Over expose or under expose with a canon 10d

Discussion in 'Digital Photography' started by n, Jan 16, 2004.

  1. n

    n Guest

    I saw a great link here saying to make maximum use of the data when
    opening the RAW file in photoshop use the exposure slider to move the
    histogram to the right until it nearly touches the border. OK?

    1 Just how far over should i move it? Sometimes I can see the
    histogram sliding up the right hand vertical axis. This is too far to
    the right, isn't it? Or can I just slide it up there a little bit?

    2 I had advice from a pro and an amateur on exposing the shot in the
    camera:

    amateur: over expose by one or 2 stops
    pro: under expose by one stop (other make cameras were different
    though)

    What do y'all think?
     
    n, Jan 16, 2004
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. n

    steve Guest

    I am not a pro but I think you should get the right exposure to begin
    with. If there is any question then use exposure bracketing. Once the
    histogram 'pegs' on either the left or the right you have clipped the
    sensor's dynamic range and data is lost. Keep things in the 'linear' range.

    steve



    n wrote:
    > I saw a great link here saying to make maximum use of the data when
    > opening the RAW file in photoshop use the exposure slider to move the
    > histogram to the right until it nearly touches the border. OK?
    >
    > 1 Just how far over should i move it? Sometimes I can see the
    > histogram sliding up the right hand vertical axis. This is too far to
    > the right, isn't it? Or can I just slide it up there a little bit?
    >
    > 2 I had advice from a pro and an amateur on exposing the shot in the
    > camera:
    >
    > amateur: over expose by one or 2 stops
    > pro: under expose by one stop (other make cameras were different
    > though)
    >
    > What do y'all think?
     
    steve, Jan 16, 2004
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. n

    Don Coon Guest

    "steve" <> wrote in message
    news:z5NNb.592$...
    > I am not a pro but I think you should get the right exposure to begin
    > with. If there is any question then use exposure bracketing. Once the
    > histogram 'pegs' on either the left or the right you have clipped the
    > sensor's dynamic range and data is lost. Keep things in the 'linear'

    range.
    >
    > steve


    That's great advise........ but what do you specifically recommend when
    that's impossible due to a wide range of lighting levels --- say from a
    bright sky to heavy shadows?

    Obviously you can decide which end is more important -- the shadows with a
    burnt out sky or lost details in the shadows while retaining details in the
    sky.

    In general I find it's best to avoid clipping the highlights although there
    are times when that's not possible such as a bright window in the
    background, etc.
     
    Don Coon, Jan 16, 2004
    #3
  4. n

    Robertwgross Guest

    Don wrote:
    >That's great advise........ but what do you specifically recommend when
    >that's impossible due to a wide range of lighting levels --- say from a
    >bright sky to heavy shadows?


    That is a standard problem, a bright sky above and a dark foreground. Use a
    graduated neutral density filter.

    ---Bob Gross---
     
    Robertwgross, Jan 16, 2004
    #4
  5. "n" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > I saw a great link here saying to make maximum use of the data when
    > opening the RAW file in photoshop use the exposure slider to move

    the
    > histogram to the right until it nearly touches the border. OK?
    >
    > 1 Just how far over should i move it? Sometimes I can see the
    > histogram sliding up the right hand vertical axis. This is too far

    to
    > the right, isn't it? Or can I just slide it up there a little bit?


    That depends, are you willing to sacrifice some highlight detail or
    not?

    > 2 I had advice from a pro and an amateur on exposing the shot in the
    > camera:
    >
    > amateur: over expose by one or 2 stops


    For colour negative film, yes. For digital, NO.

    > pro: under expose by one stop (other make cameras were different
    > though)
    >
    > What do y'all think?


    I think that exposure is always a compromise and with time you will
    learn what best suits your needs. Clipping some of the highlights and
    shadows may be inevitable in many situations, you may have to just
    live with it, particularly if you shoot JPG. When in doubt, bracket.
    Look at the scene- are the highlights important to you? The shadows?
    The mid-tones?

    On the DReb I find that highlights at the right edge of the histogram
    will be clipped in JPG, but detail is recorded and can be recovered in
    RAW. At most a stop, no more. Easily 2 or more stops of extra shadow
    detail are available in RAW.

