A Photography forum. PhotoBanter.com

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Go Back   Home » PhotoBanter.com forum » Digital Photography » Digital SLR Cameras
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

"Exposing to the right" is over exposed, what now?



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old October 17th 09, 01:23 AM posted to rec.photo.digital.slr-systems
Wilba[_3_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 572
Default "Exposing to the right" is over exposed, what now?

Worth a look for a discussion of 13 images and their histograms -
http://www.juzaphoto.com/eng/article..._histogram.htm


  #2  
Old October 17th 09, 08:32 AM posted to rec.photo.digital.slr-systems
David J Taylor[_11_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 451
Default "Exposing to the right" is over exposed, what now?


"Wilba" wrote in message
...
Worth a look for a discussion of 13 images and their histograms -
http://www.juzaphoto.com/eng/article..._histogram.htm


Thanks for that pointer. I agree with most of their comments, with the
possible exception of:

http://www.juzaphoto.com/shared_file...gram/exp-2.jpg

which I would not describe as "a completely overexposed photo" - depending
on what was in the sky area. Perhaps there's some blue sky there, but it
looks more like white cloud to me. It would have been useful to show it a
stop less exposed, but with the gamma increased to restore the grass and
trees.

Just looking at most of these pictures is enough to tell the experienced
photographer whether or not they are correctly exposed - there's no need
to view the histogram to confirm what your eyes tell you.

Cheers,
David

  #3  
Old October 17th 09, 02:18 PM posted to rec.photo.digital.slr-systems
Alan Browne
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 12,640
Default "Exposing to the right" is over exposed, what now?

David J Taylor wrote:

"Wilba" wrote in message
...
Worth a look for a discussion of 13 images and their histograms -
http://www.juzaphoto.com/eng/article..._histogram.htm


Thanks for that pointer. I agree with most of their comments, with the
possible exception of:

http://www.juzaphoto.com/shared_file...gram/exp-2.jpg


which I would not describe as "a completely overexposed photo" -
depending on what was in the sky area. Perhaps there's some blue sky
there, but it looks more like white cloud to me. It would have been
useful to show it a stop less exposed, but with the gamma increased to
restore the grass and trees.


I'd bet it's blue sky burned white. Done similar with similar results.
I agree it could have been exposed lower and then boost the FG, otoh
as an example, I was shooting old steam locomotives (black) and to get
detail in those blacks boosting after the fact would have been very
noisy and muddy looking.

http://photo.net/photodb/photo?photo_id=6172566&size=lg
http://photo.net/photodb/photo?photo_id=6172415&size=lg

You can even see the greenery here is a bit washed out. In those shots
of this series where the sky is showing it is very pale blue to white
and difficult to bring out the blue in PS w/o it having a very
artificial look to it.

http://photo.net/photodb/photo?photo_id=6172554&size=lg

That's "blue sky" back there... (okay, this one was exposed about
another stop more than the the ones outside).

BTW, I didn't bother much with the histo's on those shots. I simply
metered for some white concrete and opened up.


Just looking at most of these pictures is enough to tell the experienced
photographer whether or not they are correctly exposed - there's no need
to view the histogram to confirm what your eyes tell you.


That depends on what "correctly exposed" means for that image. If the
scene dynamic is beyond the sensor then the use of grads or multiple
exposures needs to be done if possible.
  #4  
Old October 17th 09, 11:47 PM posted to rec.photo.digital.slr-systems
Wilba[_3_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 572
Default "Exposing to the right" is over exposed, what now?

David J Taylor wrote:
Wilba wrote:

Worth a look for a discussion of 13 images and their histograms -
http://www.juzaphoto.com/eng/article..._histogram.htm


Thanks for that pointer. I agree with most of their comments, with the
possible exception of:


http://www.juzaphoto.com/shared_file...gram/exp-2.jpg

which I would not describe as "a completely overexposed photo" -
depending on what was in the sky area.


English is a second language for the author of that page, so it's possible
that the words come out subtly different to what he intended.

