Discussion in 'Lifestyle' started by Smeghead, May 7, 2009.
Or they're equally difficult/easy to fix?
Obviously correct exposure should be paramount, but if you miss, shooting RAW and underexposed are going to be the easiest to correct.
most of the time overexposure is harder sometimes almost impossible to correct
I find over exposure is easier to correct. If no light hits your subject then its
not getting recorded. If to much light hits the subject, then the data is there,
its just a little blown. If you add light to a darker image, it tends to add noise to the photo imo.
But then you can always make it b&w
more information is in the brighter part of the dynamic range
Thats what I was trying to say.
Now see, that would make the most sense to me and what I originally surmised based on the way a digital sensor takes in data and correspondingly saves it in RAW. But I was told that overexposed would lead to the top end of the data shown in a histogram to be clipped, therefore lost.
But I takes your word for it, because your name is Clint, and you can't be wrong...unless your last name is Pohler, I guess.
I read it in this book, and went to a seminar with Bruce Fraser
I can definitely tell too. Try exposing an underexposed picture in RAW compared to overexposed. I'm sure the practice hasn't changed much since CS2
Get a taller histogram! J/K. I learned it in class.
It's a fine balance...overexposure is easier to correct as long as the data was not actually clipped.
as long as you're shooting in RAW, overexposed is a little easier to fix in my experience. there's usually a pretty good amount of RAW headroom and detail data that you can recover in PP. http://blog.dpreview.com/editorial/2009/01/raw-headroom.html
in correcting an underexposed shot, however, I find it can add a good bit of noise, especially if it's a darker area that's underexposed
It depends how you define "overexposure".
Someone needs to spend a year with their gear.
Seriously, a better camera would fix the problem. Get a 5D so you can be pro.
Wrath of OTAP
If you have a S5 pro. 7 stop over exp recovery ftmfw.
As long as you're not clipping your highlights, overexposure would be better. However if overexposing has caused you to clip the highlights, then you'd have been better off w/ an underexposed image.
I guess the real question is, how far can you bump and underexposed image and still keep the noise down enough to use the image?
I find if a scene has a lot of highlights and bright points that I need to capture along with lots of shadows that underexposing by 1/2 to 1 stop is better than blowing all the highlight detail and in most cases bumping the shadows to where I want them and then making a slight contrast adjustment makes the image quite usable.
Your camera is dealing with 256 shades each of RGB. I've found that if you clip the highlights so that they all read 255 in a sizable patch on a subject your not fixing it in post. However if only 1 or 2 channels have been clipped PS does a pretty good job of saving that data.
Clipping is what people need to be aware of. Overexposure and underexposure aren't bad, but once you've clipped them, they're just black/white. I'd rather underexpose a little and bring back some details as needed rather than overexpose but it would depend on where my need for detail is.
"Expose to the right"
I can actually tell if a picture is overexposed or underexposed just by looking at the file size. There is a ton more data on the right side of the histogram than there is on the left. On my camera I can see an increase of about 10MB per RAW file for an image that is one stop over compared to one that is one stop under.