Flyfisher1976 From United States, joined Jan 2005, 796 posts, RR: 3 Posted (3 years 7 months 3 weeks 6 days 18 hours ago) and read 1781 times:
Before you flame me for starting a masterclass on a subject that I am hardly an expert on, please read:
I am slowly coming to realize how important exposure is to the overall quality of my photos. You are probably saying "you're just realizing that now"? Well, I kind of went about all this backwards...I started taking pictures, and then started learning about photography...it should have been the other way around!
*I guess this is the curse of the DSLR age.*
I've learned the following about over-exposures (please correct me if I'm wrong):
Over-exposures are going to result in loss of detail, especially in the whites. This cannot be corrected in Photoshop after the fact. I've had my share of rejections for exposure and quality for this reason.
I've learned the following about under-exposures:
The end result in even slightly underexposed shot is lots of grain in the shadows (once the photo has been adjusted in post-processing). I've had rejections for quality and not understood why. I am realizing now that the quality rejections were the result of grain induced by adjusting exposure compensation in RAW. I never even made that connection. But now I see it.
I am sick of losing half of my shots to incorrect exposure. I would like to take exposure errors out of the equation when I go out to the airport. So, I am investing in an incident meter...but is this enough? (assuming that I learn how to use it properly).
Let this thread be a forum for the "experts" to share their methods for capturing a correct exposure and properly interpreting a histogram in the field.
Linco22 From United Kingdom (Northern Ireland), joined Jun 2005, 1369 posts, RR: 23 Reply 1, posted (3 years 7 months 3 weeks 6 days 18 hours ago) and read 1776 times:
If it's a marginal overexposure, and you know exactly what you're looking for in the curves, you can actually bring some of the detail back in post processing.
I figured if we're going to have a discussion about exposure, this would be something valuable to discuss. (I'll take a back seat on it for a while and see what others have to say on the ETTR issue.)
WakeTurbulence From United States, joined Apr 2004, 1166 posts, RR: 21 Reply 4, posted (3 years 7 months 3 weeks 6 days 18 hours ago) and read 1753 times:
I am far from an expert but I can say I hardly ever get exposure rejections. I don't own a meter and I don't shoot in RAW. I try to get it right the first time in JPG so I don't worry about it in PS. I almost always shoot in AV mode between f/5.6 and f/10 with my 300D. Also, I hardly ever shoot in the midday sun. The harsh light and heat haze kill a huge percentage of photos.
One small trick I have found to correct minor exposure errors: In PS I create a duplicate layer, hit F7 to open the layers, and where it says 'Normal' click the down arrow and drag it to 'Multiply' then adjust the opacity. It makes the image fairly dark overall along with the whites of an overexposed fuselage, then I flatten the image, and adjust the overall lighting with the curves function. I have done this with maybe 10-15 images I have on A.net that I thought were overexposed from the original.
-Matt
INNflight From Austria, joined Apr 2004, 3565 posts, RR: 71 Reply 5, posted (3 years 7 months 3 weeks 6 days 15 hours ago) and read 1701 times:
I know this thread mainly should be about getting the correct exposure out of the camera, but here's an interesting way of working with an underexposed photograph:
Have you ever taken a shot that you had to have only to find that it is very underexposed? Before you throw it away try this:
1. Open Photo.
2. CTRL-J (Copies to a new layer).
3. Set Blend Mode in the Layers palate to Screen.
4. Repeat steps 2 and 3 until you lighten the photo enough or a little too much.
5. Make the last layer you added active by clicking on it if it isn't already active and adjust the opacity to reduce the effect of the last copy.
Source: Photoshop CS for Digital Photographers by Scott Kelby
Cheers,
F.
AirTeamImages - take the high road and others will follow
Jid From Barbados, joined Dec 2004, 874 posts, RR: 44 Reply 6, posted (3 years 7 months 3 weeks 6 days 15 hours ago) and read 1685 times:
Ever found you have taken a shot only to find it slightly overexposed ??
Try this....
Create a duplicate layer.
Bring up your layer pallet.
Select multiply.
Set the Opacity to 38%, is the equivalent of lowering the exposure an 'F' stop.
Lowering the opacity will lighten the image more.
When your done blend the layers and your done.