    If in doubt, bracket, bracket, bracket.
     
    The Black Sheep, Jan 16, 2004
    #5
  6. n

    steve Guest

    Take multiple exposures at different exposure settings across whatever
    range is required to avoid over or underexposure anywhere on the subject
    and build a composite photo from the multiple images. I have never tried
    this but I have seen the results of other folks doing this and it can
    work very well if executed properly.

    steve


    Don Coon wrote:

    > "steve" <> wrote in message
    > news:z5NNb.592$...
    >
    >>I am not a pro but I think you should get the right exposure to begin
    >>with. If there is any question then use exposure bracketing. Once the
    >>histogram 'pegs' on either the left or the right you have clipped the
    >>sensor's dynamic range and data is lost. Keep things in the 'linear'

    >
    > range.
    >
    >>steve

    >
    >
    > That's great advise........ but what do you specifically recommend when
    > that's impossible due to a wide range of lighting levels --- say from a
    > bright sky to heavy shadows?
    >
    > Obviously you can decide which end is more important -- the shadows with a
    > burnt out sky or lost details in the shadows while retaining details in the
    > sky.
    >
    > In general I find it's best to avoid clipping the highlights although there
    > are times when that's not possible such as a bright window in the
    > background, etc.
    >
    >
     
    steve, Jan 16, 2004
    #6
  7. n

    Don Coon Guest

    "steve" <> wrote in message
    news:zgYNb.645$...
    > Take multiple exposures at different exposure settings across whatever
    > range is required to avoid over or underexposure anywhere on the subject
    > and build a composite photo from the multiple images. I have never tried
    > this but I have seen the results of other folks doing this and it can
    > work very well if executed properly.
    >
    > steve


    I've seen the results and I can't say they were worth the effort. You surely
    wouldn't want to try this as a routine : )

    > Don Coon wrote:
    >
    > > "steve" <> wrote in message
    > > news:z5NNb.592$...
    > >
    > >>I am not a pro but I think you should get the right exposure to begin
    > >>with. If there is any question then use exposure bracketing. Once the
    > >>histogram 'pegs' on either the left or the right you have clipped the
    > >>sensor's dynamic range and data is lost. Keep things in the 'linear'

    > >
    > > range.
    > >
    > >>steve

    > >
    > >
    > > That's great advise........ but what do you specifically recommend when
    > > that's impossible due to a wide range of lighting levels --- say from a
    > > bright sky to heavy shadows?
    > >
    > > Obviously you can decide which end is more important -- the shadows with

    a
    > > burnt out sky or lost details in the shadows while retaining details in

    the
    > > sky.
    > >
    > > In general I find it's best to avoid clipping the highlights although

    there
    > > are times when that's not possible such as a bright window in the
    > > background, etc.
    > >
    > >

    >
     
    Don Coon, Jan 16, 2004
    #7
  8. steve <> writes:

    > Take multiple exposures at different exposure settings across
    > whatever range is required to avoid over or underexposure anywhere
    > on the subject and build a composite photo from the multiple
    > images. I have never tried this but I have seen the results of other
    > folks doing this and it can work very well if executed properly.


    Iff your subject is totoally stationary,

    take multiple exposures that are just under the over-exposure
    point, and add them in post prcessing. Note, multiple identical
    exposures.

    --
    Paul Repacholi 1 Crescent Rd.,
    +61 (08) 9257-1001 Kalamunda.
    West Australia 6076
    comp.os.vms,- The Older, Grumpier Slashdot
    Raw, Cooked or Well-done, it's all half baked.
    EPIC, The Architecture of the future, always has been, always will be.
     
    Paul Repacholi, Jan 17, 2004
    #8
  9. "Paul Repacholi" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > steve <> writes:
    >
    > > Take multiple exposures at different exposure settings across
    > > whatever range is required to avoid over or underexposure anywhere
    > > on the subject and build a composite photo from the multiple
    > > images. I have never tried this but I have seen the results of other
    > > folks doing this and it can work very well if executed properly.

    >
    > Iff your subject is totoally stationary,
    >
    > take multiple exposures that are just under the over-exposure
    > point, and add them in post prcessing. Note, multiple identical
    > exposures.


