Which is better; too light or too dark?

Discussion in 'Digital Photography' started by Peter Jason, Mar 6, 2007.

  1. Peter Jason

    Peter Jason Guest

    Is it better for a photo to be too light or
    too dark for subsequent retouching in
    Photoshop?
    Peter Jason, Mar 6, 2007
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. Peter Jason

    John Loomis Guest

    I like it a bit darker....It seems you can pull out the color or whatever
    than if it is too light.
    I am just an amateur and have been able to get great quality images from
    darker shots than lighter....
    John Loomis
    "Peter Jason" <> wrote in message
    news:esilev$mvc$...
    > Is it better for a photo to be too light or too dark for subsequent
    > retouching in Photoshop?
    >
    >
    >
    John Loomis, Mar 6, 2007
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. Peter Jason

    ray Guest

    On Tue, 06 Mar 2007 13:59:23 +1100, Peter Jason wrote:

    > Is it better for a photo to be too light or
    > too dark for subsequent retouching in
    > Photoshop?


    No.
    ray, Mar 6, 2007
    #3
  4. Peter Jason

    Mark² Guest

    Peter Jason wrote:
    > Is it better for a photo to be too light or
    > too dark for subsequent retouching in
    > Photoshop?


    If highlights are blown, there's little you can do.
    Shadows can be pushed.

    An acknowledgement of this fact is evident in the design of the new 1Dmk3
    has a new highlight priority mode...which exposes to ensure highlights are
    not blown out. They do this operating on the assumption (and in this case,
    a good one) that there is plenty of shadow detail for recovery.


    You're always going to benefit from getting it right in-camera, but in high
    contrast scenes, you're usually smart to expose for the highlights, and to
    shoot in RAW.

    Mark²

    Images (Plus Snaps & Grabs) by Mark² at:
    www.pbase.com/markuson
    Mark², Mar 6, 2007
    #4
  5. Peter Jason

    Peter Jason Guest

    "Mark²" <mjmorgan(lowest even number
    here)@cox..net> wrote in message
    news:tJ5Hh.18870$...
    > Peter Jason wrote:
    >> Is it better for a photo to be too light
    >> or
    >> too dark for subsequent retouching in
    >> Photoshop?

    >
    > If highlights are blown, there's little you
    > can do.
    > Shadows can be pushed.
    >
    > An acknowledgement of this fact is evident
    > in the design of the new 1Dmk3 has a new
    > highlight priority mode...which exposes to
    > ensure highlights are not blown out. They
    > do this operating on the assumption (and in
    > this case, a good one) that there is plenty
    > of shadow detail for recovery.
    >
    >
    > You're always going to benefit from getting
    > it right in-camera, but in high contrast
    > scenes, you're usually smart to expose for
    > the highlights, and to shoot in RAW.
    >
    > Mark²
    >
    > Images (Plus Snaps & Grabs) by Mark² at:
    > www.pbase.com/markuson



    Thanks for the replies. I photograph
    buildings and alleyways and there is always
    great contrast between the towers and the
    back alleys. I thought the darker pictures
    were more flexible, just from my tests.
    Peter Jason, Mar 6, 2007
    #5
  6. Peter Jason wrote:
    > Is it better for a photo to be too light or
    > too dark for subsequent retouching in
    > Photoshop?


    In digital, as with slides, the rule-of-thumb answer is "too dark".

    If the highlights are "blown", i.e. at least one channel is clipped,
    there's unrecoverable data loss, and the highlights are visually very
    important, they draw the eye.

    Of course, if you clip the shadows, there's *also* unrecoverable data
    loss; but it's rarely as visually obvious (takes a bigger exposure error
    to be equally obvious).

