Understanding Exposure

[kgphoto]

OK one Truth

Two True

Originally Posted by KellyL

Okay...truth or myth...I have read in one of my early photo books that by learning to expose correctly, you eliminate the need for bracketing. In the book, the author reported that in his early days of photogrpahy, he bracketed to the point of embarassment. This was when he was an apprentice to a photographer. Once he learned how to master a handheld light meter, the need to bracket diminished.

True or False: In one of the books I have recently read, and I can't for the life of me remember which one right now, the author said that many times a photographer had no idea that his images were routinely under or over exposed because the lab did a lot of work that the photographer wasn't really aware of. For those who did their own developing and printing, dark room techniques made up for lack of skill with correct exposure.

I also read in the latest book that Ansel Adams did quite a bit of dark room work to make his images what they were.

[kgphoto]

Oh yeah. One more thing. Don't make a big deal out of 25 years of experience.

Sometimes it is just one year of experience, repeated 25 times.

While I feel I have been continually learning and refining, it didn't take 25 years to "get it'." I am getting up to speed on digital in about 6 months and that is about what it took for me with film, applying myself to get the basics and then about 3 years refining it until I had most of it down. After that, it was just polishing the skills through practice and jobs.

[Worm324]

Great additions all

The histogram is great to figure out when the highlights or shadows are blown or clipped. Thats pretty much all I use it for. You can have a pretty good idea of what the histogram is going to look like based on a scene though, but it's not the most predictable graph

I use Bracketing all the time for Landscape shots, mostly because the dynamic range of my sensor seems very limited in certain light conditions. It would be fantastic to not have to do that, or just bracket the bare minimum to include the whole dynamic range, but that is a pain in the but using my current methods of analyzing the histogram. If I want to get the full dynamic range with the minimal amount of shots I would have to figure it out taking test shots and writing down numbers while referencing the histogram. I would never be able to remember all those fractions Then I would need to bracket correctly for each variable and snap away. However, just getting close and taking say 6 shots will pretty much guarantee I get everything and it took 2 seconds. I'll just delete them once I check it on on the PC. So for Landscapes that method seems the easiest and quickest for me at this point anyway

The alternative which works great is using some filters like the Cokin system and/or a polarizer. Those 2 aids helped me cut down on the bracketing a lot by lowering the dynamic range for the sensor.

Kelly, I think that is how Cedric manages to get that killer exposure with very little processing.

For outside people pictures the bracketing method is just not practical IMO. I would love to be able to nail it with 1 snap. What I've learned to do and I guess adapted to is checking for the highlights with the histogram, and making sure I don't blow them out. As long as I don't blow the highlights, I can pretty much recover anything else in post if necessary. That method is not the best, but it seems to work for the most part. The downside is that most outdoor images appear to be underexposed by about 1/3-1 stop which requires some PP. The upside is I have very few if any blown highlights

The only way I can figure to get around this issue is to as others have said, use reflectors, fill flash ect... Thats a whole other bucket of variables added to the mix though



Does any of this make sense?? If the camera's metering systems are good for 90% of the shots I would imagine that a light meter would be a great accessory vs a requirement?

The more I read this thread the more I think my methods are a result of adapting to my lack of exposure knowledge??

Kelly, I feel for you with this exposure thing It seems so simple, but yet so complicated at the same time. The bottom line though I believe is you just have to try and get the full dynamic range and have the subject at the correct exposure. Whatever method you chose to do to get that result is not really wrong or right, but just a different approach?? The less PP the better.

The in studio shots seem like they would be the most simple, because it is a totally controlled environment. Also The laptop can be on the scene to very quickly verify the exposure. Thats how i do it anyway

Oh yeah, what is Chimp with the histogram mean??


Thanks in advance, this thread is great

Jay

[KellyL]

Resistance is futile, you will be assimilated.

I knew I liked you for a reason. Brace yourself...I also knew you could take my ribbing...not bashing, mind you. I started to put the ol smiley in there so you knew I was tasting my cheek as well, but I knew you would know.

I just finished reading Scott Kelby's book, "The Digital Photgrapher" or something like that. I was amazed at how different his advice has been from so many others. He highly recommends shooting in aperture priority and relying on the in camera meter to do the work. He says this over, and over, and over in the book. His book was $19.99 and a nice litte reference for tricks and tips for making better photographs.

[KellyL]

Jay, chimp with the histogram means to look at your shots as you take them, examine the histogram for the blown areas and adjusting the comtrols on the fly. It is a term I have picked up here on the Camel. Now I can say wonderful things when I go to a Camera store or a coffee shop where all the photographers are hanging out because I can use terms like "glass" and "chimping" and "histograms" and they all know I'm in the club. One of the side benefits of hanging out here at the Camel.

Kirk, just so you know, I never wanted to make you feel badly about your experience. Truthfully, I am jealous that you have been working photography for so long.

[KellyL]

For outside people pictures the bracketing method is just not practical IMO. I would love to be able to nail it with 1 snap. What I've learned to do and I guess adapted to is checking for the highlights with the histogram, and making sure I don't blow them out. As long as I don't blow the highlights, I can pretty much recover anything else in post if necessary. That method is not the best, but it seems to work for the most part. The downside is that most outdoor images appear to be underexposed by about 1/3-1 stop which requires some PP. The upside is I have very few if any blown highlights

This is chimping. So...you are a chimper and didn't realize it.

