"Exposing to the right" is over exposed, what now?
in [Photoshop]
|
From: Porte Rouge on 4 Oct 2009 09:25 I set my exposure to slide the histogram to the right, without clipping ( when I have time), to capture the most tonal levels . So, now when I am editing the photos they are over exposed(not clipped). A sunrise is a good example. The deep colors are washed out. The obvious fix(to me anyway) in Lightroom or CS4 is to reduce the exposure. Now my question is, by reducing exposure in post, am I just ending up in the same place (histogram to the left) as if I had just ignored the histogram when I was shooting and set the exposure to properly expose the image using my light meter? I guess in short I am asking if Lightroom or CS4 loses tonal values when you reduce exposure in editing. Porte
From: Doug McDonald on 4 Oct 2009 09:40 Porte Rouge wrote: > I set my exposure to slide the histogram to the right, without clipping > ( when I have time), to capture the most tonal levels . So, now when I > am editing the photos they are over exposed(not clipped). A sunrise is > a good example. The deep colors are washed out. The obvious fix(to me > anyway) in Lightroom or CS4 is to reduce the exposure. Now my question > is, by reducing exposure in post, am I just ending up in the same place > (histogram to the left) as if I had just ignored the histogram when I > was shooting and set the exposure to properly expose the image using > my light meter? I guess in short I am asking if Lightroom or CS4 loses > tonal values when you reduce exposure in editing. > > > Porte There is no simple answer. It depends on whether you shoot raw or jpeg, and whether you use 8 or 16 bits in Photoshop. If you shoot raw and go to 16 bits in Photoshop you will indeed capture more tonal levels and better shadow detail if you correctly set the histogram in the camera as far right as possible. Significant improvements in shadow detail are possible compared to "politically correct" exposure in the camera. If you use jpeg and 8 bits, maybe, maybe not. Doug McDonald
From: Porte Rouge on 4 Oct 2009 09:58 On Oct 4, 9:40 am, Doug McDonald <mcdon...(a)scs.uiuc.edu.remove.invalid> wrote: > Porte Rouge wrote: > > I set my exposure to slide the histogram to the right, without clipping > > ( when I have time), to capture the most tonal levels . So, now when I > > am editing the photos they are over exposed(not clipped). A sunrise is > > a good example. The deep colors are washed out. The obvious fix(to me > > anyway) in Lightroom or CS4 is to reduce the exposure. Now my question > > is, by reducing exposure in post, am I just ending up in the same place > > (histogram to the left) as if I had just ignored the histogram when I > > was shooting and set the exposure to properly expose the image using > > my light meter? I guess in short I am asking if Lightroom or CS4 loses > > tonal values when you reduce exposure in editing. > > > Porte > > There is no simple answer. It depends on whether you shoot raw > or jpeg, and whether you use 8 or 16 bits in Photoshop. > > If you shoot raw and go to 16 bits in Photoshop you will indeed > capture more tonal levels and better shadow detail if you correctly > set the histogram in the camera as far right as possible. Significant > improvements in shadow detail are possible compared to "politically > correct" exposure in the camera. > > If you use jpeg and 8 bits, maybe, maybe not. > > Doug McDonald I shoot RAW and edit in 16 bit. That's interesting. I take it that reducing exposure in 16 bit preserves tonal levels because there are more levels in 16 bit. Or is there some other pixel black magic going on? Porte
From: Porte Rouge on 4 Oct 2009 10:00 On Oct 4, 9:40 am, Doug McDonald <mcdon...(a)scs.uiuc.edu.remove.invalid> wrote: > Porte Rouge wrote: > > I set my exposure to slide the histogram to the right, without clipping > > ( when I have time), to capture the most tonal levels . So, now when I > > am editing the photos they are over exposed(not clipped). A sunrise is > > a good example. The deep colors are washed out. The obvious fix(to me > > anyway) in Lightroom or CS4 is to reduce the exposure. Now my question > > is, by reducing exposure in post, am I just ending up in the same place > > (histogram to the left) as if I had just ignored the histogram when I > > was shooting and set the exposure to properly expose the image using > > my light meter? I guess in short I am asking if Lightroom or CS4 loses > > tonal values when you reduce exposure in editing. > > > Porte > > There is no simple answer. It depends on whether you shoot raw > or jpeg, and whether you use 8 or 16 bits in Photoshop. > > If you shoot raw and go to 16 bits in Photoshop you will indeed > capture more tonal levels and better shadow detail if you correctly > set the histogram in the camera as far right as possible. Significant > improvements in shadow detail are possible compared to "politically > correct" exposure in the camera. > > If you use jpeg and 8 bits, maybe, maybe not. > > Doug McDonald I shoot RAW and edit in 16 bit. That's interesting. I take it that reducing exposure in 16 bit preserves tonal levels because there are more levels in 16 bit. Or is there some other pixel black magic going on? Porte
From: taylor aldler on 4 Oct 2009 10:28
On Sun, 4 Oct 2009 06:25:12 -0700 (PDT), Porte Rouge <porterougeman(a)gmail.com> wrote: >I set my exposure to slide the histogram to the right, without clipping >( when I have time), to capture the most tonal levels . So, now when I >am editing the photos they are over exposed(not clipped). A sunrise is >a good example. The deep colors are washed out. The obvious fix(to me >anyway) ... .... doesn't seem to be obvious to you. Instead of learning how to expose each scene properly and not rely on dumbed-down point and shoot snapshooter's suggestions (like "expose to the right", which only applies to very few subjects) or depending on your automatic point and shoot modes of your camera, you'll forever be wasting your time in editing instead of taking photos the right way to begin with. This is what you get for taking to heart the lame "one size fits all" dumbed-down snapshooters suggestions made by all point 'n shooters and armchair photographers on the net. |