    On the other hand, all other things being equal, on digital you
    generally want to "expose to the right" (meaning the histogram is moved
    towards the high end as far as possible without clipping a channel) to
    minimize noise. Note the absolutely key phrase "all other things being
    equal", which happens amazingly rarely in the real world.
    David Dyer-Bennet, Mar 6, 2007
    #6
  7. ray wrote:
    > On Tue, 06 Mar 2007 13:59:23 +1100, Peter Jason wrote:
    >
    >> Is it better for a photo to be too light or
    >> too dark for subsequent retouching in
    >> Photoshop?


    He said "better"; do you really think that neither is better than the
    other?

    He didn't say "best"; I think we would *all* agree that a "perfectly
    exposed" photo was the *best* starting point. But that's not what he
    asked. If I may guess at his thought process, he didn't ask that
    because he, and everybody else, already knows that; it's not interesting.
    David Dyer-Bennet, Mar 6, 2007
    #7
  8. Peter Jason wrote:

    > Thanks for the replies. I photograph
    > buildings and alleyways and there is always
    > great contrast between the towers and the
    > back alleys. I thought the darker pictures
    > were more flexible, just from my tests.


    Look into HDR photography; there are various ways to combine multiple
    images at various exposure levels to produce a composite result
    rendering a wider density range than any single exposure can capture.
    This does require static subjects (which it sounds like you have) and a
    tripod-supported camera (which may or may not be feasible in your work).
    David Dyer-Bennet, Mar 6, 2007
    #8
  9. In article <esilev$mvc$>,
    "Peter Jason" <> wrote:

    > Is it better for a photo to be too light or
    > too dark for subsequent retouching in
    > Photoshop?


    It depends on your camera's lightness curves and the subject. Clipping
    on either end can ruin a photo. If possible, shoot in raw mode so you
    have the greatest range. Better yet, shoot when the sun is low and then
    fix the white balance. White balance is a minor adjustment compared to
    fixing highlights and shadows in overhead sunlight.
    Kevin McMurtrie, Mar 6, 2007
    #9
  10. Peter Jason

    King Sardon Guest

    On Tue, 6 Mar 2007 15:48:35 +1100, "Peter Jason" <>
    wrote:

    >
    >"Mark²" <mjmorgan(lowest even number
    >here)@cox..net> wrote in message
    >news:tJ5Hh.18870$...
    >> Peter Jason wrote:
    >>> Is it better for a photo to be too light
    >>> or
    >>> too dark for subsequent retouching in
    >>> Photoshop?

    >>
    >> If highlights are blown, there's little you
    >> can do.
    >> Shadows can be pushed.
    >>
    >> An acknowledgement of this fact is evident
    >> in the design of the new 1Dmk3 has a new
    >> highlight priority mode...which exposes to
    >> ensure highlights are not blown out. They
    >> do this operating on the assumption (and in
    >> this case, a good one) that there is plenty
    >> of shadow detail for recovery.
    >>
    >>
    >> You're always going to benefit from getting
    >> it right in-camera, but in high contrast
    >> scenes, you're usually smart to expose for
    >> the highlights, and to shoot in RAW.
    >>
    >> Mark²
    >>
    >> Images (Plus Snaps & Grabs) by Mark² at:
    >> www.pbase.com/markuson

    >
    >
    >Thanks for the replies. I photograph
    >buildings and alleyways and there is always
    >great contrast between the towers and the
    >back alleys. I thought the darker pictures
    >were more flexible, just from my tests.


    There's your answer. Your own experience says darker is best.

    It all depends on how/what you shoot and how you view the pictures.
    Styles and approaches differ so much. Some people do bizarre things
    and violate all the best advice but the results are great.

    Just be aware that underexposed shadow areas can posterize. That's
    because the areas with less exposure carry less data per pixel. It's
    because sensor elements are linear devices but visual perception is
    logarithmic. To get the most data, you need to maximize the amount of
    light without clipping the highlights.

    If you are shooting high contrast subjects like buildings and shadows,
    you are probably blowing highlights all the time unless you reduce the
    exposure.

