Understanding Exposure

[Bunyip]

Bunyip are you talking to me about the one picture from vacation? (And doesn't everyone just love that illusive hair somewhere inside my camera?!)

I was shooting manual, and I believe the camera does not allow for exp comp at all when doing so. But yes, I should have chimped to see. But wouldn't increasing anything have caused the sky to blow out? Maybe we should take that trip again for me to test it out.

Actually, yes. Sorry I didn't make it clear: I thought my reply would "lob" next to your post.

This is the problem with photography, in that our "means" place constraints on our intentions. In a way, we are trying to cover a 21 foot long table with a 6 or 7 foot long table-cloth: it can't be done.

Of course, digital processing allows one to take several shots, each covering a different part of the 21 foot table, and then to make a montage of the lot into one "composite".

So, its true, in the shot under discussion, essentially you have to decide which is more important, the sky or the headland? Since there is little of interest in the sky -in this shot- it may make sense to let it blow out in favour of the headland.

Of course, if you wanted "perfection", you could take several shots (exposing for each) and collage the lot in PP. (This is not "my bag". I try to get the best available shot, within the limitations of the camera, and leave it at that.)

[expensive_hobby]

Originally Posted by Bunyip

Bunyip are you talking to me about the one picture from vacation? (And doesn't everyone just love that illusive hair somewhere inside my camera?!)

I was shooting manual, and I believe the camera does not allow for exp comp at all when doing so. But yes, I should have chimped to see. But wouldn't increasing anything have caused the sky to blow out? Maybe we should take that trip again for me to test it out.

Actually, yes. Sorry I didn't make it clear: I thought my reply would "lob" next to your post.

This is the problem with photography, in that our "means" place constraints on our intentions. In a way, we are trying to cover a 21 foot long table with a 6 or 7 foot long table-cloth: it can't be done.

Of course, digital processing allows one to take several shots, each covering a different part of the 21 foot table, and then to make a montage of the lot into one "composite".

So, its true, in the shot under discussion, essentially you have to decide which is more important, the sky or the headland? Since there is little of interest in the sky -in this shot- it may make sense to let it blow out in favour of the headland.

Of course, if you wanted "perfection", you could take several shots (exposing for each) and collage the lot in PP. (This is not "my bag". I try to get the best available shot, within the limitations of the camera, and leave it at that.)

Very interesting. Thanks!

[JimAuburn]

All you exposure freaks may be interested in this neat thread by ciaran.

[Bunyip]

So...for example...I meter a highlight in the clouds...find it to be in Zone zone 8. It meters f/11, 1/500 at ISO 200. Zone 8 is three steps away from Zone V, which should be 18% gray. The setting for camera based on this reading would be to adjust my settings 3 stops lower?

Remember: whatever you measure with an incident light exposure-meter, it gives you a reading that will result in that reading printing out as if it were taken from an 18% grey card, i.e. in zone 5.

So: you pick one convenient area of your subject to meter (e.g., your clouds). This places them in zone 5, but you decide (before pressing the shutter-button) they REALLY belongs in zone 8. Zone 8 is 3 stops ABOVE zone 5, so to get your proper exposure for your clouds, you need to open up (brighten them) 3 stops above the meter-indicated exposure. The other zones in your exposure will then fall into place "automatically". (Simple, really)

I meter another spot, considered to be in Zone 2. When metering it, and if I have correctly assigned the zone, then it should be three stops away from the midtones. Determining the proper exposure for midtones, I would raise the reading three stops to Zone V. If I have properly placed my highlights and shadows in the correct zones, then both readings, after adjusting them, would be approximately the same.

Am I understanding this correctly?

No. Again, (as for the clouds), your meter indicates a zone 5 exposure (this time for the shadows). Your shadows need to be in zone 2. If you expose for the indicated exposure value, they will end up in zone 5. Therefore, you need to darken them by 3 stops; i.e. close down the aperture by three stops, in order to place them into zone 2. Again, the other zones in this, new, exposure will fall into place "automatically".

Of course, it helps if you have some understanding of what "the zones" are.

Really, all this is very simple in actual practice...just try it.

Personally, I find it works very well for my film cameras: especially old manual RF and SLRs, using external lightmeters.

