"Proper" Exposure in Photography

mostlyboringphotog said:

digidog said:

mostlyboringphotog said:

bobn2 said:

mostlyboringphotog said:

FingerPainter said:

This question is as much a philosophical question as a technical one. And the best way to begin answering a philosophical question is to get definitions of the terms used in the question. The two key words in your question are "proper" and "exposure". You are going to get a bunch of different answers because different responders are going to assume different meanings for these two words.

...

This incorrect usage of "exposure" remains current. Along with it, "underexposed" is used to mean "too dark" instead of "not enough exposure for the desired effects" and "overexposed" is used to mean "too bright" as opposed to "too much exposure for the desired effects".

Click to expand...

I quibble a bit that usage of "under/over exposure" is incorrect. If the image looks too dark, it was under exposed (that is assuming a correct exposure that would have given not such dark image and the deviation from that "correct" exposure represent the under exposure).

Click to expand...

As gollywop says in his excellent article, it would be as accurate to call it 'over/under development'. The phrase 'underexposed' presupposes a particular methodology. Sure, it's the dominant one, but in a way, not helpful when you're trying to educate people about exposure.

Click to expand...

But if someone got a too dark image, telling them to increase the exposure is not wrong ; and if so, semantically, the exposure was less than what he/she should have used and thus was "under exposed".

Click to expand...

If the person creating the image, who understands the basics of exposure produces an image YOU think is too dark, it's not under exposed!

Click to expand...

Whoa, I did not say I think it's too dark - if someone asked, my image looks too dark, what should I do? Then I would say, reshoot with increased exposure or with increased ISO (if not ISO invariant) or brighten it in PP.

Click to expand...

mostlyboringphotog said:

That should cover 99.99% of what could be done. I am sure you can tell me other things that can be done...

Click to expand...

It's an example illustrating that what one might feel may be too dark isn't due to the intention of the artist creating the image.

Increasing the ISO isn't the issue or answer if you think the image is too dark.

mostlyboringphotog said:

mostlyboringphotog said:

You may feel this shot of Michale Jackson is under exposed. It isn't!

http://www.widewalls.ch/artist/greg-gorman/

mostlyboringphotog said:

As I said above, the under exposure can be cured by more exposure or more development.

Click to expand...

You can't cure under exposure with development. You can make an image appear brighter;

Click to expand...

Indeed, it's the same thing if the brightness is the only concern;

Click to expand...

It's not the same despite your concern.

mostlyboringphotog said:

mostlyboringphotog said:

not at all the same.

Click to expand...

I take your point; not saying that bright should be the only concern.

mostlyboringphotog said:

mostlyboringphotog said:

But if possible, more exposure is a better strategy, imho.

Click to expand...

Exposure is exposure. Development is development.

Click to expand...

Photography is both exposure and development and there is certain amount of reciprocity that one can do to cure each other's mishap, intentional or otherwise. And you know this better than I do.

Click to expand...

Yes photography utilizes both. But both attributes are not the same nor equal.

Measure twice, cut once.

--
Andrew Rodney
Author: Color Management for Photographers
The Digital Dog
http://www.digitaldog.net

bobn2 said:

mostlyboringphotog said:

bobn2 said:

mostlyboringphotog said:

FingerPainter said:

This question is as much a philosophical question as a technical one. And the best way to begin answering a philosophical question is to get definitions of the terms used in the question. The two key words in your question are "proper" and "exposure". You are going to get a bunch of different answers because different responders are going to assume different meanings for these two words.

...

This incorrect usage of "exposure" remains current. Along with it, "underexposed" is used to mean "too dark" instead of "not enough exposure for the desired effects" and "overexposed" is used to mean "too bright" as opposed to "too much exposure for the desired effects".

Click to expand...

I quibble a bit that usage of "under/over exposure" is incorrect. If the image looks too dark, it was under exposed (that is assuming a correct exposure that would have given not such dark image and the deviation from that "correct" exposure represent the under exposure).

Click to expand...

As gollywop says in his excellent article, it would be as accurate to call it 'over/under development'. The phrase 'underexposed' presupposes a particular methodology. Sure, it's the dominant one, but in a way, not helpful when you're trying to educate people about exposure.

Click to expand...

