Why You Need Perfect Exposure in Digital Photography

[harishgudavalli]

Good video

[rhidalgo987]

Agreed, Thanks!

[incamera2]

thanks



[MrRLPhoto]

Your the bomb. the most important exposure meter is the six inches behind the the camera. :D

[burnbarrelmedia]

I actually did a video on getting it right in camera. I OVER exposed an image instead and showed how important it is to get it right in camera. See, we all mess up sometimes LOL

[dobermansnp]

Awesome video and tips, i am a pro photographer since 90's and back in the day, when using film, looks like people was more concern about exposure. Today this mistakes are very usual see 1 or 2 steps under or over, and some guys used to guilty their lenses some times couse the lack of details. Thumbs up Greg!!!!

[ktckeat]

I think you can make the 'contrasty' look of the underexposed images look better with a few tweaks in Lightroom's Tone Curve. But then again, it'll be more work, so its better to get it right in camera. The same applies to indoor shoots with & without flash, helps to much in the post-work too!

[GregoryCazillo]

@ktckeat Probably, yes but it would require quite a bit of work like you say. I personally would much rather get it right in camera!

[jamie1234591]

@gregcazillo Tell me Greg, if you were shooting in a dimly lit location would you push the histogram to the right then adjust in post production? Thanks for the great tips!

[GregoryCazillo]

@jamie1234591 It depends on the scene, too many variables to say yes but probably.

[pysiewski]

this was eye opening! thanks a lot Greg!

[incamera2]

Dear, Cazillo, kindly comment on the transparency or slide exposures where we do like half stop or one stop under expose. is it different rule apply in digital photography? and if this, what is the general rule , digital photography expose one stop over expose?

[GregoryCazillo]

@incamera2 No, you should be exposing pefectly, not over, not under. Its all about the histogram.

[AndyChaePZL]

What I'm usually stuck at is when being at ISO 1600 is not enough, but going to 3200 (Canon) would create a crazy amount of noise. So then would you suggest bumping up the ISO, even if that means more noise, in order to properly expose an image rather than shooting and processing after?

[GregoryCazillo]

@AndyChaePZL It depends on the scene, as I showed you could end up with a better photo by using the higher ISO. You could always change your aperture or shutter speed too.

[REDKILLARED]

I heart histograms. Haha, great info Greg. Thanks for your work.

[5kevsoc]

Great tip

[Jepraw]

Wow good to know, thanks Greg

[Wes2299]

Hey Greg, I was wondering why my photos come up darker in Lightroom? I shoot in RAW in full manual and these have +0 EV compensation. Any explanations?

[GregoryCazillo]

@Wes2299 What do you mean darker in LR?

[Wes2299]

@GregoryCazillo It's ok, I read up on it and when I import RAW photos into LR the photos become darker due to in-camera processing it does when I preview photos on my camera's LCD screen. Guess I gotta adjust my settings when I'm shooting.

[Maxsdiscos]

I find in full manual, my meter jumps around. It is correctly exposed, then a second or so later, it isn't.

[GregoryCazillo]

@Maxsdiscos You are probably pointing it at something brigher/darker, that makes a difference!

[memkills]

@Maxsdiscos or you're in single point metering. and its bouncing off shadows versus bright sunlight or w/e. if you change to evaluative metering. it shouldn't jump around so much

[trevager]

Greg, I accept and appreciate what you have demonstrated and can see the reason for exposing to the right. It is really useful to see this type of educational video.

My only criticism is that you adjusted exposure using the ISO. It would have been a fairer comparison if you had used shutter speed to adjust the exposures between the two samples. That way we would not be comparing noise/grain in the images. Changing ISO can slightly effect sharpness and colour rendition too.

Still a great video.

[rob781]

@trevager I think he did it right. He increased the iso and still got a better photo by exposiing it correctly. When a higher ISO theoretically adds more noise and loss of colour and image detail.

[GregoryCazillo]

@trevager That was my point, I wanted to show how underexposure can hurt a photograph and give it more noise vs a higher ISO.

[trevager]

@GregoryCazillo Ahh ok, I understand. I thought you were just trying to show the difference between correctly and under-exposed.

And yes, in low light I would alway push the ISO to get the shutter speed I need but if there was enough light I would try to get correct exposure with aperture and shutter speed.

In this case it is a good demonstration to show that if high ISO is needed that it is better to use that than under expose with a lower ISO.

[unclestuntman]

@GregoryCazillo That's exactly what I got from this video. Great job explaining! I have a question, what kind of test can I do to see what is the highest iso I can shoot for an acceptable image?

[GregoryCazillo]

@unclestuntman That is all relative to personal taste, lighting conditions, lens quality, post processing, camera, etc. I shoot ISO 6400 and print 16x20 or bigger with my D3/D3s all the time. YMMV.

[piccicacca]

@trevager personally, even though i own a canon 60D im not scared to bump up my iso.. a sharp and still image is still better than a motion blurred picture.. :)

[Apatheh]

definitely agree, but this something thats kind of obvious dont ya think? post processing (exposure wise) shouldnt be something drastic, or else youre trying to bring detail out of where there is none :P better to get it right in the camera first!

[TheYFlyer]

Greg, thanks for sharing this video with us. Your presentation was very informative and illustrative. I love the side by side comparisons. It really does drive the point home.

[kmedina419]

Images usually look brighter on the camera, so usually shoot a lil brighter (highlights)

[M3mPHiS]

Greg, I have a random question: what's a human eye's aperture number? :) thx

[GregoryCazillo]

@M3mPHiS Do I look like a doctor?

[brandonbush1]

@GregoryCazillo lol, well met.

