Join Now
Join ePHOTOzine, the friendliest photography community.
Upload photos, chat with photographers, win prizes and much more for free!
I have recently discovered an exposure technique - now widely accepted for landscape photography apparently - that involves exposing as far to the right of the histogram scale as possible before clipping occurs. The science being that the brighter stops on a DSLR record over 2’000 tonal values compared to the darker stops which record as little as 60 (the 4’000 plus tones available not being even split through the stop range. ).
I’ve always slightly under-exposed my shots and then adjusted in RAW, but I’ve now learned it’s better to over expose and claim back in RAW as you have a greater tonal range to work with and therefore more detail available. I haven’t had the change to try this out yet, but does anyone else work this way?
For everything, wherever possible. You'll often find that working at higher ISO's for over-exposure, then correcting, will give smoother results than lower ISO's at the true EV rating. Try it, it can be quite surprising.
Quote: but does anyone else work this way?
Absolutely - it's the only way to get shadow detail. I like lots of dark in my studio pictures and the only way to have detail in the shadows is to expose well to the right (even at the sacrifice of unimportant highlight detail) and darken with levels in PS.
Otherwise I get lots of ugly posterisation in the shadow areas.
I think the usable tonal range of digital imagers is a lot less than that quoted - if you want shadow detail.
Quote: ...working at higher ISO's for over-exposure, then correcting...
Can you explain a bit more fully please? My brain's not taking it in.
Surely,if you over expose the highlights you burn the detail out.where do you get the detail from to put back?
Quote: I have recently discovered an exposure technique - now widely accepted for landscape photography apparently - that involves exposing as far to the right of the histogram scale as possible before clipping occurs. The science being that the brighter stops on a DSLR record over 2’000 tonal values compared to the darker stops which record as little as 60 (the 4’000 plus tones available not being even split through the stop range. ).
I’ve always slightly under-exposed my shots and then adjusted in RAW, but I’ve now learned it’s better to over expose and claim back in RAW as you have a greater tonal range to work with and therefore more detail available. I haven’t had the change to try this out yet, but does anyone else work this way?
The aim is to expose as far to the right as you can, without clipping, as the OP stated. If it's not clipped, it's not burned out, just brighter than you'd expose for otherwise.
Add a Comment
ePHOTOzine, the web's friendliest photography community.
Upload photos, chat with photographers, win prizes and much more.
















