Exposure

[Fox Paw]

Just some rambling thoughts.

As I mentioned on one thread, I attended a three-hour class on twilight photography last week at our Desert Botanical Gardens. It was two-thirds classroom instruction and one-third shooting.

The instructor was quite good. He mostly discussed exposure. Quite a bit of time was devoted to white balance as well, but exposure was the primary topic. The instructor was an older guy who had spent most of his career as a film photographer. He advocated shooting in manual and he gave lots of sensible, helpful suggestions about getting the exposure right.

The students appeared to all be reasonably competent photographers or better. One listened to some of the discussion of how to get the exposure exactly right and offered a comment. I can see how that all makes sense if you're using film, he said. With digital, though, I can take a shot and check the histogram. If it's overexposed, I adjust and shoot again. It works. Why bother with all the stuff you're discussing?

I don't recall the instructor's answer but it wasn't very compelling. Since taking that class, I've read a book on exposure and I've been shooting in manual to force myself to think about it. I want to be able to take a precise exposure when I need to. I'm glad I've learned what I've been learning. It's improved my ability to deal with situations where the meter can easily mislead us.

In practice, though, the student was largely right. I'm thinking that precise exposure matters less in the digital age because errors can be so easily corrected. An additional factor is that the RAW format forgives a lot of exposure errors. You don't have to get it exactly right.

Some, I know, are purists who think that manual is what real photographers use, and that's reason enough to prefer it. That isn't very persuasive to me and I suspect it won't persuade many. Most people just want results. Maybe the technology is so good these days that the photographer may not need to be all that technically accomplished.

Or maybe I'm wrong. Any thoughts about all this?

[ann]

as a disclaimer, i am very old school and have been using manual exposure techniques for about 63 years. So, with that said, getting it correctly makes for less work at the computer.

As i shoot RAW and can make all sorts of correction if needed, i find i still have less work to do if i make the proper decision before firing the shutter.

I rarely do what the meter recommends,but i use it as a starting point, taking into account my equipment, the light and my vision. A lot of work and practice brings these three items into play without much consicence thought.

[Aggie]

I'm more of a luddite than Ann. What i found really off putting with digital was the class I took in a Jr. College. There they taught digital photography, but did nothing what so ever with teaching how to use the camera. Everything was done on the computer, and even at that it was just scratching the surface. This back in 2001. I think learning is good. Just make sure that you take a very comprehensive class, or at least have the background in the things the class doesn't touch on. Those that know me would be shocked to hear me say I'm thin king of getting a high end didigizmo. I just want to learn how to use one properly.

[ann]

i have to be in the "right" frame of mind to set at the computer and work on images, so anything that speeds up that process is important.

Many times i have had people ask me , what did you do to get that image to look that way. 90% of the time the answer is "fired the shutter". the other 10% very well may be a creative use of editing software.

There is a lot of cool software available these days and using it creatively is a wonderful adverture. Using it to correct problems that could be avoid makes no sense to me, and basically waste my time and engery.

[eric rose]

I'm glad that digital is getting a lot of people interested in photography again. The down side is that we are forced to see loads of poorly exposed, poorly composed images doctored with PS to try and cover their short comings.

I'm an old dog and shoot my cameras on manual. It's only within the last 5 years that I would even put a battery in my cameras LOL. Having said that I very rarely used a light meter. My dad taught me to estimate my exposure and then check it with a meter, rather than the other way around. In no time at all I found I was within 1/2 stop of where I wanted to be. Calculating SBR was just as easy once you trained your senses.

So I finally bit the bullet and got into the digital world. Bought a Nikon D70s and finally a D700. At first I relied on the cameras meter, what with all this matrix stuff and whatever, I figured they could do a better job than I could. Well I was wrong. After checking the histrogram I found that the exposures were off by about what I figured the exposure should have been. But not in all cases. Sometimes the histogram would indicate I should go in one direction but experience told me to go the other. I find with the D700 I have to be within 1/3 of a stop to get a good exposure. To get that accurate I first take a reading with the cameras and then apply the high velocity fudge factor experience has taught me. Seems to work so far.

My work in PS or Lightroom is way less than it was when I was relying on the camera meter. Just my thoughts for what there worth, which isn't much.

[Matt Needham]

I can see how that all makes sense if you're using film, he said. With digital, though, I can take a shot and check the histogram. If it's overexposed, I adjust and shoot again. It works. Why bother with all the stuff you're discussing?

I'd have to know what "the stuff" is to comment on the particulars, but as someone who has shot a lot of film and digital I find the fundamentals of exposure to be pretty much the same. There are a few differences that have to be taken into consideration for processing, but it's still basically just time x intensity and the meter reads for middle gray. One of the best reasons for fully understanding manual exposure is because it's really pretty simple, and well within the capabilities of most folks. I learned when I was 12 over a decade before I actually became interested in photography. Back in the day cheap SLRs were all manual exposure only, so you just learned. I still use manual exposure mode most of the time. I've found Av to be useful in some situations, but I'm still watching the exposure settings the camera is choosing, and adjusting exp comp accordingly or meter lock to get what I want.Manual exposure is less complicated than driving a car, and like learning to drive a car at first it requires a lot of conscious thought, but with a little practice it becomes intuitive, and you don't think about it so much. It's just something you do.