    One may need a program like http://aberrator.astronomy.net/registax/ for
    better results. Optimal registration of the images is very important for
    good results.

    Bart
     
    Bart van der Wolf, Jan 17, 2004
    #9
  10. n

    Guest

    In message <84_Nb.81237$I06.347172@attbi_s01>,
    "Don Coon" <coondw_nospam@hotmail_dot_.com> wrote:

    >I've seen the results and I can't say they were worth the effort. You surely
    >wouldn't want to try this as a routine : )


    Well, you need a little bit of a more elaborate routine than just
    averaging two images together. If you are getting the highlights from
    image A, you don't want the highlights from image B. You need to make
    an alpha mask from the blurred luminance of one image to determine how
    much of each image applies to the outcome.

    For some reason I thought that Photoshop CS was supposed to do something
    like this when I bought it, but I realized afterward that people were
    referring to the Shadow/Highlight tool, which is a totally different
    thing, as it only uses one image. I guess you could use it on two
    different exposures to prepare them for blending.
    --

    <>>< ><<> ><<> <>>< ><<> <>>< <>>< ><<>
    John P Sheehy <>
    ><<> <>>< <>>< ><<> <>>< ><<> ><<> <>><
     
    , Jan 20, 2004
    #10
  11. n

    Guest

    In message <bu9crc$f0ub3$-berlin.de>,
    "The Black Sheep" <> wrote:

    >On the DReb I find that highlights at the right edge of the histogram
    >will be clipped in JPG, but detail is recorded and can be recovered in
    >RAW. At most a stop, no more. Easily 2 or more stops of extra shadow
    >detail are available in RAW.


    Only in the lower-ISO modes. In the higher ISO modes, the noise is
    --

    <>>< ><<> ><<> <>>< ><<> <>>< <>>< ><<>
    John P Sheehy <>
    ><<> <>>< <>>< ><<> <>>< ><<> ><<> <>><
     
    , Jan 20, 2004
    #11
  12. n

    Guest

    In message <bu9crc$f0ub3$-berlin.de>,
    "The Black Sheep" <> wrote:

    >On the DReb I find that highlights at the right edge of the histogram
    >will be clipped in JPG, but detail is recorded and can be recovered in
    >RAW. At most a stop, no more.


    If it's anything like the 10D, there is even further headroom of red,
    which the raw converters will only use properly for color balance (you
    get more headroom under incandescent than sunlight), otherwise, anything
    beyond that extra stop of raw headroom is rendered greyscale based on
    the red channel.
    --

    <>>< ><<> ><<> <>>< ><<> <>>< <>>< ><<>
    John P Sheehy <>
    ><<> <>>< <>>< ><<> <>>< ><<> ><<> <>><
     
    , Jan 20, 2004
    #12
  13. n

    Flycaster Guest

    <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > In message <84_Nb.81237$I06.347172@attbi_s01>,
    > "Don Coon" <coondw_nospam@hotmail_dot_.com> wrote:
    >
    > >I've seen the results and I can't say they were worth the effort. You

    surely
    > >wouldn't want to try this as a routine : )

    >
    > Well, you need a little bit of a more elaborate routine than just
    > averaging two images together. If you are getting the highlights from
    > image A, you don't want the highlights from image B. You need to make
    > an alpha mask from the blurred luminance of one image to determine how
    > much of each image applies to the outcome.
    >
    > For some reason I thought that Photoshop CS was supposed to do something
    > like this when I bought it, but I realized afterward that people were
    > referring to the Shadow/Highlight tool, which is a totally different
    > thing, as it only uses one image. I guess you could use it on two
    > different exposures to prepare them for blending.


    I've tried and the results are less than spectacular. You're much better
    off masking and using the appropriate layer blending mode. More work, but
    better results and far more control.

    For many single exposure images, however, the shadow/highlight "tool" is
    really all you need ~ even though it is very unfortunate that it is
    unavailable as an adjustment layer.




    -----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
    http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
    -----== Over 100,000 Newsgroups - 19 Different Servers! =-----
     
    Flycaster, Jan 20, 2004
    #13
  14. <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > In message <bu9crc$f0ub3$-berlin.de>,
    > "The Black Sheep" <> wrote:
    >
    > >On the DReb I find that highlights at the right edge of the

    histogram
    > >will be clipped in JPG, but detail is recorded and can be recovered

    in
    > >RAW. At most a stop, no more. Easily 2 or more stops of extra

    shadow
    > >detail are available in RAW.