[KellyL]

Does any of this make sense?? If the camera's metering systems are good for 90% of the shots I would imagine that a light meter would be a great accessory vs a requirement?

This, me thinks, is part of my problem now. I used to just shoot my merry ol way without any external help from light meters, etc. Now, motivated to have some of the best tools, (Scott Kelby says that to shoot like a pro...you gotta have pro equipment), I have sunk a small fortune into a light meter and by golly I better learn how to use it to make my pictures outstanding.

[Tom Swaman]

GOOD DISCUSSION!!!!! GOOD SPIRIT!!!!!

Friends, good photography IMHO, requires proper exposure. Proper exposure requires the photographer working the camera and not the camera working the photographer. i could not agree more with what Sidebyte and KG posted, and Kelly, please know that what you wrote and what I understood were one and the same even thoigh I shoot photos of dogs and not cats.

One more thought about this discussion. Determining correct exposure may prove to be quite different, but equally important in the field than in the studio or with different subjects. I think that learning is a continuous responsibility oif any good photographer. It really tahes 25 years in 25 years!

Tom

[cyclohexane]

For those new to chimping: SportsShooter.com - Chimping EXPOSED! (Part 1)

If the camera's metering systems are good for 90% of the shots I would imagine that a light meter would be a great accessory vs a requirement?

Except for my FM2, my film cameras are meterless (one has a bum meter, the other doesn't even have one), so I need to get on that and pick one up. =)

[kgphoto]

I am not fa miler with Scot Kelby's work, but if it works for him, then it works for him. Look at his images and see how they compare to yours for location, subject and lighting conditions.

If you are always shooting landscape with cloud cover that will be different than shooting rock concerts by available light.

The cool thing about a hand held meter, is that you can take 4-10 readings in a few seconds, and then set your camera. Or pre-meter, set your camera and then compose the group or follow the action.

Either find the good light or make it. It takes more time to make it as far as more meter readings. So you can carry a lot of equipment or a brain.

While there are some photographers who have made a living by carrying only a camera and finding light, I have found that my clients want a picture HERE and I have to MAKE it work. That is why I have the tools and understanding to do that.

Take a look at the MMMMMM thread if you want to see someone make a picture!

[JohnC]

Maybe the definition of "chimping" has been changing, but originally it meant looking at the image on your LCD screen and saying "ooh, ooh, ooh" like a chimpanzee. It didn't mean just looking at the LCD to see if the image worked out.

[cyclohexane]

Maybe the definition of "chimping" has been changing

Yes, it has. SportsShooter, and the rest of us, seem to have taken to just using it to identify anyone looking at the back of the LCD screen, with or without noises. There's even a "National No Chimping Day" (which became "No Chimping Weekend") now which bans all use of the LCD screen.

Still good to know the history though, heheh.

[KellyL]

That was a very amusing step into the history of chimping your shot. I wondered where such a term originated. When it was explained to me...Michael, I believe you are responsible for the evolution of the term, it was explained that it was looking at a shot quickly to determine how to improve it.

I will admit, I have been a classic chimper at times. But it does the body good. I am also glad to see in the video major pros who chimp too.

Kirk - Kelby's shots look pretty amazing in his book. You can also see some of his work on his website at Photoshop Insider He is like the photoshop master of everything.

[KellyL]

Well, I went to Scott Kelby's site and asked him to weigh in on the subject and explain his use of aperture priority. We'll see if he responds. I also sent him a link to our discussion. Would LOVE to have him stop by and give some insight. Take a look at his gallery. It is pretty incredible.

[cyclohexane]

Michael, I believe you are responsible for the evolution of the term, it was explained that it was looking at a shot quickly to determine how to improve it.

SportsShooter (of which I'm not a member) was already using it the way I've been using it; I just continue to spread the love. LOL

[brice]

I'm with John chimping requires sound...

[harryd]

Kelly thanks for starting this thread and everyone else for posting some great info. I can tell exposure is like an elephant, I am going to have to eat it one little bite at a time. Man is my brain full, I think I may be vapor locked !

[heartseye]

The best reason for using the built-in meter is that it measures the light AFTER it has passed thru the lens. When you consider that the light loss in lenses varies due to absorption and reflection by all the glass components you will see that not all F/8's( as an example), are the same in terms of light transmission. There was a plan some years ago to state what the T/stops were, as well as the F/stops, T/stops being the actual light reaching the film/sensor, and F/stops being the calculated....but NOT measured.....amout of light the lens passes. For this reason, there have been virtually no new external exposure meters invented, except for flash meters for studio use......

[KellyL]

Michael: Camel Date: 8.08.2006 On Correct Exposure of the Moon:

Get the tightest metering pattern (as the 20D lacks true spot metering) you can, point it at the moon, and dial that in. *Snap a quick shot, and chimp to see how it looks. *The histogram isn't going to do you much good, so get it how you like on the screen, and then bracket over/under a bit to make sure you got it.

This will get the moon itself.

His instructions did not include making any sounds.

I have been thinking this exposure thing all over again. Can I just say that life was simpler when I didn't have a light meter and I just trusted the in camera meter?

[cyclohexane]

His instructions did not include making any sounds.

LOL

Well, I haven't seen any mention of the sounds on SportsShooter for over a year. I forget how old that video is, but the cameras used are the D1H and original 1D (with one D2H at the end), so the evolution is logical.

I have been thinking this exposure thing all over again. Can I just say that life was simpler when I didn't have a light meter and I just trusted the in camera meter?

You sure can... =)