But if someone got a too dark image, telling them to increase the exposure is not wrong ;

Click to expand...

If they already have the image yes it is. Tell them to change the development.

bobn2 said:

and if so, semantically, the exposure was less than what he/she should have used and thus was "under exposed".

Click to expand...

As I say, it presupposes that you're attached to the idea that you use exposure to control the brightness of your image. That's fundamentally a bad idea, though I recognise that many work that way. For myself, I'd rather not embed terminology which depends on bad practice.

Click to expand...

If you can take each RGB channel separately so that each channel can be fully exposed, then be my guest.

bobn2 said:

bobn2 said:

As I said above, the under exposure can be cured by more exposure or more development.

Click to expand...

That's where you are wrong. A too small exposure can never be corrected by more development. -bold added.

Click to expand...

This happens a lot - do you think I would think that a shot taken with lens cover on (range finders) can be corrected by more development? ;-)

Howe about, can we say "somewhat compensated"?

bobn2 said:

bobn2 said:

But if possible, more exposure is a better strategy, imho.

Click to expand...

I think the 'h' is misplaced. You will boldly promote your 'o' even though it is wrong and you are told so. Not a trace of 'h' there.

Click to expand...

My presentation is "h"; my "o" can be as obstinate as anyone else. But what is it that you think I have wrong? However, I have corrected my opinions many times again with thanks to you - if I am not changing, then it's because I am not convinced, yet.

If increasing the exposure until the image looks reasonably bright without clipping is a bad idea, then I am lost.

bobn2 said:

--
Tinkety tonk old fruit, & down with the Nazis!
Bob

Click to expand...

mostlyboringphotog said:

FingerPainter said:

...

This incorrect usage of "exposure" remains current. Along with it, "underexposed" is used to mean "too dark" instead of "not enough exposure for the desired effects" and "overexposed" is used to mean "too bright" as opposed to "too much exposure for the desired effects".

Click to expand...

I quibble a bit that usage of "under/over exposure" is incorrect.

Click to expand...

It was a long post. I'm glad that is all you found to quibble with. However, did you have to quote the entire thing to take issue with concepts that are confined to a single paragraph?

mostlyboringphotog said:

If the image looks too dark, it was under exposed (that is assuming a correct exposure that would have given not such dark image and the deviation from that "correct" exposure represent the under exposure).

Click to expand...

But why make that assumption? With digital and post-capture processing in software, getting the desired brightness SOOC is the least important function of exposure. Imagine that you have a scene with a wide tonal range from mid-tones to important highlight detail and no important detail in the shadows, If you expose the image so that you say it is not underexposed - the midtones come out as midtones - you will blow the detail that you wanted to keep in the highlights. The correct exposure is the one that preserves the highlight detail. The image will then need to be processed to raise the midtones and shadows while leaving the highlights unchanged. The image was not underexposed, even though most of it came out of the camera too dark.

If the image is n stops below correct exposure and coincidentally n stops below correct brightness, then it is indeed underexposed, but not because it is insufficiently bright. Rather because it was n-stops below correct exposure when "correct" is the exposure the photographer needed to accomplish her goals regarding highlight preservation, DoF, blur and noise.

mostlyboringphotog said:

The lively discussion comes about because there are two ways to brighten the image: more exposure or increasing the ISO. And I duck ;-)

Click to expand...

I'm not sure why you waterfowl.

You are correct that increasing either exposure or ISO before capture will increase brightness. So can the way you process the image after capture. I don't think these facts are at the heart of the debate. Rather it is different understandings of "exposure" and different goals for it that lead to the different positions.

digidog said:

mostlyboringphotog said:

digidog said:

mostlyboringphotog said:

bobn2 said:

mostlyboringphotog said:

FingerPainter said:

This question is as much a philosophical question as a technical one. And the best way to begin answering a philosophical question is to get definitions of the terms used in the question. The two key words in your question are "proper" and "exposure". You are going to get a bunch of different answers because different responders are going to assume different meanings for these two words.

...

This incorrect usage of "exposure" remains current. Along with it, "underexposed" is used to mean "too dark" instead of "not enough exposure for the desired effects" and "overexposed" is used to mean "too bright" as opposed to "too much exposure for the desired effects".

Click to expand...

