Flyfisher1976 From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 802 posts, RR: 3 Posted (5 years 11 months 1 day 23 hours ago) and read 2595 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.
1 Linco22: I'll take a front row seat with my notepad then Regards Colin
2 DLKAPA: 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 p
3 D L X: And according to Adobe, this is another good reason to shoot in RAW. Bruce Fraser on Exposing to the Right I figured if we're going to have a discussi
4 WakeTurbulence: 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 f
5 INNflight: 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 underexpose
6 Jid: 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 mul
7 Gerardo: Seems, that my old workflow was not really the best: Ever found you have taken a shot only to find it slightly overexposed ?? Try this.... Delete it.
8 Aviopic: 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 t
9 Flyfisher1976: A lot of positive suggestions here... When would this type of meter not be practical?
10 JeffM: Excellent. 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 i
11 DLKAPA: 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
12 Flyfisher1976: 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 per
13 Sulman: 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
14 Jan Mogren: Very very few aircraft are interesting enough to shoot at all in those conditions. Not to mention uploading them. /JM
15 Flyfisher1976: 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
16 Jan Mogren: Yes, but are you usually really happy with those shots? /JM
17 Flyfisher1976: Yes...Again your opinion is highly subjective. Furthermore, this was intended to be a discussion about exposure, not motive.
18 Aviopic: This is exactly where people go wrong Flyfisher, you do not dial in anything for any particular aircraft but according the available light........ wh
19 Flyfisher1976: 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 tak
20 Aviopic: 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
21 JeffM: BINGO Willem. Thanks for that, it's what I've been trying to say for over a year!
22 ThierryD: 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 rea
23 JeffM: 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. I push a butt
ThierryD From Luxembourg, joined Dec 2005, 1986 posts, RR: 54 Reply 24, posted (5 years 10 months 4 weeks 1 day 5 hours ago) and read 2104 times:
AIRLINERS.NET CREW PHOTO SCREENER
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, 704 posts, RR: 7 Reply 25, posted (5 years 10 months 4 weeks 1 day 3 hours ago) and read 2091 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!
Quoting DRAIGONAIR (Reply 25): very handy tool for giving the jpeg a good exposure
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 some corrections, but you can not change the exposure itself.
DRAIGONAIR From Netherlands, joined Oct 2000, 704 posts, RR: 7 Reply 27, posted (5 years 10 months 4 weeks 1 day 1 hour ago) and read 2067 times:
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 understand with 'i usually always'?? Because under some conditions i dont use AV..
JeffM From United States of America, joined May 2005, 3266 posts, RR: 56 Reply 28, posted (5 years 10 months 4 weeks 1 day ago) and read 2054 times:
Quoting ThierryD (Reply 24): 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.
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 correct, and stays that way. I only change it if there is a big change in the light, which on a normal day, takes hours.
Quoting ThierryD (Reply 24): 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...
There you go. When I figure my settings, 90% of the time the image suits me, because it is a correct exposure, I only delete during Chimp if I don't like the composition. In the "film" days, you just didn't print the "mistakes".
Quoting ThierryD (Reply 24): why not "Thirtyone million fivehundred thirtysix thousand seconds.....", or simply "One year"? Just being curious...
DC10Tim From United Kingdom, joined Jan 2005, 1399 posts, RR: 19 Reply 29, posted (5 years 10 months 4 weeks 23 hours ago) and read 2052 times:
Quoting JeffM (Reply 28): I only change it if there is a big change in the light, which on a normal day, takes hours.
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 card and one of the reasons why I haven't bought one yet. There aren't that many days in the year when we have totally blue skies. Broken cloud is the norm and the sun fades in and out all the time. It's very tempting to just underexpose by 1/3 of a stop when the sun comes out.
Flyfisher1976 From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 802 posts, RR: 3 Reply 30, posted (5 years 10 months 4 weeks 23 hours ago) and read 2044 times:
Quoting JeffM (Reply 21): 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!
And again...
Quoting Flyfisher1976 (Reply 19): 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 Flyfisher1976 (Reply 19): I understand the concept of incident versus reflected metering.
Quoting Flyfisher1976 (Reply 19): I understand the concept of incident versus reflected metering.
Flyfisher1976 From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 802 posts, RR: 3 Reply 31, posted (5 years 10 months 4 weeks 23 hours ago) and read 2041 times:
Quoting DC10Tim (Reply 29): In the Rockies maybe Jeff, but in this country the light is very often constantly changing.
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 the sky and clouds intemittently obscure its intensity. I'm not saying that it happens that fast, just catches me off guard more than occassionally.
I'm certainly not going to wait for a day with a perfectly blue sky. In Massachusetts if you don't like the weather, just wait a minute.
JeffM From United States of America, joined May 2005, 3266 posts, RR: 56 Reply 32, posted (5 years 10 months 3 weeks 5 days 8 hours ago) and read 1948 times:
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 shadow, but had previously taken a reading and dialed it in. Same with this one....
Dendrobatid From United Kingdom, joined Nov 2004, 1509 posts, RR: 67 Reply 33, posted (5 years 10 months 3 weeks 5 days 7 hours ago) and read 1924 times:
AIRLINERS.NET CREW HEAD SCREENER
Quoting ThierryD (Reply 24): 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.
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 is with the basic understanding of photography that we all have here.....hopefully.
That is why F numbers are such unusual numbers, f2.8, 4, 5.6, 8, 11 etc, one stop or a halving of the light reaching the film, shutter speeds and ISO are the same, one stop changes.
For those who are used to letting an in camera meter do it all, as most of us do much of the time, incident light metering is a difficult concept to get your head around. Incident light readings get it right all of the time, reflected much of it.
