Under exposing your photos do not make them better
Вставка
- Опубліковано 30 чер 2024
- SUBSCRIBE to this UA-cam Channel at www.youtube.com/@edinburghpho...
SIGN UP for my newsletter at bit.ly/EPW_SignUp
VISIT edinburghphotographyworkshop.com
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I recommend Kase Filters - find out more at bit.ly/EPW_Kase
I believe underexposing in some situations can be a good thing. If you enjoy photographing during the night, it can lead to preserving the highlights much better, and if you are not concerned by having too much detail in the shadows then it works just fine.
I absolutely agree with most of your suggestions. However, in the grassy hill photo I actually like the silhouette effect of the original edit. With a few selective tweaks to the sky that photo could almost look like a painting. I think it is important to mention that aiming for a perfectly balanced histogram is not always the way to go. Clipping the shadows can be an artistic decision if done intentionally.
Maybe he's right. I generally try to leave a little more headroom on the top end though to avoid accidently blowwing out the upper end.
Interesting. I'll have to do some trials myself to see if I can noticed the difference, but I only underexposed by 0.7 of a stop. I don't often use the histograms but perhaps I should as it'll give me more info about my images. I use an iphone12pm.
I agree with much of what you're saying, however artistic vision and intent Francis had may have been to have the hillside and figure be a silhouette and not exposed, personally I like the touch-up of the sky but prefer the dark silhouette of the hill and figure.
Good video, but add more examples with highlights like at night in the city
The title do not make a good sentence
Underexposing your photos does not make them better?
Under exposing your photos does not make them better !
First time to the channel, Mr. Dyson. Thanks for your outlook and explanations. I'm an amateur photographer that has not been shooting a very long time. That said, I do not agree completely with your explanation, and I'm happy to explain why. I'd also love to hear your thoughts on my comment - as that is how I learn - and I don't mind a good conversation around photography. 1st: I understand where you are coming from with ETTR. If I get a bit wordy here it's not for you, but those reading the comment and wondering what we are talking about. Exposing to the right (ETTR) provides more photons (data) to create the image. The first assumption I think you make is that we then want to edit the image with post processing - using the additional information in the shadows, midtones, and highlights to tweak it to our satisfaction. Understood. There are two reasons your argument isn't exactly sound. A. There are the cases when you get it right in camera and your shooting to crush the blacks (i.e. ETTL) or protect the highlights because of very bright subject or lighting. Blown highlights is lost data, compared to a lower signal to noise ratio (but retained data) in the shadows. Yes, I realize if you ETTR the image and then bring the highlights down (assumed not blown) you have more data in the shadows - but if you don't want to process the image much (for what ever reason) and you capture the look you are going for, then underexposing may be appropriate for "some" images -depending on taste. My second issue is with how you personally arrive at your conclusion in this video: And please hear me out on this one. My first assumption is that we are talking Digital Photography. Early in the video (prior to the 3 3/4 minute mark) you lump a number of issues together. A. Underexposure vs ETTR, B. The effects of increasing exposure. And C. The amount of data underexposure vs ETTR present in the file size. I get it, but the way you present the argument is flawed in my opinion, and here is why. 1. You talk about increasing exposure 2 stops by decreasing your shutter speed 2/3rds of a stop (fair enough) and increasing ISO 1 1/3 stops. This last statement in my view, is wrong on a number of fronts. A. ISO is not part of exposure in the majority of cases. It is gain and amplification of the Signal to Noise (S/N) ratio after exposure has taken place. Exposure is the amount of light/photons captured by the sensor because of the size of the aperture or speed of the shutter or sensor capture. That's it. To maintain the same exposure, you balance that seesaw. If you want better exposure, more photons/information in the image without clipping the highlights, you need to slow your shutter down (which you did), or open your aperture (which you did not). Increasing ISO just produces a brighter image, but does not contribute to exposure directly. On that note, if your goal was ETTR, and all you did was increase your ISO by 2 stops - you've done nothing to improve the image or improve exposure prior to post. You've just increased the brightness of the image - and in an ISO invariant sensor - it wouldn't matter if you shoot underexposed with ISO 100 and bring it up to ISO 400, or shot at ISO 400 to begin with. Underexposing and raising the ISO 2 stops gives you the same S/N ratio as if you shot at ISO 400 to begin with. In your example, there would be "more data" because you slowed your shutter speed down - and increased exposure - i.e. photons/signal. Had you left ISO alone, and opened your aperture up 1 1/3 stops, you'd have an even greater exposure (or information) without magnifying the amount of shot noise in the shadows. None of this may be relevant to the finished look of the photo, but it could in many circumstances. In the end, my view is that if you want to increase the amount of data/photons/information in your photo, then you need to increase your exposure by either opening up the aperture, and/or slow the shutter speed down. That will increase the signal to noise (photons to shot noise) in the shadows - where information is thin, and in the highlights where information is plentiful and everywhere in between. ISO plays no role in this or ETTR (EXPOSE - to the right). It just brightens your image and raises noise with it. I bring this up because I believe the intent of your tutorial was to increase information in the photo, and raising ISO as part of your argument just complicates the picture (so to speak). Your thoughts?
Some good advice, but it does not apply everywhere. The problem is that you are providing context specific information without providing the context.
The histogram in-camera shows an 8 bit jpeg so it's not an accurate representation of the data captured by a camera sensor.
In the example of the lilly you have increased the iso to 125 . Is this not underexposing the image because of this?.
I have to say NO. Underexposing a photo can be done with a camera with good dynamic range and ISO invariance. For example... I use a Pentax K1, if I under expose at -4 stops I don't have any problems because my sensor is ISO invariant and it has a great dynamic range, I also have a very good chance of shooting handheld most of the time! So underexposure is great if you have a great sensor and know what your camera can do,you must know your limit.
To the left, to the right, it's not politics, you should learn the exposure triangle and expose to get all the information for it. 67-90% of the time, it will be to the left, the other to the right, with the rest of the exposures at 0 ev.
underexposing does not cause an increase in noise. it's only if someone is trying to bring back shadows. I also would say the histogram is a tool and not to bog down your art by just relying on that. It's often easier to bring back a darker image than an overexposed one. Most modern cameras are a bit bright and underexposing helps with this. Depending on the situation I often underexpose by 0.3 to 0.7
lol ...😀