I quibble a bit that usage of "under/over exposure" is incorrect. If the image looks too dark, it was under exposed (that is assuming a correct exposure that would have given not such dark image and the deviation from that "correct" exposure represent the under exposure).

Click to expand...

As gollywop says in his excellent article, it would be as accurate to call it 'over/under development'. The phrase 'underexposed' presupposes a particular methodology. Sure, it's the dominant one, but in a way, not helpful when you're trying to educate people about exposure.

Click to expand...

But if someone got a too dark image, telling them to increase the exposure is not wrong ; and if so, semantically, the exposure was less than what he/she should have used and thus was "under exposed".

Click to expand...

If the person creating the image, who understands the basics of exposure produces an image YOU think is too dark, it's not under exposed!

Click to expand...

Whoa, I did not say I think it's too dark - if someone asked, my image looks too dark, what should I do? Then I would say, reshoot with increased exposure or with increased ISO (if not ISO invariant) or brighten it in PP.

That should cover 99.99% of what could be done. I am sure you can tell me other things that can be done...

Click to expand...

It's an example illustrating that what one might feel may be too dark isn't due to the intention of the artist creating the image.

Click to expand...

We are still starting with the different premises - an artist can claim that the image is just rightly dark and that would be so. I am not telling anyone to brighten their image because the exposure is wrong.

If someone thought that his/her photo was too dark, the question is what that person should do next time. Telling him/her that become an artist and claim that it's really not too dark is not what I would tell that person.

Member said:

Increasing the ISO isn't the issue or answer if you think the image is too dark.

Member said:

Member said:

You may feel this shot of Michale Jackson is under exposed. It isn't!

http://www.widewalls.ch/artist/greg-gorman/

Member said:

As I said above, the under exposure can be cured by more exposure or more development.

Click to expand...

You can't cure under exposure with development. You can make an image appear brighter;

Click to expand...

Indeed, it's the same thing if the brightness is the only concern;

Click to expand...

It's not the same despite your concern.

Member said:

Member said:

not at all the same.

Click to expand...

I take your point; not saying that bright should be the only concern.

Member said:

Member said:

But if possible, more exposure is a better strategy, imho.

Click to expand...

Exposure is exposure. Development is development.

Click to expand...

Photography is both exposure and development and there is certain amount of reciprocity that one can do to cure each other's mishap, intentional or otherwise. And you know this better than I do.

Click to expand...

Yes photography utilizes both. But both attributes are not the same nor equal.

Measure twice, cut once.

--
Andrew Rodney
Author: Color Management for Photographers
The Digital Dog
http://www.digitaldog.net

Click to expand...

FingerPainter said:

mostlyboringphotog said:

FingerPainter said:

...

This incorrect usage of "exposure" remains current. Along with it, "underexposed" is used to mean "too dark" instead of "not enough exposure for the desired effects" and "overexposed" is used to mean "too bright" as opposed to "too much exposure for the desired effects".

Click to expand...

I quibble a bit that usage of "under/over exposure" is incorrect.

Click to expand...

It was a long post. I'm glad that is all you found to quibble with. However, did you have to quote the entire thing to take issue with concepts that are confined to a single paragraph?

Click to expand...

I typically do not snip until the 2nd go around in case some context is lost or appear taking it out of context,

FingerPainter said:

FingerPainter said:

If the image looks too dark, it was under exposed (that is assuming a correct exposure that would have given not such dark image and the deviation from that "correct" exposure represent the under exposure).

Click to expand...

But why make that assumption?

Click to expand...

I am trying to express what my understanding of "under exposure" means. If what metered by the camera is not what the photographer want, then he/she can make the change and it would not be thought of as under or over exposing.

If, however, a photographer (obviously a beginner) asks why his/her photo looks too dark or too bright, saying that his/her photo is under exposed or over exposed is not a wrong statement, imho.

FingerPainter said:

With digital and post-capture processing in software, getting the desired brightness SOOC is the least important function of exposure. Imagine that you have a scene with a wide tonal range from mid-tones to important highlight detail and no important detail in the shadows, If you expose the image so that you say it is not underexposed - the midtones come out as midtones - you will blow the detail that you wanted to keep in the highlights. The correct exposure is the one that preserves the highlight detail. The image will then need to be processed to raise the midtones and shadows while leaving the highlights unchanged. The image was not underexposed, even though most of it came out of the camera too dark.

