Exposure compensation- Use camera or post-processing software?

[HEA-45]

When editing RAW files, is there any difference between exposure compensation set via the camera when the shot is taken or set during post-processing (in this case Nikon's ViewNX)?

Background: Some of my previous posts mention printed shots that came out surprisingly dark. I have all but solved the problem for future shots, but for past shots .3 to .6 compensation could be added to lighten the shots.

 

[Bruce Miller]

It is always better to get proper exposure during the shoot than to adjust it later.

When editing RAW files, is there any difference between exposure compensation set via the camera when the shot is taken or set during post-processing (in this case Nikon's ViewNX)?

Background: Some of my previous posts mention printed shots that came out surprisingly dark. I have all but solved the problem for future shots, but for past shots .3 to .6 compensation could be added to lighten the shots.

--
Bruce

 

[Deleted1929]

When editing RAW files, is there any difference between exposure compensation set via the camera when the shot is taken or set during post-processing

When you apply exposure compensation when shooting you are telling the metering system in the camera to adjust whatever exposure it considers right. This will alter the shutter speed or aperture or ISO ( depending on mode, etc. ) and you will get a different exposure setting.

When you apply a so-called exposure compensation adjustment from RAW you are stuck with whatever data was captured by the camera's exposure. You are, in effect, adjusting the tone curve in a particular way.

Like any post processing adjustment this cannot improve the sensor data and can only reduce the quality ( in particular it can amplify noise ! ).

By adjusting exposure compensation using the camera when you shoot you are capturing the best data you can. This is (almost) always best, although there's an exception to every rule I suppose.

--
StephenG

 

[wasserball]

When editing RAW files, is there any difference between exposure compensation set via the camera when the shot is taken or set during post-processing

When you apply exposure compensation when shooting you are telling the metering system in the camera to adjust whatever exposure it considers right. This will alter the shutter speed or aperture or ISO ( depending on mode, etc. ) and you will get a different exposure setting.

When you apply a so-called exposure compensation adjustment from RAW you are stuck with whatever data was captured by the camera's exposure. You are, in effect, adjusting the tone curve in a particular way.

Like any post processing adjustment this cannot improve the sensor data and can only reduce the quality ( in particular it can amplify noise ! ).

By adjusting exposure compensation using the camera when you shoot you are capturing the best data you can. This is (almost) always best, although there's an exception to every rule I suppose.

--
StephenG

What you said is quite true. But, when you adjust exposure in the camera, you will not be able to freeze a ball in low light sports photography because by compensating the exposure, you shoot at a slower speed. In this situation, it is best to compensate light in post processing.

From a sports photographer shooting night HS sports with D3s.

 

[Dan Marchant]

What you said is quite true. But, when you adjust exposure in the camera, you will not be able to freeze a ball in low light sports photography because by compensating the exposure, you shoot at a slower speed. In this situation, it is best to compensate light in post processing.

From a sports photographer shooting night HS sports with D3s.

That is a very specific situation where you need a fast shutter speed and must shoot in poor light. In general though you are always going to get better results by getting the exposure right in camera. Increasing the exposure in PP will increase the noise and this can quickly reach unacceptable levels and, as pointed out above, it can't enhance detail that was never captured due to poor lighting.

--
Dan
-

I love my girlfriend, my dog and my canon 7d - even though none of them ever do what I tell them

I am learning photo graphee - see the results at http://www.danmarchant.com

 

[sherwoodpete]

What you said is quite true. But, when you adjust exposure in the camera, you will not be able to freeze a ball in low light sports photography because by compensating the exposure, you shoot at a slower speed. In this situation, it is best to compensate light in post processing.

Or adjust the ISO to enable the desired shutter speed to be used.

I've seen it argued (by people whose views I respect) that adjusting exposure compensation during processing of a RAW file has a very similar effect in terms of both noise and image brightness, as adjusting the ISO at the time of shooting.

Both techniques allow a chosen shutter/aperture combination to be used. Which method is best can depend upon the sensor hardware itself.

But - the original question apparently can trace its roots back to prints which were too dark. Now I'm not entirely sure whether adjusting the exposure at the time of shooting is the correct way to resolve that issue. In particular, it might lead to burned out highlights, which may be impossible to recover.

Regards,
Peter

 

[AnandaSim]

When editing RAW files, is there any difference between exposure compensation set via the camera when the shot is taken or set during post-processing (in this case Nikon's ViewNX)?

Background: Some of my previous posts mention printed shots that came out surprisingly dark. I have all but solved the problem for future shots, but for past shots .3 to .6 compensation could be added to lighten the shots.

