underexpose landscape images by 2 to 3 stops

[Isaac]

Sounds exciting, what do they look like?

You have a Nikon, don't you already know what ADL exposures look like? (DRO is the Sony implementation).

(matrix 1/125, matrix+autoDRO 1/125, matrix_autoHDR 1/100, manual 1/60).

[Isaac]

Assuming you own a recent FF Nikon ('matrix') like the D750 or D810 you may want to try a single capture in Highlight-Weighted Metering mode with ADL set to Auto and see if you achieve results comparable to the ones obtained through your machinations

From a single capture, manual exposure raw, my machinations would probably lead me in this kind-of direction (via some +EV, masking and blending).

[Justinr]

You have a Nikon, don't you already know what ADL exposures look like? (DRO is the Sony implementation).

(matrix 1/125, matrix+autoDRO 1/125, matrix_autoHDR 1/100, manual 1/60).

Oh, I thought you'd taken some actual photographs rather than just random clouds, unless random clouds are your thing, nothing wrong with that BTW.

[Isaac]

Don't be silly -- they're photographs of a wall!

I took these especially for you, to show one situation that will cause problems when blindly using AE; and I'm a little surprised you haven't suggested boosting ADL/DRO to the max.

[Justinr]

Don't be silly -- they're photographs of a wall!

I took these especially for you, to show one situation that will cause problems when blindly using AE; and I'm a little surprised you haven't suggested boosting ADL/DRO to the max.

Here's one reason -

http://www.nikonusa.com/en/Learn-And-Explore/Article/fsqd6p6h/Active-D-Lighting.html

Scroll down until you see the two pictures of a flower bed and building. Now which uses ADL and which is the more commercial (salable) picture?

[Isaac]

…and which is the more commercial (salable) picture?

Obviously you have an opinion about that.

[Justinr]

Obviously you have an opinion about that.

Of course, but then I am in the business of trying to make a few small pennies with cameras rather than faff about with fancy settings which in this case are detrimental to the overall image quality.

[Isaac]

…faff about with fancy settings…

Much the same thing in phone cameras, except the fancy settings are set to auto.

…are detrimental to the overall image quality.

Every way of a man is right in his own eyes…

max DRO might be a little too much, but for the 3rd clematis bloom this year I could just use some aluminum foil as a reflector ;-)

[Lightsmith]

If you take any subject and underexpose it by -1 EV and then shoot it at 0.0 EV and then again at +1.0 EV and adjust each RAW file to provide the best image you will very seldom find the -1 EV provides the better image in terms of both detail and color fidelity. On the other hand a surprising amount of time the overexposed image will provide the best image once adjusted. The reason is simple as with underexposed images RAW data is lost from the sensor and that data is not contained in the image file to be recovered in post processing.

This is why in large part why I seldom use matrix metering as I find that it usually results in an underexposed image with normal to wide perspective lenses.

[texshooter]

Cole Thompson underexposes his images, and it works for him.

http://www.photographyblackwhite.com/video-discovering-vision-black-white/

[Schewe]

Cole Thompson underexposes his images, and it works for him.

http://www.photographyblackwhite.com/video-discovering-vision-black-white/

So, you post a link to a topic that requires a purchase to hear what Cole has to say? Not very cool doode...personally I couldn't care less what Cole has to say about anything if I have to pay to hear it (I'm not a rookie in this area).

But "underexposing" is never an optimal approach–seriously!

[texshooter]

But "underexposing" is never an optimal approach–seriously!

In the bottom Q&A section, Cole explains why he underexposes.  He admits he does things the wrong way because it helps him to visualize the scene, as well as preserve the highlights.  His work is successful, and I don't argue with success.

[bjanes]

So, you post a link to a topic that requires a purchase to hear what Cole has to say? Not very cool doode...personally I couldn't care less what Cole has to say about anything if I have to pay to hear it (I'm not a rookie in this area).

But "underexposing" is never an optimal approach–seriously!

In the bottom Q&A section, Cole explains why he underexposes.  He admits he does things the wrong way because it helps him to visualize the scene, as well as preserve the highlights.  His work is successful, and I don't argue with success.