Click to expand...

My point was, we can artificially define a correct exposure (95% of pixels without clipping/below noise, for example) as film did for the density and the deviation can be considered under or over exposure or can be subjective as in only when the photographer thinks it's too dark or too bright.

I suppose if someone shows a photo with muddy shadow, one could say, you may have under exposed unless you wanted a muddy shadow ;-)

FingerPainter said:

If the image is n stops below correct exposure and coincidentally n stops below correct brightness, then it is indeed underexposed, but not because it is insufficiently bright. Rather because it was n-stops below correct exposure when "correct" is the exposure the photographer needed to accomplish her goals regarding highlight preservation, DoF, blur and noise.

FingerPainter said:

The lively discussion comes about because there are two ways to brighten the image: more exposure or increasing the ISO. And I duck ;-)

Click to expand...

I'm not sure why you waterfowl.

Click to expand...

One can be shot down rather hard for saying exposure and ISO in one sentence :-D

FingerPainter said:

You are correct that increasing either exposure or ISO before capture will increase brightness. So can the way you process the image after capture. I don't think these facts are at the heart of the debate. Rather it is different understandings of "exposure" and different goals for it that lead to the different positions.

Click to expand...

My position is that much of new definition is unnecessary and not useful for the beginners. That's where I am coming from. That's not to say digital photography add much more than film photography and additional concepts are necessary but in due course.

I read something in the OP that very few others have picked up. I know the title was "Proper" Exposure in Photography, but there was a concern about exposure bracketing and whether that was a professional practice.

PJPfeiffer said:

I read something in the OP that very few others have picked up. I know the title was "Proper" Exposure in Photography, but there was a concern about exposure bracketing and whether that was a professional practice.

Click to expand...

I think the 2nd post by ESfishdoc covered that topic ;-)

Unless, you think it's unprofessional...

imho, I think with digital photography, there is much less need to bracket unless one shoots JPEG only.

mostlyboringphotog said:

digidog said:

mostlyboringphotog said:

digidog said:

mostlyboringphotog said:

bobn2 said:

mostlyboringphotog said:

FingerPainter said:

This question is as much a philosophical question as a technical one. And the best way to begin answering a philosophical question is to get definitions of the terms used in the question. The two key words in your question are "proper" and "exposure". You are going to get a bunch of different answers because different responders are going to assume different meanings for these two words.

...

This incorrect usage of "exposure" remains current. Along with it, "underexposed" is used to mean "too dark" instead of "not enough exposure for the desired effects" and "overexposed" is used to mean "too bright" as opposed to "too much exposure for the desired effects".

Click to expand...

I quibble a bit that usage of "under/over exposure" is incorrect. If the image looks too dark, it was under exposed (that is assuming a correct exposure that would have given not such dark image and the deviation from that "correct" exposure represent the under exposure).

Click to expand...

As gollywop says in his excellent article, it would be as accurate to call it 'over/under development'. The phrase 'underexposed' presupposes a particular methodology. Sure, it's the dominant one, but in a way, not helpful when you're trying to educate people about exposure.

Click to expand...

But if someone got a too dark image, telling them to increase the exposure is not wrong ; and if so, semantically, the exposure was less than what he/she should have used and thus was "under exposed".

Click to expand...

If the person creating the image, who understands the basics of exposure produces an image YOU think is too dark, it's not under exposed!

Click to expand...

Whoa, I did not say I think it's too dark - if someone asked, my image looks too dark, what should I do? Then I would say, reshoot with increased exposure or with increased ISO (if not ISO invariant) or brighten it in PP.

That should cover 99.99% of what could be done. I am sure you can tell me other things that can be done...

Click to expand...

It's an example illustrating that what one might feel may be too dark isn't due to the intention of the artist creating the image.

Click to expand...

We are still starting with the different premises - an artist can claim that the image is just rightly dark and that would be so. I am not telling anyone to brighten their image because the exposure is wrong.

If someone thought that his/her photo was too dark, the question is what that person should do next time.

Click to expand...