It won't work in some instances but can be a life saver.
Jid.
G7EPN is back after 15 years! Operating all Bands 80mtrs -> 70cms QRZ DX
Aviopic From Netherlands, joined Mar 2004, 2355 posts, RR: 53 Reply 8, posted (3 years 7 months 3 weeks 6 days 15 hours ago) and read 1661 times:
Knowing how to handle PS is nice and useful but why not start at the beginning ?
Get the exposure right while shooting !
To do this understanding of the camera's meter is required even before you understand the different metering modes.
An incident meter would be the best option although not always practical and if you understand the inboard meter you can live without.
Even at our high quality photodb called A.net i see a lot of incorrect exposed photos and in my view completely unnecessary as a well exposed photo will take just as much time as a poor exposed photo, so why not doing right straight away ? It will save you a lot of PS at least.
During the now passing winter time my eye fell on a fare amount of photos with "grey" snow ?
If those photographers would have had understanding of their meter the snow would have been white as it should have been.
Normal conditions:
One of my techniques is to meter in evaluation mode without a subject present after which i dial the values in manual.
The advantage of this method is that the values won't change depending the objects color and always give a consistent exposure because i do not measure the reflection given by the object.
Snowy conditions:
- Spot(or partial) metering.
- evaluation metering with between +1.5 and +2 stops exposure compensation.
Both methods will result in white instead of grey snow.
Of course there is lot more to talk about but this is a good start, i guess.
Flyfisher1976 From United States, joined Jan 2005, 796 posts, RR: 3 Reply 9, posted (3 years 7 months 3 weeks 6 days 8 hours ago) and read 1592 times:
A lot of positive suggestions here...
Quoting Aviopic (Reply 8): An incident meter would be the best option although not always practical and if you understand the inboard meter you can live without.
JeffM From United States, joined May 2005, 3247 posts, RR: 58 Reply 10, posted (3 years 7 months 3 weeks 6 days 7 hours ago) and read 1576 times:
Quoting WakeTurbulence (Reply 4): I try to get it right the first time in JPG so I don't worry about it in PS.
Excellent.
Quoting Flyfisher1976 (Reply 9): Quoting Aviopic (Reply 8):
An incident meter would be the best option although not always practical and if you understand the inboard meter you can live without.
When would this type of meter not be practical?
Well, if you are inside, shooting something outside, your meter should stay in the bag, same as if you are in the shade, and the subject isn't.
The difference between incident meter readings and your camera's reflective meter is HUGE, and even if you know how the camera meter works, it still isn't as accurate.
DLKAPA From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 11, posted (3 years 7 months 3 weeks 6 days 3 hours ago) and read 1548 times:
Quoting JeffM (Reply 10): The difference between incident meter readings and your camera's reflective meter is HUGE, and even if you know how the camera meter works, it still isn't as accurate.
An incident meter measures the amount of photons falling on it, whereas your camera's meter measures the amount of photons that pass through the lens of your camera after bouncing off the subject?
Flyfisher1976 From United States, joined Jan 2005, 796 posts, RR: 3 Reply 12, posted (3 years 7 months 3 weeks 4 days 21 hours ago) and read 1475 times:
Quoting Aviopic (Reply 8): Even at our high quality photodb called A.net i see a lot of incorrect exposed photos and in my view completely unnecessary as a well exposed photo will take just as much time as a poor exposed photo, so why not doing right straight away ?
Although I appreciate and understand the sentiment here, unfortunately we all know that it's not that cut and dry. You may be able to dial in the perfect exposure settings for the aircraft you are photographing at that moment. But between that one and the next one a cloud partially blocks the sun and everything changes. It is always a constant balancing act. Unless you are out to set up and catch one special shot. Most people i shoot with go out and shoot aircraft on approach or taking off. Light conditions change constantly, and errors will be made. This is where tools like photoshop really come in handy. I am all for getting the perfect exposure too. But we all know that it is all too often impractical to expect that you are going to get it "straight away" on a every time.
