte For me, digital is the opposite of film in exposure emphasis. In film, you expose for the shadows, while in digital you should expose for the highlights. You can't print underexposed shadows on a film negative but you can burn in overexposed highlights since the negatives tend to hold some information in that area. You can't print overexposed highlights in a digital image but you can tease out information from underexposed shadows in digital processing. You can't treat your entire image the same way, so you need to apply techniques similar to dodging and burning in the digital realm using area adjustments of an image and the various tools/techniques available in image editors.
From: Doug McDonald on 4 Oct 2009 11:17 taylor aldler wrote: > On Sun, 4 Oct 2009 06:25:12 -0700 (PDT), Porte Rouge > <porterougeman(a)gmail.com> wrote: > >> I set my exposure to slide the histogram to the right, without clipping >> ( when I have time), to capture the most tonal levels . So, now when I >> am editing the photos they are over exposed(not clipped). A sunrise is >> a good example. The deep colors are washed out. The obvious fix(to me >> anyway) ... > > ... doesn't seem to be obvious to you. Instead of learning how to expose > each scene properly and not rely on dumbed-down point and shoot > snapshooter's suggestions (like "expose to the right", which only applies > to very few subjects) or depending on your automatic point and shoot modes > of your camera, you'll forever be wasting your time in editing instead of > taking photos the right way to begin with. > > This is what you get for taking to heart the lame "one size fits all" > dumbed-down snapshooters suggestions made by all point 'n shooters and > armchair photographers on the net. > This sounds like the P&S troll. "Exposing for jpeg" which is what he proposes is NOT the absolute best way to use a more capable camera like a dSLR. That is, indeed, to expose for the highlights, putting them just under the clipping value, and save as raw. Fix later in the raw->jpeg conversion. Doug
From: Robert Spanjaard on 4 Oct 2009 11:39 On Sun, 04 Oct 2009 10:17:25 -0500, Doug McDonald wrote: >> ... doesn't seem to be obvious to you. Instead of learning how to >> expose each scene properly and not rely on dumbed-down point and shoot >> snapshooter's suggestions (like "expose to the right", which only >> applies to very few subjects) or depending on your automatic point and >> shoot modes of your camera, you'll forever be wasting your time in >> editing instead of taking photos the right way to begin with. >> >> This is what you get for taking to heart the lame "one size fits all" >> dumbed-down snapshooters suggestions made by all point 'n shooters and >> armchair photographers on the net. > > This sounds like the P&S troll. > > "Exposing for jpeg" which is what he proposes is NOT the absolute best > way to use a more capable camera like a dSLR. > > That is, indeed, to expose for the highlights, putting them just under > the clipping value, and save as raw. Fix later in the raw->jpeg > conversion. Your method is not the absolute best way either. There is no absolute best way. -- Regards, Robert http://www.arumes.com
From: Porte Rouge on 4 Oct 2009 12:47 On Oct 4, 11:39 am, Robert Spanjaard <spamt...(a)arumes.com> wrote: > On Sun, 04 Oct 2009 10:17:25 -0500, Doug McDonald wrote: > >> ... doesn't seem to be obvious to you. Instead of learning how to > >> expose each scene properly and not rely on dumbed-down point and shoot > >> snapshooter's suggestions (like "expose to the right", which only > >> applies to very few subjects) or depending on your automatic point and > >> shoot modes of your camera, you'll forever be wasting your time in > >> editing instead of taking photos the right way to begin with. > > >> This is what you get for taking to heart the lame "one size fits all" > >> dumbed-down snapshooters suggestions made by all point 'n shooters and > >> armchair photographers on the net. > > > This sounds like the P&S troll. > > > "Exposing for jpeg" which is what he proposes is NOT the absolute best > > way to use a more capable camera like a dSLR. > > > That is, indeed, to expose for the highlights, putting them just under > > the clipping value, and save as raw. Fix later in the raw->jpeg > > conversion. > > Your method is not the absolute best way either. There is no absolute > best way. > > -- > Regards, Robert http://www.arumes.com Do you have more to say about which way you set exposure and when? I am genuinely interested in how you decide to set exposure. At this point I actually use both, "expose to the right" and light meter, for the "fine art" shots. I can't see a difference, I was just curious in a CD versus vinyl sort of way. Porte
From: Al Dykes on 4 Oct 2009 13:10
In article <1gkhc5hsgi6fasjanur2a0ojc5v03thhrp(a)4ax.com>, John A. <john(a)nowhere.invalid> wrote: >On Sun, 4 Oct 2009 06:25:12 -0700 (PDT), Porte Rouge ><porterougeman(a)gmail.com> wrote: > >>I set my exposure to slide the histogram to the right, without clipping >>( when I have time), to capture the most tonal levels . So, now when I >>am editing the photos they are over exposed(not clipped). A sunrise is >>a good example. The deep colors are washed out. The obvious fix(to me >>anyway) in Lightroom or CS4 is to reduce the exposure. Now my question >>is, by reducing exposure in post, am I just ending up in the same place >>(histogram to the left) as if I had just ignored the histogram when I >>was shooting and set the exposure to properly expose the image using >>my light meter? I guess in short I am asking if Lightroom or CS4 loses >>tonal values when you reduce exposure in editing. > >You overexpose short of clipping, the apply a likewise (if preferred) >reverse adjustment in post. This is to maximize the signal-to-noise >and tonal gradations in the exposure. > >The tonal aspect is analogous to setting a digital multimeter to the >proper scale before taking a reading, in order to maximize the >significant digits. This blog article talks about making the best of exposing to the right. http://www.luminous-landscape.com/tutorials/right-hista.shtml -- Al Dykes News is something someone wants to suppress, everything else is advertising. - Lord Northcliffe, publisher of the Daily Mail |