Learn how to expose!

mostlyboringphotog said:

Telling him/her that become an artist and claim that it's really not too dark is not what I would tell that person.

mostlyboringphotog said:

Increasing the ISO isn't the issue or answer if you think the image is too dark.

mostlyboringphotog said:

mostlyboringphotog said:

You may feel this shot of Michale Jackson is under exposed. It isn't!

http://www.widewalls.ch/artist/greg-gorman/

mostlyboringphotog said:

As I said above, the under exposure can be cured by more exposure or more development.

Click to expand...

You can't cure under exposure with development. You can make an image appear brighter;

Click to expand...

Indeed, it's the same thing if the brightness is the only concern;

Click to expand...

It's not the same despite your concern.

mostlyboringphotog said:

mostlyboringphotog said:

not at all the same.

Click to expand...

I take your point; not saying that bright should be the only concern.

mostlyboringphotog said:

mostlyboringphotog said:

But if possible, more exposure is a better strategy, imho.

Click to expand...

Exposure is exposure. Development is development.

Click to expand...

Photography is both exposure and development and there is certain amount of reciprocity that one can do to cure each other's mishap, intentional or otherwise. And you know this better than I do.

Click to expand...

Yes photography utilizes both. But both attributes are not the same nor equal.

Measure twice, cut once.

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

PJPfeiffer said:

I read something in the OP that very few others have picked up. I know the title was "Proper" Exposure in Photography, but there was a concern about exposure bracketing and whether that was a professional practice.

Click to expand...

IMHO as one who was a pro shooter, if appropriate (and I provided situations where it is and isn't), no reason not to bracket. Shooting a still life; why not. Shooting a portrait, no way.

digidog said:

mostlyboringphotog said:

digidog said:

mostlyboringphotog said:

digidog said:

mostlyboringphotog said:

bobn2 said:

mostlyboringphotog said:

FingerPainter said:

...

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

If the person creating the image, who understands the basics of exposure produces an image YOU think is too dark, it's not under exposed!

Click to expand...

Whoa, I did not say I think it's too dark - if someone asked, my image looks too dark, what should I do? Then I would say, reshoot with increased exposure or with increased ISO (if not ISO invariant) or brighten it in PP.

That should cover 99.99% of what could be done. I am sure you can tell me other things that can be done...

Click to expand...

It's an example illustrating that what one might feel may be too dark isn't due to the intention of the artist creating the image.

Click to expand...

We are still starting with the different premises - an artist can claim that the image is just rightly dark and that would be so. I am not telling anyone to brighten their image because the exposure is wrong.

If someone thought that his/her photo was too dark, the question is what that person should do next time.

Click to expand...

Learn how to expose!

Click to expand...

Indeed, now we are starting from a common point. Learning to expose ;-)

Not you nor I (bobn2 thinks I do not know how to expose, but I digress :-D ) but a beginner who had a question...

Member said:

Member said:

...

Click to expand...

--
Andrew Rodney
Author: Color Management for Photographers
The Digital Dog
http://www.digitaldog.net

Click to expand...

I realize the the discussions in this thread as still ongoing (which are fascinating btw), but I just wanted to say thanks to everyone who has thrown in their wisdom and 2 cents. I didn't expect so many replies with such a variety of input. I appreciate the in-depth posts and explanations, they've helped put my mind at ease and given me even more to sink my teeth into.

MarkCam88 said:

I realize the the discussions in this thread as still ongoing (which are fascinating btw), but I just wanted to say thanks to everyone who has thrown in their wisdom and 2 cents. I didn't expect so many replies with such a variety of input. I appreciate the in-depth posts and explanations, they've helped put my mind at ease and given me even more to sink my teeth into.

Click to expand...

Exposure, either proper or improper is one of the favourite topic at DPR forum. It routinely gets locked by the moderator but seems to have calmed down lately.

I'm still on the fence as to if digital photography requires different understanding of "exposure management" than film photography, for a beginner anyways.

Thanks for the opportunity to chat.

mostlyboringphotog said:

MarkCam88 said:

I realize the the discussions in this thread as still ongoing (which are fascinating btw), but I just wanted to say thanks to everyone who has thrown in their wisdom and 2 cents. I didn't expect so many replies with such a variety of input. I appreciate the in-depth posts and explanations, they've helped put my mind at ease and given me even more to sink my teeth into.

Click to expand...