The difference for me comes in how I assess my processing plan. With film I used the zone system because all I had to go on was a middle gray meter and personal testing to get a neg that would be easy to print and have the contrast I desired. I couldn't see what I was doing until the neg was finished. Now I have a histogram which my eyes can interpret instantly. I'm still gathering and considering the same info: where are my important shadows and where are my important highlights, and how am I going to get those to look the way I want on paper (which has less dynamic range than either film or digital). It's just that my eyes and mind together can figure it out a lot faster than just my mind alone, and the histogram gives me the same info in a single test shot as metering several different spots in the scene.

With print film I had to worry more about not enough density than too much density. With digital both are a concern, but access to the histogram info makes it easy to determine if I'm going to have those problems. With film I also had to consider how the tonal range would contract or expand with processing changes. The precision control allowed by digital means I don't have to worry about that in the field so much. In digital processing I can contract and/or expand the tonal range any way I want to (I do consider the limited depth of the darkest shadows in the tonal range), and adjust using my eyes. I don't have to take into consideration intrinsic properties of the materials and chems because the film tonal range will expand and/or contract in a certain way.

My experience is that it's much more vital to get digital exposure right than print film exposure. Outdoors on a bright, sunny day shoot a scene with important highlight detail and important shadow detail. Take a roll of 35mm C41 and bracket every shot 2 stops: make a normal exposure, make a 2 stop under exposure, and a 2 stop over exposure. Do the same shooting raw. Fix the digital shots in Photoshop by lightening and darkening. Get 12"x18" prints made and compare. From a good lab you may not even be able to see a difference between the film shots. If you can it'll be slight. I think you will be able to see the differences between the digital shots more more easily. Particularly in the detail and noise of the bright highlights and shadows. Sure with more intensive processing, local tweaking, noise reduction, recovery, etc... it might be possible to hide some of the issues, but 99 times out of 100 it would've been faster and easier just to get it right in camera. Reaching competence with manual exposure is much, much easier than reaching competence with Photoshop.

[christopher walrath]

I fancy myself a 'purist', that is, when the mood suits me. I have a Weston Master IV HH meter that I use with my 4x5 camera for exacting exposures. If I'm taking the time to use the 4x5 then I will get it right without the need of wasting film on a second exposure. Anyone who decides to learn how to meter correctly can eliminate T&E waste.

On the other hand, I love taking my Minoltas on the road or to family functions and shooting from the hip. No meter on the camera, not functional anyway. So it is fire away and know that I am at least close if not dead on.

The proper response to the student in question would have been something along the lines of this.

'Bracketing has been a common experience in film photography for many years. Expose and then adjust up and down one and or two stops to ensure you have a viable negative. Now, through the advent of digital photography, you can see the results immediately without having to wait, thus eliminating the possibility of missing a shot due to exposure settings.

'One no longer needs to know the exacting science related to photographic reciprocity in order to acheive good images. However, it is inexcuseable for a person to consider themselves proficient in the art of photography having never learned how to manually manipulate the settings on their camera in order to acheive their photographic goals. One can throw a ton of bricks at the side of a barn and one or two will probably hit their mark. However, it is the marksman who studies and practices his craft who expertly aims a pebble at a thimble and knocks it from its pedestal.

'You don't have to use the manual settings on any camera to make photographs. But it is my opinion that it is essential for any photographer to have at the very least rudimentary knowledge regarding manual photographic exposure. It only serves to enhance the photographic experience thus freeing the photographer up to his or her creative talent, unencumbered by technical inproficiency.'

Or, sumpin like that, I reckon.

[Matt Needham]

I still carry my Sekonic 508 in my lighting bag. I used it all the time when I was using cameras without meters. Since going digital I only use it when setting up lighting and I can't get someone to stand for a test shot. A single test shot with a live subject and the histogram tells me a lot more than the meter by itself.

I think people tend to teach things they way they learned them. Looking back on my own experience it's hard to separate what is important to the new technology, and what isn't important. Did working with the zone system and in the darkroom for a decade plus help the way I think of and manage image creation today? A lot of the stuff does seem useless now that I can involve my eyes in the process. Then again in every educational experience there seems to be plenty of "why do I need to know this" stuff. In some part it's just mental push ups. Thinking about it helps train the brain to think about it.

[christopher walrath]

But I think the point is that one is going to teach and is confronted by the validity of the subject on which he is teaching, he ought to have a better formed response than 'Uh, um, uh-h-h-h-h . . . . . .'

[Matt Needham]

I still don't know what he said. :)