Which is better

Antonio Correia

Number 1 or Number 2 ?
1 2
Their histograms go like this
1 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .2

Yes. The best photo is the number number 2.
I have been reading expose right but I had never done two shots to study the matter like Michael Reichmann suggests.
I did it this afternoon and followed Michael's instructions.

Both pictures were "treated" the same way:
They were opened one by one, in raw converter from CS3, auto adjustments applied, no crop, 16 bit 200 pixel per inch, size 1536 by 1024 (1.6 mp) I don't know what that means but that's what I introduced to start with.

Then when the pictures were opened in CS3 I applied Shadows/Highlight and USM.

I want to repeat this experience another time to get really aware of the benefits of shooting to the right.
Please click on the picture for a larger view.

pathfinder

Antonio, my understanding of the benefit of shooting to the right, is that you with have much lower noise levels in the shadow quarter-tones.

This really pays dividends in CS3 where the Fill slider makes it so very easy to regain shadow detail we might not have gotten so easily in previous versions of Photoshop. This is even more true of files from Point and Shoots with their smaller, nosier sensors in the shadow tones. It will have less effect in larger sensors with larger pixels, but the theory is still correct.

The secret when shooting to the right is to avoid going to far to the right, though:D

I will be interested in other reader's answers in this interesting topic concerning proper exposure.

SloYerRoll

I personally like #1 better.

I think the detail in the shadows of the leaves and the ground under the tree are much more defined. Sometimes (to me at least) it doesn't matter what the histogram says. It matters what the shot looks like and if I'm pleased with it. (I'm sure I'm gonna get beat up on that comment though)

-Jon

Antonio Correia

Jim and Jon.
Thank you for commenting. I appreciate your thoughts and opinions.:D
However, I would like to read more opinions.

One thing I can tell you: the overall color of that moment is more like photo number 2.
The 1.st picture has a redish/magenta cast, at least in my monitor.

LiquidAir

pathfinder wrote:

I will be interested in other reader's answers in this interesting topic concerning proper exposure.

I use two different for exposure which a call "expose to the right" and "expose for the light."

As I see it expose to the right means put the brightest detail you want to record at the right end of the historgram. Now, what you really want to do is expose to the right of the RAW histogram, but the camera doesn't show you that. What I do is set my camera to daylight WB, low saturation and sharpening and always look at the RGB histogram. Over time I have gotten a feel for how much I can blow out the JPEG histogram a bit and still recover detail in Lightroom. If I am worried (and I have the time) I put the camera on a tripod and bracket.

Expose for the light is the ambient light meter/grey card strategy. The goal is to always put 18% (or 13%) grey at the same same level. I have a variety of strategies for getting there, but my most common one is to make an initial guess and then swing the camera about the room while watching the light meter in the viewfinder to determine if I need to make adjustments. A little slower, but more accurate is to spot meter on a white card and push the exposure 1 2/3 stops--the advantage of this approach is I can then snap a shot of the white card and use it as a WB reference when converting the RAWs.

Antonio Correia

LiquidAir wrote:

I use two different for exposure which a call "expose to the right" and "expose for the light."...

Thank you Kenn. Thank you. thumb

LiquidAir

Antonio Correia wrote:

One thing I can tell you: the overall color of that moment is more like photo number 2.
The 1.st picture has a redish/magenta cast, at least in my monitor.

Exposing to the right usually deliberately overexposing the shot (compared to nominal exposure) and then correcting for that overexposure in the RAW conversion. Exposure correction in ACR is not a perfect simulation how your camera behaves as you adjust the exposure. To get consistant color when exposing to the right, you should shoot a series of shots of a Gretag Macbeth Color Checker at different exposures (I run +-2 stops at 1/3 stop increments) and build a set of ACR presets for exposure correction which accurately reproduce the color of a properly exposed card.

Icebear

Not too technical
but the sky is most definitely better in #2.

Icebear

I should not have ever looked at these photos
OK, did you use an auto bracketing setting? 'Cause the approaching auto only moved 2 or 3 metres between exposures .

And at ISO 100, with that sky, I would have thought a "normal" shutter speed at f9 would have been in the neighboorhood of 1/100 or 1/125. Why did you start out at 1/30. I thought I understood the concept of " . . to the right" but I must not .

Sorry for two Smilies in one post

Antonio Correia

Icebear wrote:

OK, did you use an auto bracketing setting? 'Cause the approaching auto only moved 2 or 3 metres between exposures .

And at ISO 100, with that sky, I would have thought a "normal" shutter speed at f9 would have been in the neighboorhood of 1/100 or 1/125. Why did you start out at 1/30. I thought I understood the concept of " . . to the right" but I must not .

Sorry for two Smilies in one post

Oh yeah. I was using a CPF on the lens to get a deeper sky.
In fact it had not a very deep efect as the angle was not a good one because the Sun was low in the horizon.
Then, when I was there, I just forgot about it because I was using a tripod.

And the photo was breaketed yes but I see nothing wronge on it ...

Thank you. That was a good point I have forgotten to mention. But I think it is not that important is it ?

Anyway I want to do it again.

Pexi

It looks like those two shots have been applied a different white balance settings in post-process?!?

For me the first one has definately better contrast and character, specially on the right hand side pine trees, on the tarmac and on the road poles. Even the far left yellow flowers look better on the first one. The second one has better details on the close left hand side shadows, but that is not the main content of the photo, I suppose... so my vote goes for the first one - it just needs a bit more blue in color temp. But I have a fetish for a pop-art like contrast, and I know practically nothing of photography, soo... YMMV, IMHO etc.