    That gives less data in the shadows, but that probably makes no
    perceptible difference if you are shooting high contrast subjects and
    showing them as high contrast images. But for low contrast subjects it
    can make a difference.

    See
    http://www.luminous-landscape.com/tutorials/expose-right.shtml

    KS
    King Sardon, Mar 6, 2007
    #10
  11. Peter Jason

    Ron Hunter Guest

    Peter Jason wrote:
    > Is it better for a photo to be too light or
    > too dark for subsequent retouching in
    > Photoshop?
    >
    >
    >

    As long at the whites aren't 'burnt out', either will be workable, but
    isn't it better to have the setting right in the camera? Too dark
    pictures can be made lighter, but at the expense of introducing noise.
    Ron Hunter, Mar 6, 2007
    #11
  12. Peter Jason

    Rutger Guest

    Rutger, Mar 6, 2007
    #12
  13. David Dyer-Bennet wrote:

    > Look into HDR photography; there are various ways to combine multiple
    > images at various exposure levels to produce a composite result
    > rendering a wider density range than any single exposure can capture.
    > This does require static subjects (which it sounds like you have) and
    > a tripod-supported camera (which may or may not be feasible in your
    > work).


    HDR is something you really like or really hate. The problem with HDR not
    done properly and overdone it looks god awful fake. Done right, it does
    lend to some interesting shots, but still a bit unnatural.







    Rita
    =?iso-8859-1?Q?Rita_=C4_Berkowitz?=, Mar 6, 2007
    #13
  14. David Dyer-Bennet wrote:
    > ray wrote:
    >> On Tue, 06 Mar 2007 13:59:23 +1100, Peter Jason wrote:
    >>
    >>> Is it better for a photo to be too light or
    >>> too dark for subsequent retouching in
    >>> Photoshop?

    >
    > He said "better"; do you really think that neither is better than the
    > other?
    >
    > He didn't say "best"; I think we would *all* agree that a "perfectly
    > exposed" photo was the *best* starting point. But that's not what he
    > asked. If I may guess at his thought process, he didn't ask that
    > because he, and everybody else, already knows that; it's not
    > interesting.


    I don't know what ray was thinking when he wrote his response, but I
    like it. It is best to be right on. Going either way makes it more
    difficult so why not just aim for doing it right?

    "Best" is like asking if cherry pie or apple pie is best. I can tell
    you what I like best, but I have no idea what you like. The question seems
    to suggest that photography is a science when in reality it is an art
    employing science to express the art.


    --
    Joseph Meehan

    Dia 's Muire duit
    Joseph Meehan, Mar 6, 2007
    #14
  15. Peter Jason wrote:
    ....
    >
    > Thanks for the replies. I photograph
    > buildings and alleyways and there is always
    > great contrast between the towers and the
    > back alleys. I thought the darker pictures
    > were more flexible, just from my tests.


    That is your answer. Photography is an air, not a science. It is all
    about using the science to create your art. You already know what works for
    you.


    --
    Joseph Meehan

    Dia 's Muire duit
    Joseph Meehan, Mar 6, 2007
    #15
  16. King Sardon wrote:

    >
    > Just be aware that underexposed shadow areas can posterize.


    That's not been my experience with the Canon 30D. Admittedly I
    have not used it a lot a ISO 100, usually I used 200 or more.
    All the pictures I took had enough noise at the low end that
    they would never, ever, posterize. Have other people had
    actual posterization happen with this camera? I saved as raw.

    Doug McDonald
    Doug McDonald, Mar 6, 2007
    #16
  17. Peter Jason

    acl Guest

    On Mar 6, 7:02 am, "Mark²" <mjmorgan(lowest even number
    here)@cox..net> wrote:

    > If highlights are blown, there's little you can do.
    > Shadows can be pushed.
    >
    > An acknowledgement of this fact is evident in the design of the new 1Dmk3
    > has a new highlight priority mode...which exposes to ensure highlights are
    > not blown out. They do this operating on the assumption (and in this case,
    > a good one) that there is plenty of shadow detail for recovery.
    >


    Hi. I looked through the mk3's brochure, and this highlight priority
    thing is not really clearly described. What does it do, does it
    actually underexpose (relative to the reading when it is not on), or
    is it just a different curve applied to the jpeg?
    acl, Mar 6, 2007
    #17
  18. Peter Jason

    frederick Guest

    Doug McDonald wrote:
    > King Sardon wrote:
    >
    >>
    >> Just be aware that underexposed shadow areas can posterize.