[Jepraw]

@GregoryCazillo Doctor Greg! lol

[ViewedVideo]

@GregoryCazillo hahahah Cant stop laughing

[Apatheh]

@M3mPHiS its not just one number, it varies depending on the amount of light thats around us (which is why when its bright our pupils shrink, and vice versa) its like our eyes are in aperture priority :)

[falecomcyber]

@M3mPHiS if you trust wikipedia:" The entrance pupil is typically about 4 mm in diameter, although it can range from 2 mm (f/8.3) in a brightly lit place to 8 mm (f/2.1) in the dark."

[bryonlape]

@M3mPHiS Full open is typically f/3.2. f/8.3 on the low end. At least according to Wikipedia.

[WhiteFunk94]

@M3mPHiS I think you'll find it varies. Our pupils automatically dilate and contract, depending on the available light.

[aizhol]

@M3mPHiS According to Wikipedia human eye aperture varies from f8.3 to f2.1

[RufusTheRuthless]

@M3mPHiS Aperture (your iris/pupil) changes with the light. Your eye has about a 50mm lens equivalent angle of view compared to camera lenses (on full frame sensor). So you could measure the diameter in millimetres and divide the answer from 50 to get the f-stop.

[jamie1234591]

@M3mPHiS F number equals focal length divided by aperture diameter. The focal length of the eye (distance from lens to the retina) is about 17mm. The diameter of the pupil goes from about 8mm in the dark to 4mm in bright conditions. So the eye's f number is f2.1-4.3, but everyones different of course:)

[SchneiderStudios]

Snooki skin tone

[horton5571]

Wow greg, this is a simple yet great tip & it will help me get used to using my histogram a lot more. What are your thoughts on using the burnt colour highlight feature on a camera?

[GregoryCazillo]

@horton5571 No idea what that is, can you send me a link to an example?

[horton5571]

@GregoryCazillo Its called Highlight alert, I have it on my canon 60D, It highlights and blinks any overexposed highlight areas on an image you have taken when you preview it on the cameras LCD. I can't find any videos on youtube, maybe ill make one when I get some time.

[jhnaveenjh]

@GregoryCazillo u c colourchange when editing is because ur shooting d3... dynamic range of d3 s very less i guess... i shoot 5d mark 2 nd i don c dis prob

[falecomcyber]

@horton5571 is it a feature for those who shoot jpeg?

[horton5571]

@falecomcyber no, I only shoot in RAW i will do a vid on it when i get some time

[almubeeb]

I've never seen a video deal with this issue clearly until this one of yours, Greg.

[StevenScholten]

Hey Greg. Thanks for that. You were reading my mind!. Very clear.

Greets from Holland

Steven

[ThePoacher1969]

great again mr C

[handsomelok]

So, in a extreme situation, I should push up iso instead of underexpose 1 stop and push it in Photo shop?

[GregoryCazillo]

@handsomelok Always err on the side of perfect exposure...

[heuykiller]

I might be a bit stupid but what do you mean by "print for the shadows"? I understand "expose for the highlights" but not the "print for the shadows"?

[GregoryCazillo]

@heuykiller Its an old term when people would use an enlarger. Now its about making sure your image looks good on the computer.

[gtochad]

greg i have a question, what if all your settings are pretty much maxed for light absorption say your shooting with a d3100 at f1.8 at 1/30th at iso 3200 and your image is still a bit underexposed OR you need your shutter speed at 1/60th is it better to use the HI 1 setting or to increase the exposure in Lightroom?

[GregoryCazillo]

@gtochad I would try both...or get a tripod and shoot at a slower shutter speed if possible.

[polylm]

Thank you, great video, very informative! :)

[TheLarspojken]

Brilliant video!

Off topic... Are you going to buy the Nikon D4?

[atamola]

1 thing I've noted "shooting to the right" is that u can get cleaner images, particularly if u theng bring the exposure down in post. Having said that, I've also noted that images tend to be less sharp when I'm doing this. This seems to point to the maxim "get the exposure right" (not under, not over).

The trick seems to be to define the right exposure, for which u have to have a clear idea of the image you want and what u are going to do with it. Looking at the histogram is crucial.

[Antovegadotcom]

Agree. Thank you

[riheljana]

I think that that it's the white balance that brings this yellowish skin , I'm I wrong ?

[GregoryCazillo]

@riheljana both images have the same white balance setting...underexposure caused the one to be worse.

[909prepper]

Man I need a new camera, if I took my 40D and shot in 1600 ISO it would be noisy as hell.

[handsomelok]

@909prepper never consider using flash? :D

[909prepper]

@handsomelok

I just got a hold of a 580EX about a week ago, but haven't a clue on how to work with it.



[Yahweigh]

EPIC

[GregoryCazillo]

Questions? Comments? Disagree? Let's hear it!

[BernieKohl]

@GregoryCazillo

A 10 Bit RAW file has a tonal range of 1024 (2^10) Bit for each channel for all tones to the right of the histogram. A stop to the left the tonal range already changes to 512. With cameras nowadays having a dynamic range of 10 to 13 stops the shadows often are five to seven stops to the left which only leaves a tonal range of 32 Bit.

[funincluded]

@GregoryCazillo

Maybe it's because I am still a novice (been shooting for about 4 weeks), but I always have to raise my exposure in lightroom by .0_

I tend to do street photography on trains or other dark places, and if I go above 800/1600iso I get a bit of noise, and if I go below 1/60th I just get too much motion blurr, and I am at f1.8

I almost always raise the brightness- but this is usually to balance out a rise in contrast or black, and I also raise the exposer by a .05-.80.

[GregoryCazillo]

@funincluded Sounds like you need some practice ;)