Thanks for reading,
Pexi

ulrikft

I really like #1 the best The more saturated colors does it for me I think. The #2 looks more "grey" to me.

Antonio Correia

Pexi and Ulrik.
Thank you for commenting these two pictures.:D
At least one thing is clear: in spite of the shooting (to the) right or "expose for the light" as Liquidair says, the final result looks controversial at least to some extend.

Some people like best the first shot, some people like best the second one.

That's good. I have to make my own decision and I will expose to the right and to the light. That's settled, final.:D

Sometimes it is curious to know the opinion of someone who understands nothing about photography and listen what they say.

I'll ask someone I am working with.
...
One opinion is for the second one.
Another opinion is for the second.
Yet another for the second again.

Photo number two winn !
And I did not influence the opinions. Just asked.

Icebear

No, nothing wrong
I am too analytical. Just trying to figure out all the silly little details

LiquidAir

Looking at the proecess you followed, the different WB is probably due to the auto correction process in ACR. As a base line test, what you really want to do is make sure that all the settings in ACR are the same except the exposure setting. Given that there is a two stops difference between your exposures, there should be a two stop difference between the exposure setting in ACR.

Antonio Correia

LiquidAir wrote:

Looking at the proecess you followed, the different WB is probably due to the auto correction process in ACR. As a base line test, what you really want to do is make sure that all the settings in ACR are the same except the exposure setting. Given that there is a two stops difference between your exposures, there should be a two stop difference between the exposure setting in ACR.

This evening !

Antonio Correia

Antonio Correia wrote:

This evening !

Kenn, I am sorry. I don't have the raw files anymore.
I erase them/dam. :cry

Tomorrow, I am consultant for a project and I will be in Lisbon.

I hope to be able to repeat the experience and I will post in the evening. Promise.

If I ever can't keep my promise, I will do it any other day, that is for sure.:D

Antonio Correia

Kenn.
I had some other shots which are from the same location, place and time.

But I have a serious doubt
Shot number 4621 is f/7.1 - 1/200 (-)0.33
Shot number 4622 is f/7.1 - 1/125 (+)0.33

I have opened both, one at the time, in ACR with the Default settings, curve Linear.

You are sugesting that I have to make a compensation of 2 stop difference.

Does it mean that I have to set the Aperture in ACR to (-) 0.20 on the second picture number 4622 ?

I post here the photos which were opened without any Aperture compensation at all, which is NOT you told me to do.

4621 4622

Sorry D

saad alqasem

Number 2 shur

LiquidAir

Antonio Correia wrote:

Kenn.
I had some other shots which are from the same location, place and time.

But I have a serious doubt
Shot number 4621 is f/7.1 - 1/200 (-)0.33
Shot number 4622 is f/7.1 - 1/125 (+)0.33

I have opened both, one at the time, in ACR with the Default settings, curve Linear.

You are sugesting that I have to make a compensation of 2 stop difference.

Does it mean that I have to set the Aperture in ACR to (-) 0.20 on the second picture number 4622 ?

I post here the photos which were opened without any Aperture compensation at all, which is NOT you told me to do.

If I read your original post right, one of the two images was at 1/8s and the other was at 1/30s which is two stops difference in exposure, but I may have read that wrong in your post. With your current pair of images the difference is 0.66, so that is the correction you should use.

With what you have done so far, with these two images 4621 looks properly exposed and 4622 is too bright which is what you expect because you deliberately overexposed 4622. Now if you use the exposure correction in ACR to lower the exposure of 4622 by 0.66 stops they should look the same except for one thing: 4622 will have more detail and less noise in the shadows because the shadows were brighter when they were captured by your sensor.

Antonio Correia

LiquidAir wrote:

If I read your original post right, one of the two images was at 1/8s and the other was at 1/30s which is two stops difference in exposure, but I may have read that wrong in your post. With your current pair of images the difference is 0.66, so that is the correction you should use.

With what you have done so far, with these two images 4621 looks properly exposed and 4622 is too bright which is what you expect because you deliberately overexposed 4622. Now if you use the exposure correction in ACR to lower the exposure of 4622 by 0.66 stops they should look the same except for one thing: 4622 will have more detail and less noise in the shadows because the shadows were brighter when they were captured by your sensor.

Thank you for the explanation, Kenn.

The 4 pictures are all different.
Now, I understood very well your point and later, I will post again different pictures and tests.

Antonio Correia

saad alqasem wrote:

Number 2 shur

Thank you for your comment Saad

Glenn NK

My understanding of the reason for shooting "to the right" is that there is more information (bits) in the "uppermost" or lighter levels:

http://www.luminous-landscape.com/tutorials/expose-right.shtml

I tend to shoot to the right, and at times, the images appear washed out, but a simple decrease in "exposure" in LR seems to rectify this.

G

pathfinder

Glenn NK wrote:

My understanding of the reason for shooting "to the right" is that there is more information (bits) in the "uppermost" or lighter levels:

http://www.luminous-landscape.com/tutorials/expose-right.shtml

I tend to shoot to the right, and at times, the images appear washed out, but a simple decrease in "exposure" in LR seems to rectify this.

G

That is correct, Glenn , and the real advantage is not in the highlight areas ( where you usually have enough bits) but in the shadows, the lower quarter tones that have more bits by being captured farther to the right, and then slide darker with the exposure slider in ARC or LR.

SloYerRoll

That's why the new highlight recovery tools are so awesome for photographers! You can really push the envelope of your exposure and it won't take hours (or rocket science) to get it just right!