Chris Weston sets all this out very succinctly in his book "Exposure", AVA Publishing (AVA PUBLISHING - Part of the AVA Group, Switzerland), 2006.

BTW, I am currently reading my way through Adam Ansel's book, "The Negative", where all this is set out in great detail. (However, you don't really need ALL that much detail to start using it)

[KellyL]

Thank you for adding to this thread.

[Bunyip]

Originally Posted by KellyL

Thank you for adding to this thread.

This is a great thread!

People may think that Ansel Adam's "Zone System" is past it, but the more I look into it, the more contemporary it seems. The main reason for that is because it is a system which addresses both exposure and development picture-by-picture. Therefore post-capture digital processing (which enables one to do just that, even in 35mm format) has actually made the "Zone System" more feasible/user friendly than ever.

Personally, I have simply been looking at only the "capture", but that is just half of the story.

I can easily imagine Ansel Adams, were he still with us, having a ball with all the post-processing possibilities available today.

[heartseye]

Hate to be a party-pooper but...The Zone system only works properly with film. If you look back through the threads, you will see some explanations, but frankly, so few people really understand the system that many of the endorsments of it posted here are not valid..... many examples come to mind of the many differences ......trust me on this one...or don't. Regards Bob

[expensive_hobby]

Thanks to cyclo for providing me with the link to this thread because I apparently am blind enough that I cannot find on my own!


I just wanted to share some pictures that I was happy with- thanks to this thread and each participant! I went hog wild taking these because of the lack of people in our group and the opportunity was there.

These are straight from the camera. Some I think could be done a bit better through composition or minor adjustments to the settings.

But overall I think I did really well. And the bonus? I wasn't shooting in the dark wondering just how far off they would be!


F3.5
WB= Auto (wasn't really sure what was best)
18mm
1/6
800


F4.5
WB= Auto
18mm
1/15
800




This one I think is a wee bit too bright. But I do think any darker and it could look equally off.
F3.5
WB= Auto
18mm
1/20
800

[brice]

Nice! On what did you meter?

[expensive_hobby]

Thanks Brice.

Instead of the three discussed in this thread I did four/five:
lights (if in the frame)
water
shadows-shadows (dark, dark areas)
illuminated areas
shadowed/half illuminated areas

[HUMMER_MAN]

Hi Kelly,
I would recommend the photo editing program ULEAD Photoimpact 12, by far the most advanced & versatle editing program available. When in the field, I provide the best lighting environment that I can with what is readily available (positioned reflectors ect) to have as evenly lit and balanced field of view that I can, that is all you can do. Dont worry about anything else beyond that point, complete your shoot.

Digital imaging recording equipment such as camera's & scanners are nothing more than pixel arranging & altering devices. If your subject has a brighter or darker side than desired simply select that group of pixels to be altered and in a matter of a few minutes edification with Ulead PhotoImpact12 you problem is solved. There are several editing programs available but Ulead is by far the best. It wll take a little time to become familiar with the program but it is time well spent.

Ulead Introduces PhotoImpact 12, Latest Version of Acclaimed Image Editing Software

eventdv.net: Ulead Introduces PhotoImpact 12, Latest Version of Acclaimed Image Editing Software

[KellyL]

I have never heard of this software. And how does one become a Former Camel?

[Douglas]

Originally Posted by KellyL

I have never heard of this software. And how does one become a Former Camel?

Probably got kicked and banned.

[Tedski TX]

Originally Posted by heartseye

Hate to be a party-pooper but...The Zone system only works properly with film. If you look back through the threads, you will see some explanations, but frankly, so few people really understand the system that many of the endorsments of it posted here are not valid..... many examples come to mind of the many differences ......trust me on this one...or don't. Regards Bob

But, Ken Rockwell says it works the same . . . oops
Never mind. I'm not in the mood to be lynched.

[KellyL]

Don't worry. Bob is long gone.

[kgphoto]

But I am still around. Have you tried the Adobie DNG Profiling software? Easy peasy.

[KellyL]

KIRK! Don't do this to me!!!!

[aam1234]

Good article about Light Metering and various exposure modes.

[kgphoto]

Originally Posted by KellyL

KIRK! Don't do this to me!!!!

Somebody has to! Seriously, the new plug in does it real fast and easy. Nothing like I had to go through back in the dark ages, 6 months ago. LOL