Sulman From United Kingdom, joined Mar 2004, 1949 posts, RR: 48 Reply 13, posted (3 years 7 months 3 weeks 4 days 20 hours ago) and read 1461 times:
Quoting Flyfisher1976 (Reply 12): Although I appreciate and understand the sentiment here, unfortunately we all know that it's not that cut and dry. You may be able to dial in the perfect exposure settings for the aircraft you are photographing at that moment. But between that one and the next one a cloud partially blocks the sun and everything changes. It is always a constant balancing act. Unless you are out to set up and catch one special shot. Most people i shoot with go out and shoot aircraft on approach or taking off. Light conditions change constantly, and errors will be made. This is where tools like photoshop really come in handy. I am all for getting the perfect exposure too. But we all know that it is all too often impractical to expect that you are going to get it "straight away" on a every time.
In a way, but this is what you have to do with a 70's Era SLR anyway. I find Pareto's principle to be true with most successful images - if an image out of the camera is less than 80% there for focus, sharpness, exposure, and composition, then forget it - it'll never look right. Funnily enough my most-viewed image is one that I did hardly anything to - I just sharpened it and added a little saturation.
I've found exposure to be less of an issue with aviation photography, but in other areas (travel) it is much trickier.
Flyfisher1976 From United States, joined Jan 2005, 796 posts, RR: 3 Reply 15, posted (3 years 7 months 3 weeks 4 days 19 hours ago) and read 1443 times:
Quoting Jan Mogren (Reply 14): Very very few aircraft are interesting enough to shoot at all in those conditions. Not to mention uploading them.
A very subjective view...
This may be your opinion, however, I enjoy standing on the beach and shooting the approach to 27 in Boston. The sun changes it's position in the sky, and an occassional cloud obscures its intensity. The exposure may change as a result. This, however, is hardly a reason for me not to take pictures.
Flyfisher1976 From United States, joined Jan 2005, 796 posts, RR: 3 Reply 17, posted (3 years 7 months 3 weeks 4 days 13 hours ago) and read 1386 times:
Quoting Jan Mogren (Reply 16): Yes, but are you usually really happy with those shots?
Yes...Again your opinion is highly subjective. Furthermore, this was intended to be a discussion about exposure, not motive.
Aviopic From Netherlands, joined Mar 2004, 2355 posts, RR: 53 Reply 18, posted (3 years 7 months 3 weeks 4 days 13 hours ago) and read 1386 times:
Quoting Flyfisher1976 (Reply 12): You may be able to dial in the perfect exposure settings for the aircraft you are photographing at that moment.
This is exactly where people go wrong Flyfisher, you do not dial in anything for any particular aircraft but according the available light........ what ever aircraft is coming does not matter.
It is because the internal light meter is measuring reflected light you get different values all the time for every aircraft even though the available light did not change.
Quoting Flyfisher1976 (Reply 12): But between that one and the next one a cloud partially blocks the sun and everything changes.
That's right but not a problem.
The fact that you use the camera in manual mode does not mean you are blind. The light meter is still present and working in the viewfinder(Canon for sure, don't know about others).
Working from the method described earlier it is easy to see any changes and react accordingly, might need a bit of experience though.
Quoting Flyfisher1976 (Reply 12): This is where tools like photoshop really come in handy.
PS is very handy, I am using it all the time..... no misunderstanding here.
Quoting Jan Mogren (Reply 14): Very very few aircraft are interesting enough to shoot at all in those conditions. Not to mention uploading them.
Flyfisher1976 From United States, joined Jan 2005, 796 posts, RR: 3 Reply 19, posted (3 years 7 months 3 weeks 4 days 13 hours ago) and read 1383 times:
Quoting Aviopic (Reply 18): Quoting Flyfisher1976 (Reply 12):
You may be able to dial in the perfect exposure settings for the aircraft you are photographing at that moment.
This is exactly where people go wrong Flyfisher, you do not dial in anything for any particular aircraft but according the available light........
You have misinterpreted what I have said. My point was that sometimes light conditions change slightly, but just enough in the short time that it takes for the next subject to come into view. I understand the concept of incident versus reflected metering.
Quoting Aviopic (Reply 18): That's right but not a problem.
The fact that you use the camera in manual mode does not mean you are blind. The light meter is still present and working in the viewfinder(Canon for sure, don't know about others).
Working from the method described earlier it is easy to see any changes and react accordingly, might need a bit of experience though.