Just looking at most of these pictures is enough to tell the experienced
photographer whether or not they are correctly exposed - there's no
need to view the histogram to confirm what your eyes tell you.


Yeah - if you can view them under good conditions.


  #5  
Old October 18th 09, 09:30 AM posted to rec.photo.digital.slr-systems
David J Taylor[_11_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 451
Default "Exposing to the right" is over exposed, what now?


"Alan Browne" wrote in message
...
[]
I'd bet it's blue sky burned white. Done similar with similar results.
I agree it could have been exposed lower and then boost the FG, otoh as
an example, I was shooting old steam locomotives (black) and to get
detail in those blacks boosting after the fact would have been very
noisy and muddy looking.

http://photo.net/photodb/photo?photo_id=6172566&size=lg
http://photo.net/photodb/photo?photo_id=6172415&size=lg

You can even see the greenery here is a bit washed out. In those shots
of this series where the sky is showing it is very pale blue to white
and difficult to bring out the blue in PS w/o it having a very
artificial look to it.


Thanks for pointing to those, Alan.

These shots look a little "artificial" and "processed" to me. The blacks
should be just a little blacker.

http://photo.net/photodb/photo?photo_id=6172554&size=lg

That's "blue sky" back there... (okay, this one was exposed about
another stop more than the the ones outside).


But if I saw blue sky there, I would think it quite strange. Having blue
sky clipped to white is correct and natural to me, for such a shot.
[]
That depends on what "correctly exposed" means for that image. If the
scene dynamic is beyond the sensor then the use of grads or multiple
exposures needs to be done if possible.


No, not "needs", but "is an option you might consider".

I have a video/slide-film background, so I may have a different view of
what's the best on-screen representation of an image. I rarely do prints.

Cheers,
David

  #6  
Old October 18th 09, 09:32 AM posted to rec.photo.digital.slr-systems
David J Taylor[_11_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 451
Default "Exposing to the right" is over exposed, what now?


"Wilba" wrote in message
...
David J Taylor wrote:
Wilba wrote:

Worth a look for a discussion of 13 images and their histograms -
http://www.juzaphoto.com/eng/article..._histogram.htm


Thanks for that pointer. I agree with most of their comments, with the
possible exception of:


http://www.juzaphoto.com/shared_file...gram/exp-2.jpg

which I would not describe as "a completely overexposed photo" -
depending on what was in the sky area.


English is a second language for the author of that page, so it's
possible that the words come out subtly different to what he intended.


Agreed.

Just looking at most of these pictures is enough to tell the
experienced photographer whether or not they are correctly exposed -
there's no
need to view the histogram to confirm what your eyes tell you.


Yeah - if you can view them under good conditions.


... otherwise it's just the composition you can check. If in doubt, the
histogram provides valuable extra information.

David

  #7  
Old October 18th 09, 07:05 PM posted to rec.photo.digital.slr-systems
Alan Browne
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 12,640
Default "Exposing to the right" is over exposed, what now?

David J Taylor wrote:

"Alan Browne" wrote in message
...
[]
I'd bet it's blue sky burned white. Done similar with similar
results. I agree it could have been exposed lower and then boost the
FG, otoh as an example, I was shooting old steam locomotives (black)
and to get detail in those blacks boosting after the fact would have
been very noisy and muddy looking.

http://photo.net/photodb/photo?photo_id=6172566&size=lg
http://photo.net/photodb/photo?photo_id=6172415&size=lg

You can even see the greenery here is a bit washed out. In those
shots of this series where the sky is showing it is very pale blue to
white and difficult to bring out the blue in PS w/o it having a very
artificial look to it.


Thanks for pointing to those, Alan.

These shots look a little "artificial" and "processed" to me. The
blacks should be just a little blacker.


Nothing "artificial or processed" about them other than the slightly
high exposure. I have seen photos of the same trains where they are
grey looking, not black.

eg: http://static.panoramio.com/photos/original/7485937.jpg (by John
Flint). There is another photo I've seen where the trains are near
silver-grey looking.