Exposure, either proper or improper is one of the favourite topic at DPR forum. It routinely gets locked by the moderator but seems to have calmed down lately.

I'm still on the fence as to if digital photography requires different understanding of "exposure management" than film photography, for a beginner anyways

Click to expand...

A raw, a JPEG, a negative, a transparency differ. The understanding to properly expose them doesn't.

mostlyboringphotog said:

Thanks for the opportunity to chat.

Click to expand...

digidog said:

mostlyboringphotog said:

MarkCam88 said:

I realize the the discussions in this thread as still ongoing (which are fascinating btw), but I just wanted to say thanks to everyone who has thrown in their wisdom and 2 cents. I didn't expect so many replies with such a variety of input. I appreciate the in-depth posts and explanations, they've helped put my mind at ease and given me even more to sink my teeth into.

Click to expand...

Exposure, either proper or improper is one of the favourite topic at DPR forum. It routinely gets locked by the moderator but seems to have calmed down lately.

I'm still on the fence as to if digital photography requires different understanding of "exposure management" than film photography, for a beginner anyways

Click to expand...

A raw, a JPEG, a negative, a transparency differ. The understanding to properly expose them doesn't.

Click to expand...

I agree

Member said:

Member said:

Thanks for the opportunity to chat.

Click to expand...

--
Andrew Rodney
Author: Color Management for Photographers
The Digital Dog
http://www.digitaldog.net

Click to expand...

digidog said:

mostlyboringphotog said:

But if someone got a too dark image, telling them to increase the exposure is not wrong ; and if so, semantically, the exposure was less than what he/she should have used and thus was "under exposed".

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

Semantically does not mean 'anything i want a term to mean'. Some people understand even less about semantics than they understand about photography.

PJPfeiffer said:

I read something in the OP that very few others have picked up. I know the title was "Proper" Exposure in Photography, but there was a concern about exposure bracketing and whether that was a professional practice.

Click to expand...

I haven't loked back, but IIRC he was mostly concerned that bracketing takes time which means you could miss the [my words] decisive moment. I think he was correct in that.

I don't bother too much with whether something is professional (though in some situations pro's would bracket the hell out of it using a polaroid back before starting with the precious film), I rather try to think in terms of 'best practice'.

mostlyboringphotog said:

bobn2 said:

mostlyboringphotog said:

bobn2 said:

mostlyboringphotog said:

FingerPainter said:

This question is as much a philosophical question as a technical one. And the best way to begin answering a philosophical question is to get definitions of the terms used in the question. The two key words in your question are "proper" and "exposure". You are going to get a bunch of different answers because different responders are going to assume different meanings for these two words.

...

This incorrect usage of "exposure" remains current. Along with it, "underexposed" is used to mean "too dark" instead of "not enough exposure for the desired effects" and "overexposed" is used to mean "too bright" as opposed to "too much exposure for the desired effects".

Click to expand...

I quibble a bit that usage of "under/over exposure" is incorrect. If the image looks too dark, it was under exposed (that is assuming a correct exposure that would have given not such dark image and the deviation from that "correct" exposure represent the under exposure).

Click to expand...

As gollywop says in his excellent article, it would be as accurate to call it 'over/under development'. The phrase 'underexposed' presupposes a particular methodology. Sure, it's the dominant one, but in a way, not helpful when you're trying to educate people about exposure.

Click to expand...

But if someone got a too dark image, telling them to increase the exposure is not wrong ;

Click to expand...

If they already have the image yes it is. Tell them to change the development.

mostlyboringphotog said:

and if so, semantically, the exposure was less than what he/she should have used and thus was "under exposed".

Click to expand...

As I say, it presupposes that you're attached to the idea that you use exposure to control the brightness of your image. That's fundamentally a bad idea, though I recognise that many work that way. For myself, I'd rather not embed terminology which depends on bad practice.

Click to expand...

If you can take each RGB channel separately so that each channel can be fully exposed, then be my guest.

Click to expand...

I'm not sure how that comment relates to what went before, but if even exposure between channels is your concern, use a magenta filter.

mostlyboringphotog said:

mostlyboringphotog said:

mostlyboringphotog said:

As I said above, the under exposure can be cured by more exposure or more development.

Click to expand...

That's where you are wrong. A too small exposure can never be corrected by more development. -bold added.