Right, but now we are "guessing" again. We make an adjustment according to what we think will be adequate compensation for an unexpected change in light. According to some people on here they "get it right" in the camera so they won't have to fiddle in photoshop. While having an incident meter is handy, there are always going to be situations where your best judgement is the rule. In these situations, exposure adjustments in post-processing are the only alternative.
Nope, it's called "knowing the numbers"
Just make between 100 and 200 shots a day and do so for a year, examine them all(does not mean "upload" them all) and after that the numbers will become a second nature.
The need for guessing will no longer exist, in fact in most cases I do not even bother to take a meter reading
JeffM From United States, joined May 2005, 3247 posts, RR: 58 Reply 21, posted (3 years 7 months 3 weeks 4 days 10 hours ago) and read 1353 times:
Quoting Aviopic (Reply 18): This is exactly where people go wrong Flyfisher, you do not dial in anything for any particular aircraft but according the available light........ what ever aircraft is coming does not matter.
It is because the internal light meter is measuring reflected light you get different values all the time for every aircraft even though the available light did not change.
BINGO Willem. Thanks for that, it's what I've been trying to say for over a year!
ThierryD From Luxembourg, joined Dec 2005, 1602 posts, RR: 55 Reply 22, posted (3 years 7 months 3 weeks 4 days 9 hours ago) and read 1336 times:
AIRLINERS.NET CREW CUSTOMER SERVICE & SUPPORT
I don't use a light meter with my digital camera anymore.
Instead I fully use the advantage of the digital age; I always have my standard settings ready on my camera (ISO 200, shutter speed 1/250s, high aperture); these are ok for normal daylight conditions and are set as is for me to be able to take snapshots in case an interesting motive is suddenly coming up without warning and disappearing just as quickly.
Now if I want to take a shot and I have some time (like spotting at an airshow) I adjust the settings step by step taking a shot in the direction I intend to shoot aircraft from and analyzing the image instantly on the camera display. I do that until I find the settings that give the best and most balanced lighted shots with the priority to get as low an ISO and as high an aperture as possible in the given light (Priority subject to change depending on the motive). Sudden changes in light conditions (like the above mentionned clouds) will be corrected by a short twist on the shutter knob.
So far this method has not let me down and during my A.net upload career of more than 2000 shots I only got maybe a dozen rejections for exposure (this does not include the one day session when I forgot to reset the shutter speed and I was shooting at 1/2000s all day long and only wondering afterwards why these damn pictures came out so damn dark )
JeffM From United States, joined May 2005, 3247 posts, RR: 58 Reply 23, posted (3 years 7 months 3 weeks 4 days 5 hours ago) and read 1317 times:
Quoting ThierryD (Reply 22): I don't use a light meter with my digital camera anymore.
Instead I fully use the advantage of the digital age;
To me, what you describe doesn't seem like "fully use the advantage of the digital age..." Seems more like old fashion trial and error.
Quoting ThierryD (Reply 22): I adjust the settings step by step taking a shot in the direction I intend to shoot aircraft from and analyzing the image instantly on the camera display. I do that until I find the settings that give the best and most balanced lighted shots with the priority to get as low an ISO and as high an aperture as possible in the given light (Priority subject to change depending on the motive).
I push a button on my digital light meter, take the reading and dial it in once. In my opinion, that is an advantage.
ThierryD From Luxembourg, joined Dec 2005, 1602 posts, RR: 55 Reply 24, posted (3 years 7 months 3 weeks 4 days ago) and read 1290 times:
AIRLINERS.NET CREW CUSTOMER SERVICE & SUPPORT
Quoting JeffM (Reply 23): To me, what you describe doesn't seem like "fully use the advantage of the digital age..." Seems more like old fashion trial and error.
as usual Jeff needs a little more thourough explanation...
what I meant is that you can shoot a picture, look at it on the display and if it doesn't suit you, you just delete it. I don't think anybody used this method with the good old film cameras...
Quoting JeffM (Reply 23): I push a button on my digital light meter, take the reading and dial it in once. In my opinion, that is an advantage.
Yep, that's an accurate method but only for one given camera setting; should you change ISO or aperture you'll have to repeat the procedure. So this method isn't really any faster or more accurate but you always have to have that light meter ready and personally I prefer only having to take care of the camera while shooting. But I guess that's up to everyone in particular what he/she likes best.