When you ask a question in DPR, you will get responses (from me included) that address general concept as well as exclusions (specific cases). You have to distinguish between the two types of responses.

My general concept comes from manufacturing, quality control, database system development and just plain family life - resolve issues upstream and you have easier life, less complications downstream. If you get exposure right in the camera, you then do not need to futz around with post processing - once the you have clicked the shutter you have a specific case of the scene frozen. You can use software to up and down brightness, fill light, shadows, do shadow recovery but this is all working the best it can against a fixed input - the Raw file - you are not re-visiting the scene again and capturing gold at a different setting in the camera.

--



Ananda
http://www.dpreview.com/articles/6861540877/a-compilation-of-tips-for-beginners
http://anandasim.blogspot.com/
http://gplus.to/anandasim

'Enjoy Diversity - Live a Little or a Lot'

 

[sshoihet]

It depends. If the +EC doesn't require you to use a higher ISO then yes it is better to use the "proper" exposure. If it does require a higher ISO but you have a camera with an ISOless sensor than there is probaby no benefit.

When editing RAW files, is there any difference between exposure compensation set via the camera when the shot is taken or set during post-processing (in this case Nikon's ViewNX)?

Background: Some of my previous posts mention printed shots that came out surprisingly dark. I have all but solved the problem for future shots, but for past shots .3 to .6 compensation could be added to lighten the shots.

 

[scorrpio]

The exposure slider in RAW editing is kinda similar to setting your ISO after the shot.

When you adjust exposure compensation on camera, depending on your mode, the camera will adjust aperture or shutter or ISO or combination thereof. You can't really obtain the equivalent of different shutter or aperture in PP.

If you shoot a generally dark scene with some highlights, chances are you will blow your highlights beyond recovery. Dialing exposure down until you no longer get the 'blinkies' is the only option here.

If you shoot a generally bright scene with some dark areas, chances are those will be underexposed and will need to be pulled up, which will also pull up the inevitable noise. You will have a much cleaner image if you up your exposure just short of blowing the highlights.

 

[madakhan]

I agree with the others that adjusting brightness during post processing is less desirable (or the same in case of ISO-less sensors) for images that need to be brightened (i.e +EV).

However, for low key (darker) images it is actually better to expose as much as possible without blowing highlights and then applying -EV during post processing to achieve the desired brightness level. You will get less noise in the shadows that way.

 

[silvaskiara13]

thats a good anwser

 

[TTMartin]

Bruce Miller wrote:

It is always better to get proper exposure during the shoot than to adjust it later.

+1

 

[skyglider]

HEA-45 wrote:

When editing RAW files, is there any difference between exposure compensation set via the camera when the shot is taken or set during post-processing (in this case Nikon's ViewNX)?

Background: Some of my previous posts mention printed shots that came out surprisingly dark. I have all but solved the problem for future shots, but for past shots .3 to .6 compensation could be added to lighten the shots.

For shots in the camera that have blown highlights or clipped shadows, neither can EVER be recovered in post in spite of shooting raw. So shooting with the correct exposure in camera is a must. The easiest way to do that for a beginner is to use exposure compensation when the shot is taken.

Learn how to use exposure compensation to obtain the best in camera histogram for the scene.

1. If your camera has a live histogram (one that displays in the viewfinder or on the screen while framing the shot) you can adjust exposure compensation "before" taking the shot.
2. If your camera does not have live histogram capability, then you will have to take the shot, check the histogram, adjust exposure compensation, and keep repeating this until the histogram is optimum.

Without clipped highlights or shadows, you can then adjust the exposure in post processing to get the exposure you want.

Sky

 

[GeorgianBay1939]

HEA-45 wrote:

When editing RAW files, is there any difference between exposure compensation set via the camera when the shot is taken or set during post-processing (in this case Nikon's ViewNX)?

Background: Some of my previous posts mention printed shots that came out surprisingly dark. I have all but solved the problem for future shots, but for past shots .3 to .6 compensation could be added to lighten the shots.

Since you are a RAW shooter, your objective, especially in a wide-luminance-range scene it to get optimal data on your sensor at the time of exposure. That is to ETTR, without blowing highlights, to get as much info in the darks.

That will give you the best data file to work with in post processing after RAW conversion.

There is some good advice on this thread, including this post: http://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/40859864

This article will help you with the fundamentals: http://www.dpreview.com/articles/8148042898/exposure-vs-brightening

Bryan Peterson's books and many other pop photography books are of little value to a RAW shooter as they are built on the misleading Exposure Triangle concept ... (which is fine for film/jpeg shooters but which is a blind end for RAW shooters, especially those who understand ETTR)

I hope that this helps.

Tom