Click to expand...

This happens a lot - do you think I would think that a shot taken with lens cover on (range finders) can be corrected by more development? ;-)

Howe about, can we say "somewhat compensated"?

Click to expand...

So long as you have at the back of your mind the idea that exposure management is all about brightness you'll make the same mistake.

mostlyboringphotog said:

mostlyboringphotog said:

mostlyboringphotog said:

But if possible, more exposure is a better strategy, imho.

Click to expand...

I think the 'h' is misplaced. You will boldly promote your 'o' even though it is wrong and you are told so. Not a trace of 'h' there.

Click to expand...

My presentation is "h"; my "o" can be as obstinate as anyone else. But what is it that you think I have wrong? However, I have corrected my opinions many times again with thanks to you - if I am not changing, then it's because I am not convinced, yet.

If increasing the exposure until the image looks reasonably bright without clipping is a bad idea, then I am lost.

Click to expand...

Whatever you do, you can't get rid of the idea that exposure management is about image brightness. Anyway, if you increase the exposure and as a consequence gain camera shake, it wasn't a good idea.

robert1955 said:

digidog said:

mostlyboringphotog said:

But if someone got a too dark image, telling them to increase the exposure is not wrong ; and if so, semantically, the exposure was less than what he/she should have used and thus was "under exposed".

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

Semantically does not mean 'anything i want a term to mean'. Some people understand even less about semantics than they understand about photography.

Click to expand...

Are you saying that photographers did not say when they got their slides back and said to themselves oh, this one was under exposed and the other one was over exposed...

What do you think they meant, semantically, that is?

You guys crack me up!

bobn2 said:

mostlyboringphotog said:

bobn2 said:

mostlyboringphotog said:

bobn2 said:

mostlyboringphotog said:

FingerPainter said:

...

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

If you can take each RGB channel separately so that each channel can be fully exposed, then be my guest.

Click to expand...

I'm not sure how that comment relates to what went before, but if even exposure between channels is your concern, use a magenta filter.

Click to expand...

Isn't maxing out each channel, the epitome of "exposure management"?

bobn2 said:

bobn2 said:

bobn2 said:

bobn2 said:

As I said above, the under exposure can be cured by more exposure or more development.

Click to expand...

That's where you are wrong. A too small exposure can never be corrected by more development. -bold added.

Click to expand...

This happens a lot - do you think I would think that a shot taken with lens cover on (range finders) can be corrected by more development? ;-)

Howe about, can we say "somewhat compensated"?

Click to expand...

So long as you have at the back of your mind the idea that exposure management is all about brightness you'll make the same mistake.

Click to expand...

If you mean, I need to pay attention to DOF and motion blur and noisiness, not to worry, the "exposure triangle" covers that. I honestly do not see your point of set f/stop and shutter speed and use auto ISO being that different.

bobn2 said:

bobn2 said:

bobn2 said:

bobn2 said:

But if possible, more exposure is a better strategy, imho.

Click to expand...

I think the 'h' is misplaced. You will boldly promote your 'o' even though it is wrong and you are told so. Not a trace of 'h' there.

Click to expand...

My presentation is "h"; my "o" can be as obstinate as anyone else. But what is it that you think I have wrong? However, I have corrected my opinions many times again with thanks to you - if I am not changing, then it's because I am not convinced, yet.

If increasing the exposure until the image looks reasonably bright without clipping is a bad idea, then I am lost.

Click to expand...

Whatever you do, you can't get rid of the idea that exposure management is about image brightness. Anyway, if you increase the exposure and as a consequence gain camera shake, it wasn't a good idea.

Click to expand...

I had hoped that we are beyond camera shake. "Exposure management" may be as simple as sunny 16 to 3 channel histogram analysis. In all cases, if given more exposure, the resulting image would look brighter. It may also clip the high light; more motion blur, shallower DOF and less noise.

If you think I am saying that more exposure increase "only the brightness", I'll stipulate that it's my fault of being less than clear

It's interesting that I am told that I am reinventing the meaning of under/over exposure; if I am using those terms as I have learned and if you all think it's wrong, it seems the DPR forum folks are reinventing the terms.

bobn2 said:

--
Tinkety tonk old fruit, & down with the Nazis!
Bob

Click to expand...