Oh Jeff btw: "Five hundred twentyfive thousand six hundred minutes....." --> why not "Thirtyone million fivehundred thirtysix thousand seconds.....", or simply "One year"? Just being curious...
DRAIGONAIR From Netherlands, joined Oct 2000, 665 posts, RR: 12 Reply 25, posted (3 years 7 months 3 weeks 3 days 22 hours ago) and read 1277 times:
i Usually always shoot in AV mode and one very good thing to use in adobe is the 'curves' option. Just fiddle around with it till you get the best result, very handy tool for giving the jpeg a good exposure!
cheers
Nick
Nick de Jonge Photography
26 IL76: The only tool to give a jpg a good exposure is the camera. You can't change an exposure in Photoshop. In case of an incorrect exposure you can make s
27 DRAIGONAIR: I know you cant change the actual exposure but i was saying that you can adjust it with curves...you can change alot with that.. and what do you not u
28 JeffM: That's just it, I don't change the iso or aperture, or shutter speed, and If I did, It's just a press of the button. Once the reading is taken, it's
29 DC10Tim: In the Rockies maybe Jeff, but in this country the light is very often constantly changing. This is one of the problems I perceive with using a grey
31 Flyfisher1976: Thank you! On a typical mostly sunny/partly cloudy day windy day in Boston, light conditions may change quickly and often. As the sun moves across th
32 JeffM: We get clouds.... I just meter the light when I'm in it, so when the subject is in the light, I'll know what setting to use. In that photo, I was in a
33 Dendrobatid: Thierry, There is no need to repeat the measuring process for any of those changes, simply re-calculate in your head in about a millisecond.....that
34 ThierryD: You're right Mick but I never said anything else; theoretically you'd have to repeat the process with the light meter but if you're experienced enoug
35 Linco22: Afternoon guys, Just a quick note. I was at the local on Saturday and used manual all day for the first time. I must say that I was nervous i'd get it
37 Linco22: Cheers Viv, just waiting for the better weather to come in now. Its getting warmer which makes standing around easier! Regards Colin
38 JeffM: Way to go Colin, you will learn to love it. That is what it's all about! Just keep track of your results and it will become second nature.
39 Linco22: Yeah I wont be going back now. Thanks to you who has tried to nail the point on here and I've read alot of stuff to help me too. Regards Colin
40 Flyfisher1976: I totally agree with this method. However, some have implied that they always get a perfect exposure using tools like an incident meter with no need
41 JeffM: Not exactly true. What a meter does give you is a more precise measurement of the light. How you use that information is up to you as the photographe
42 Flyfisher1976: Great...another thing to wear around my neck! Between my binoculars, camera with 100-400 lens, light meter, cellphone in my pocket and scanner on my
43 D L X: How much post-processing do you tend to do, and how much effort is involved? How close to the Sunny-16 rule does the incident meter normally suggest
44 StealthZ: That's easy.. flick the binoculars and the cell phone!!
45 JeffM: Not much. Usually just level the image, as I always tend to be .5 or so off in one direction, then crop, re-size, check the levels to make sure white
46 D L X: How do you get rid of dust spots with an action?
47 JeffM: Oops, sorry to mislead you, my mistake. I usually check for dust before running the re-size action, and any other that I run. I suppose you could put
48 PUnmuth@VIE: You cant get rid of the dustspots with an action but there are actions to make getting rid of them easier: Masterclass: Dirt (by Beechcraft Mar 9 200
Sponsor Message: 
From United States, joined Jan 2005, 796 posts, 
.gif){kind=small}
From United Kingdom (Northern Ireland), joined Jun 2005, 1369 posts, 
From , joined Dec 1969, posts, 
From Austria, joined Apr 2004, 3565 posts, 
From Barbados, joined Dec 2004, 874 posts, 
From Switzerland, joined May 2000, 3479 posts, 
From Netherlands, joined Mar 2004, 2355 posts, 
From United Kingdom, joined Mar 2004, 1949 posts, 
From Sweden, joined Dec 2000, 2029 posts, 
From Luxembourg, joined Dec 2005, 1602 posts, 
)
Printer friendly format 