Looking at the images I posted above there is quite a range of black to
grey ... that's what the camera recorded.

[additional note: when I was there it was every bit as over run with
tourists as you see in the photo by John Flint above ... however I
worked extra hard to eliminate other people (other than the engineer),
wires, modern cars, etc.]


http://photo.net/photodb/photo?photo_id=6172554&size=lg

That's "blue sky" back there... (okay, this one was exposed about
another stop more than the the ones outside).


But if I saw blue sky there, I would think it quite strange. Having
blue sky clipped to white is correct and natural to me, for such a shot.
[]
That depends on what "correctly exposed" means for that image. If the
scene dynamic is beyond the sensor then the use of grads or multiple
exposures needs to be done if possible.


No, not "needs", but "is an option you might consider".

I have a video/slide-film background, so I may have a different view of
what's the best on-screen representation of an image. I rarely do prints.


Well printing really makes you get all the light you can so that you can
then compress it into the range of the printer. Dead black is passable
on a print - dead white skies really kill an image.

  #8  
Old October 18th 09, 08:18 PM posted to rec.photo.digital.slr-systems
David J Taylor[_11_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 451
Default "Exposing to the right" is over exposed, what now?


"Alan Browne" wrote in message
...
[]
Nothing "artificial or processed" about them other than the slightly
high exposure. I have seen photos of the same trains where they are
grey looking, not black.


OK, different to what I might expect from UK trains.

eg: http://static.panoramio.com/photos/original/7485937.jpg (by John
Flint). There is another photo I've seen where the trains are near
silver-grey looking.

Looking at the images I posted above there is quite a range of black to
grey ... that's what the camera recorded.


OK.

[]
Well printing really makes you get all the light you can so that you can
then compress it into the range of the printer. Dead black is passable
on a print - dead white skies really kill an image.


Interesting. Is the effect of a white sky any less if the print is
borderless?

Cheers,
David

  #9  
Old October 18th 09, 08:22 PM posted to rec.photo.digital.slr-systems
Alan Browne
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 12,640
Default "Exposing to the right" is over exposed, what now?

David J Taylor wrote:

"Alan Browne" wrote in message
...
[]
Nothing "artificial or processed" about them other than the slightly
high exposure. I have seen photos of the same trains where they are
grey looking, not black.


OK, different to what I might expect from UK trains.


Good point. Are train engines (of that era) painted black or do they
get that way with age? (soot).


eg: http://static.panoramio.com/photos/original/7485937.jpg (by John
Flint). There is another photo I've seen where the trains are near
silver-grey looking.

Looking at the images I posted above there is quite a range of black
to grey ... that's what the camera recorded.


OK.

[]
Well printing really makes you get all the light you can so that you
can then compress it into the range of the printer. Dead black is
passable on a print - dead white skies really kill an image.


Interesting. Is the effect of a white sky any less if the print is
borderless?


IMO yes although careful cropping and (in the case of a framed photo)
matting can lessen it.
  #10  
Old October 18th 09, 08:50 PM posted to rec.photo.digital.slr-systems
David J Taylor[_11_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 451
Default "Exposing to the right" is over exposed, what now?

"Alan Browne" wrote in message
...
[]
Good point. Are train engines (of that era) painted black or do they
get that way with age? (soot).


I think both, but you would need to ask a railway buff, which I'm not.

Cheers,
David

 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
"Exposing to the right" is over exposed, what now? Alan Browne Digital SLR Cameras 7 October 18th 09 12:28 AM
"Exposing to the right" is over exposed, what now? jls[_2_] Digital SLR Cameras 0 October 15th 09 06:36 PM
"Exposing to the right" is over exposed, what now? John Sheehy Digital SLR Cameras 7 October 10th 09 03:45 PM
"Exposing to the right" is over exposed, what now? taylor aldler Digital SLR Cameras 10 October 5th 09 04:06 AM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 06:41 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 PhotoBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.