+1 regarding Schewe's post. I haven't taken the trouble to pay for Cole's misinformation, but if he wishes to "visualize the scene" he could well use a different approach. Visualization would be aided by rendering the raw file linearly. I don't know what raw converter or settings Cole uses, but underexposing the image would result in a more linear file with PV2012, since automatic highlight protection would not be invoked with the underexposed image.

It would be better to expose normally and then visualize the file with a more or less linear rendering. This could be accomplished by using PV2010 with a linear tone curve and the sliders on the main panel all set to zero.

Regards,

Bill

[digitaldog]

In the bottom Q&A section, Cole explains why he underexposes.  He admits he does things the wrong way because it helps him to visualize the scene, as well as preserve the highlights.  His work is successful, and I don't argue with success.

So are McDonalds hamburgers but I don't buy nor eat them.
Wrong is wrong, this guy is wrong technically and he's producing inferior quality image data.

[Paul Baxter]

Read Cole's blog (which by the way is free).  Cole is not recommending that anyone follow his methods - certainly not for general landscape photography!  Cole's techniques are really very simple and help him produce images that meet his unique vision.  For his black and white work this level of underexposure is no problem, because he almost always darkens the shadows even more!  For the photographer who is trying to show more detail in the shadows, his methods would obviously not be recommended!  If you want to produce dark, brooding black and white images as he does, his techniques might work well for you.

[stamper]

Read Cole's blog (which by the way is free).  Cole is not recommending that anyone follow his methods - certainly not for general landscape photography!  Cole's techniques are really very simple and help him produce images that meet his unique vision.  For his black and white work this level of underexposure is no problem, because he almost always darkens the shadows even more!  For the photographer who is trying to show more detail in the shadows, his methods would obviously not be recommended!  If you want to produce dark, brooding black and white images as he does, his techniques might work well for you.

I can see where he is coming from. I do street photography with a contrasty B&W image in mind. In street photography there isn't time to carefully meter the scene so underexposing instead of metering to preserve the highlights is the way to go. In processing I will darken the dark tones further. In this context I think his methods are perfectly acceptable and It is the final image that counts, not theoretically "best practice"

[Bart_van_der_Wolf]

I can see where he is coming from. I do street photography with a contrasty B&W image in mind. In street photography there isn't time to carefully meter the scene so underexposing instead of metering to preserve the highlights is the way to go. In processing I will darken the dark tones further. In this context I think his methods are perfectly acceptable and It is the final image that counts, not theoretically "best practice"

Hi,

What kind of exposure metering do you use that needs 2-3 stops of deliberate underexposure only to preserve the highlights??? Exposure corrections on my camera are usually dialed in as minus 1/3rd or 2/3rd EV if highlights need protection, if on auto exposure.

A competent photographer can also get great results with manual exposure, but you need time to think ahead, and lighting conditions that do not fluctuate a lot.

I got the impression that Cole, despite proper (?) exposure metering, still underexposes to pre-visualize the image as it would look after postprocessing. That's very odd for someone with experience, that he cannot make the mental connection of how his image is going to look when he takes it.

Besides, after he took the shot, the exposure is frozen already, so how does he know how to underexpose (did he measure it beforehand?), or is it a permanent -EV correction? If it's permanent, then how is it helping him to pre-visualize after the fact?

It simply sounds like poor technique to me.

Cheers,
Bart

[stamper]

Hi,

What kind of exposure metering do you use that needs 2-3 stops of deliberate underexposure only to preserve the highlights??? Exposure corrections on my camera are usually dialed in as minus 1/3rd or 2/3rd EV if highlights need protection, if on auto exposure.

A competent photographer can also get great results with manual exposure, but you need time to think ahead, and lighting conditions that do not fluctuate a lot.

In street photography using an Olympus EM5 on a contrasty day if I want to preserve details in a sky or the lightest area then - 1 and 1/3 EV preserves detail in the sky or light area. In playback I see a little sign of the blinkies which I am happy with. I sometimes use less EV if I am not too bothered about detail and if I am not bothered about highlight detail at all then no EV adjustments. The EM5 has a spot metering mode that when you focus on a dark area then the highlight details are captured properly. I think it uses a -2 EV to preserve details. I don't use these methods for landscape with large areas of sky. I spot meter for the sky, lock exposure and dial in + 2 and focus as appropriately.