    >
    > Only in the lower-ISO modes. In the higher ISO modes, the noise is



    The noise is.... ?
     
    The Black Sheep, Jan 20, 2004
    #14
  15. <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > In message <bu9crc$f0ub3$-berlin.de>,
    > "The Black Sheep" <> wrote:
    >
    > >On the DReb I find that highlights at the right edge of the

    histogram
    > >will be clipped in JPG, but detail is recorded and can be recovered

    in
    > >RAW. At most a stop, no more.

    >
    > If it's anything like the 10D, there is even further headroom of

    red,
    > which the raw converters will only use properly for color balance

    (you
    > get more headroom under incandescent than sunlight), otherwise,

    anything
    > beyond that extra stop of raw headroom is rendered greyscale based

    on
    > the red channel.


    So far (limited testing) that seems to be the case on the DReb as
    well.
     
    The Black Sheep, Jan 20, 2004
    #15
  16. n

    Guest

    In message <bui7m3$i457j$-berlin.de>,
    "The Black Sheep" <> wrote:

    >
    ><> wrote in message
    >news:...
    >> In message <bu9crc$f0ub3$-berlin.de>,
    >> "The Black Sheep" <> wrote:
    >>
    >> >On the DReb I find that highlights at the right edge of the

    >histogram
    >> >will be clipped in JPG, but detail is recorded and can be recovered

    >in
    >> >RAW. At most a stop, no more. Easily 2 or more stops of extra

    >shadow
    >> >detail are available in RAW.

    >>
    >> Only in the lower-ISO modes. In the higher ISO modes, the noise is

    >
    >
    >The noise is.... ?


    Hmmmm, where went my text? I believe I wrote (or intended to write)
    "the noise is the limiting factor".
    --

    <>>< ><<> ><<> <>>< ><<> <>>< <>>< ><<>
    John P Sheehy <>
    ><<> <>>< <>>< ><<> <>>< ><<> ><<> <>><
     
    , Jan 22, 2004
    #16
  17. <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > In message <bui7m3$i457j$-berlin.de>,
    > "The Black Sheep" <> wrote:
    >
    > >
    > ><> wrote in message
    > >news:...
    > >> In message <bu9crc$f0ub3$-berlin.de>,
    > >> "The Black Sheep" <> wrote:
    > >>
    > >> >On the DReb I find that highlights at the right edge of the

    > >histogram
    > >> >will be clipped in JPG, but detail is recorded and can be

    recovered
    > >in
    > >> >RAW. At most a stop, no more. Easily 2 or more stops of extra

    > >shadow
    > >> >detail are available in RAW.
    > >>
    > >> Only in the lower-ISO modes. In the higher ISO modes, the noise

    is
    > >
    > >
    > >The noise is.... ?

    >
    > Hmmmm, where went my text?


    Ask the same gremlins who stole my sock out of the dryer. I'm pretty
    sure it was once part of a matched pair.

    > I believe I wrote (or intended to write)
    > "the noise is the limiting factor".


    Yes, very much so. The dynamic range at ISO100 with RAW is amazing.
     
    The Black Sheep, Jan 22, 2004
    #17
    1. Advertising

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. ralford

    expose for highlights or shadows?

    ralford, Oct 22, 2003, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    16
    Views:
    2,740
    ralford
    Oct 24, 2003
  2. Pat

    EOS 300D Multi-expose

    Pat, May 7, 2004, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    3
    Views:
    346
  3. mile-daemon

    adsl nat expose

    mile-daemon, May 17, 2006, in forum: Cisco
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    508
    mile-daemon
    May 17, 2006
  4. Roger
    Replies:
    6
    Views:
    427
    Add AU
    Nov 15, 2004
  5. Theo Markettos

    VOIP over VPN over TCP over WAP over 3G

    Theo Markettos, Feb 3, 2008, in forum: UK VOIP
    Replies:
    2
    Views:
    925
    Theo Markettos
    Feb 14, 2008
Loading...

Share This Page