ThierryD From Luxembourg, joined Dec 2005, 1986 posts, RR: 54 Reply 34, posted (5 years 10 months 3 weeks 5 days 6 hours ago) and read 1920 times:
AIRLINERS.NET CREW PHOTO SCREENER
Quoting Dendrobatid (Reply 33): 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 is with the basic understanding of photography that we all have here.....hopefully.
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 enough you can do the recalculation in your head, as you said; however the same applies for the use of the camera meter.
Linco22 From United Kingdom, joined Jun 2005, 1375 posts, RR: 21 Reply 35, posted (5 years 10 months 3 weeks 5 days 3 hours ago) and read 1897 times:
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 wrong as it was quite overcast with the sun shining through on the odd occassion. I must say I was happy with the results, much more consistant. Have this one in the que....
I have also been using manual exposure on any other subjects I shoot. The results are great and I find found in alot of situations, exposing to the right of the histogram works well
Flyfisher1976 From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 802 posts, RR: 3 Reply 40, posted (5 years 10 months 3 weeks 4 days 19 hours ago) and read 1836 times:
Quoting Dendrobatid (Reply 33): There is no need to repeat the measuring process for any of those changes, simply re-calculate in your head in about a millisecond.....
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 for post-processing exposure adjustment. It seems pretty clear however, that if light conditions change expectantly, a certain amount of "guesswork" is required, unless you are a quick-draw with the light meter. I'm not saying that there is anything wrong with this, but it's nice to see that even the "experts" are willing to guesstimate every once in a while . And I'm sure that with more experience, the guessing gets easier. However, after all is said and done, any last minute adjustment made outside of what the meter has predicted is really just...a guess.
JeffM From United States of America, joined May 2005, 3266 posts, RR: 56 Reply 41, posted (5 years 10 months 3 weeks 4 days 19 hours ago) and read 1825 times:
Quoting Flyfisher1976 (Reply 40): However, some have implied that they always get a perfect exposure using tools like an incident meter with no need for post-processing exposure adjustment.
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 photographer. But they have limitations as well. Adjusting exposure AFTER the image has been recorded has been going on since the first image ever was taken. Knowing how much and in what direction is a skill, and up to the person doing it to his or her taste.
Quoting Flyfisher1976 (Reply 40): It seems pretty clear however, that if light conditions change expectantly, a certain amount of "guesswork" is required unless you are a quick-draw with the light meter.
I just wear it around my neck. When and if I think the light has changed, I just hold it up an push the button. Takes about 2 seconds. If there has been a change, I just change it on the camera, again, about 2 seconds to correct. Is 4 seconds a lot of time? Not anywhere near as much time as it takes to "fix" in Photoshop. As to the "guesswork" you mention....remember this...there are very few hard and fast "absolute" rules you have to follow in photography, it is very subjective.
Flyfisher1976 From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 802 posts, RR: 3 Reply 42, posted (5 years 10 months 3 weeks 4 days 19 hours ago) and read 1823 times:
Quoting JeffM (Reply 41): I just wear it around my neck.
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 belt, I weigh about 20 pounds more than normal.
D L X From United States of America, joined May 1999, 9747 posts, RR: 54 Reply 43, posted (5 years 10 months 3 weeks 4 days 17 hours ago) and read 1807 times:
Quoting JeffM (Reply 41): Not exactly true. What a meter does give you is a more precise measurement of the light.
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 you shoot at?
JeffM From United States of America, joined May 2005, 3266 posts, RR: 56 Reply 45, posted (5 years 10 months 3 weeks 4 days 14 hours ago) and read 1775 times:
Quoting D L X (Reply 43): How much post-processing do you tend to do, and how much effort is involved?
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 is white, and black is black (usually very, very close when exposing with the L-358), check for dust, check colors, sharpen. Less then 5 minutes. Everything after the crop is done via an action.
Quoting D L X (Reply 43): How close to the Sunny-16 rule does the incident meter normally suggest you shoot at?
Never really checked, but it shouldn't be far off.
Quoting StealthZ (Reply 44): That's easy.. flick the binoculars and the cell phone!!
Second that! Actually, my L-358 isn't very big, and it comes with a belt clip if you prefer.
D L X From United States of America, joined May 1999, 9747 posts, RR: 54 Reply 46, posted (5 years 10 months 3 weeks 4 days 13 hours ago) and read 1761 times:
Quoting JeffM (Reply 45): Everything after the crop is done via an action.
JeffM From United States of America, joined May 2005, 3266 posts, RR: 56 Reply 47, posted (5 years 10 months 3 weeks 4 days 9 hours ago) and read 1741 times:
Quoting D L X (Reply 46): How do you get rid of dust spots with an action?
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 the equalize function and a duplicate layer into the action, but I don't hardly ever have much dust, so I don't sweat it that much.
I started using Dust-Off to give a quick sensor clean, and it is amazing how well it works. You just can't shake the can, and you only give a quick burst. I used to think it was bad to use compressed air because of the propellent, but I've done a lot of research on it, and if used properly, it works better then anything else I've ever done, including swabbing with Pec Pads and Eclipse.
Not all types of compressed air cans are created equal though, that is why I use Dust-Off.
Sponsor Message: 
From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 802 posts, 
From Luxembourg, joined Dec 2005, 1986 posts, 
From Netherlands, joined Oct 2000, 704 posts, 
From United Kingdom, joined Jan 2005, 1399 posts, 
From Ireland, joined May 2005, 3051 posts, 
. And I'm sure that with more experience, the guessing gets easier. However, after all is said and done, any last minute adjustment made outside of what the meter has predicted is really just...a guess.
From Australia, joined Feb 2005, 4977 posts, 
From Austria, joined Aug 2000, 4161 posts, 
Printer friendly format 