    >
    > That's not been my experience with the Canon 30D. Admittedly I
    > have not used it a lot a ISO 100, usually I used 200 or more.
    > All the pictures I took had enough noise at the low end that
    > they would never, ever, posterize. Have other people had
    > actual posterization happen with this camera? I saved as raw.
    >

    No. The ability to recover shadow detail from slightly underexposed raw
    shots by adjusting overall exposure or "d-light" / gamma and
    simultaneously (using the same raw converter software) reduce visible
    noise and check for clipping leads me to believe that photographers have
    never had it so good.
    frederick, Mar 6, 2007
    #18
  19. Peter Jason

    Peter Jason Guest

    "David Dyer-Bennet" <> wrote in
    message
    news:45ecf510$0$44193$...
    > Peter Jason wrote:
    >
    >> Thanks for the replies. I photograph
    >> buildings and alleyways and there is
    >> always great contrast between the towers
    >> and the back alleys. I thought the
    >> darker pictures were more flexible, just
    >> from my tests.

    >
    > Look into HDR photography; there are
    > various ways to combine multiple images at
    > various exposure levels to produce a
    > composite result rendering a wider density
    > range than any single exposure can capture.
    > This does require static subjects (which it
    > sounds like you have) and a
    > tripod-supported camera (which may or may
    > not be feasible in your work).


    Thanks, I do have a cheap tripod which I
    always use (it's very light to carry about),
    and I am experimenting with panoramas.

    I have just got the PTGui software for
    combining the photos, but I will need a
    special tripod/head-mount to make this all
    work well.

    I have been taking two shots at different
    exposures of contrasty scenes for future
    manipulations. Sadly I must work very early
    on a Sunday morning to avoid traffic & parked
    cars, and the rising sun enhances contrast
    everywhere.
    Peter Jason, Mar 6, 2007
    #19
  20. Peter Jason

    ray Guest

    On Mon, 05 Mar 2007 22:57:24 -0600, David Dyer-Bennet wrote:

    > ray wrote:
    >> On Tue, 06 Mar 2007 13:59:23 +1100, Peter Jason wrote:
    >>
    >>> Is it better for a photo to be too light or
    >>> too dark for subsequent retouching in
    >>> Photoshop?

    >
    > He said "better"; do you really think that neither is better than the
    > other?
    >
    > He didn't say "best"; I think we would *all* agree that a "perfectly
    > exposed" photo was the *best* starting point. But that's not what he
    > asked. If I may guess at his thought process, he didn't ask that
    > because he, and everybody else, already knows that; it's not interesting.


    I don't think either is 'better' - they are both way suboptimal - both
    will give you a real PITA.
    ray, Mar 7, 2007
    #20
    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. (Pete Cresswell)

    Group Pix: Light and Dark skin tones?

    (Pete Cresswell), Dec 18, 2003, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    1
    Views:
    622
    Ed Ruf
    Dec 18, 2003
  2. CarlosWA

    Dark pictures in poor light

    CarlosWA, Dec 10, 2005, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    11
    Views:
    553
  3. Replies:
    51
    Views:
    1,400
  4. kevin

    is it only iso effect the pic is dark or light

    kevin, Mar 19, 2006, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    6
    Views:
    295
    kevin
    Mar 20, 2006
  5. Brian
    Replies:
    31
    Views:
    1,101
    Bob Larter
    Jun 14, 2009
Loading...

Share This Page