So much negative Canon and 5D MK III chatter. 35+ "Real" world photos to show otherwise.

Started Nov 4, 2012 | Discussions thread
Regular MemberPosts: 101
Relevant exposure..not overall exposure matters. 4 more SNIPS
In reply to Travelintrevor, Nov 5, 2012

For the most part, overall exposure (no clipping or blown highlights ANYWHERE in the photo) is not something I concern myself with. Nor should you.(unless all you shoot is landscapes, then it is a little different) What is important is RELEVANT exposure.

The FIRST SNIP below shows a photo that was taken just a few feet to the left of the THIRD photo in my Original post. The exposure is ISO 400, f/2.8 and 1/320 for BOTH photos. See the snip and you will see the red highlights. They are irrelevant because they do not matter. What matters is the exposure for the bride and the party. Notice that NO editing has been done AND there is plenty of detail in the dress and the final edit had more.

Now look at the 3rd photo in my original post. SAME exposure. WHY? Because her face and part of the dress AND everything to my left HAS NOT CHANGED (the light is what I am talking about). Why would I dial in a different exposure? For the brightest part of her dress? No, because it is irrelevant for this shot. Had I stopped down 1 or 2 stops, the photo would be too dark. The relevant part of the photo, HER FACE and part of her dress has the exact lighting in both photos and that is what is RELEVANT... AND it shows 100% consistency in my work. If anyone wants to argue that her dress is too bright then you are "right'' but oh so wrong at the same time for the reasons above. Should I have moved the bride back to the door area? No..why would I..roll with the flow and know what relevant exposure means. I had plenty of leeway in post to make sure the print looks fine. Argue your 250+ channel $%^& all day long....Oh no!...10% of my photo is overexpose..what will my friends think???

Exposure for this and the 3rd shot is the same because it should be.

Now to the photo where someone was arguing that it was overexposed because of the step. really? on what planet?

I took the RAW and pushed the exposure to 0.66+EV and there is still NO clipping in the dress. Is the photo printable like that?  No, but it shows that there is DATA in the dress even after pushing it 2/3 stop over. Why would I exposure for a freaking step or sidewalk? or even MOST of the dress? I want the face and skin tones and as much as possible properly exposed as long as it is relevant. The crap that is blown is not relevant. get over it and move on.

pushed 0.66+ and still no clipping on dress

The final edit had the exposure reduced a bit (-0.25) and the highlight reduced so that the PRINT (the stuff that matters) would have something there (where the red clipping is). Without the reduction, the print would have had no ink in that area. I knew this when I shot the photo because the 5D MK III has highlight alert and it showed me no highlight warning for her dress. If you guys are worried that you can't see all the detail in her dress then put your camera down and wait 5-10 years. Maybe then they will make a camera that can capture what the human eye can see. The rest of us will keep shooting while you wait.

skin tones are spot on and plenty of detail in her dress by her chest...the relevant part! See next SNIP.

could a 1/3 stop less exposure made a big difference? who cares..the 5D KM III files have the leeway you need. Expose for the relevant parts and move on!

Now for the shot 16 ( bride in the door). I goofed and uploaded the wrong file but I am glad I did. That shot shows just how good the 5D MK III is. Period. The original file was 1 stop over (it was the first shot before I stopped down 5 clicks to expose for the RELEVANT parts of the photo) and there was still plenty of leeway in the files to produce a printable file. Was the final shot without clipping on parts of the dress? No..but the whole dress did not matter. Her head and upper part of the dress did and they are what I exposed for. I even stated in the caption that the sun was hitting parts of the dress but that the heads where in the shade (ok, the caption had "hiding" idea where that came from) According to consensus here on the forum, the "proper" exposure (no clipping whatsoever) would have left the faces so dark that you would have been fired and taken to court. Why be concerned with irrelevant clipping...would you really have stopped down till there was no clipping? If the answer is YES, you have problems. If you answered YES and you said "I would have added OCF to produce an even exposure" then you are on the ball.

keep arguing about exposure boys. When you understand what relevant-exposure means, you have grown up. I am out...I have prints to edit that are due by tomorrow.

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Post (hide subjects)Posted by
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum PPrevious NNext WNext unread UUpvote SSubscribe RReply QQuote BBookmark post MMy threads
Color scheme? Blue / Yellow