EV compensation

Hi all, when should the exposure compensation be used, its just that somtimes taken photos parts of the day and looks darkish in background and have lightend it up with the filter afects, maybe iso was not higher enouth. The compensation is set on 0.0

Regards Dave

Hi, nothing unusual about brightening up your photos with a little contrast correction when you get home. Not least because what you previewed out and about on the LCD isn't quite what you've taken given light and conditions. Your PC monitor of course needs to be right too.

I personally use centre or spot metering when the main subject is flora or fauna (quite often I want the background darker), multi when taking landscapes. I find with my K5 much less need to use the +/- correction. I bracket when in doubt and if really suspect I save a RAW as well being happy mostly with the fine jpegs.

With all photos you'll find if you are close enough to the correct exposure then minor correctons later will not spoil the colour balance which is the first victim when you mess around.

Finally I make use of the Pentax highlight and shadow corrections in camera.

Shoot RAW then correct in post processing, simples.

It's all about correct metering technique. Let's assume you have a grey square. If you photograph it, your meter should give you an image that's a grey square.

Now let's substitute a black squre. Your meter thinks it's dark, gives more exposure and results in a grey square as it's designed to do. So we use exposure compensation to reduce exposure and make sure the image gives us the black square we want.

The opposite applies to a white square.

Sop, with experience, we can look at a scene and decide how the meter might or might not give us the result we want and we adjust exposure compensation accordingly.

There are also creative uses as well, where we want a non-standard result.

That's OK if your histogram is fully inside the limits. In extreme cases one might have a lot of pixels in the totally black or totally white bins (or even both). In such cases even RAW won't help.

Martin

With the K-5 I've never had a problem with totally black pixels. I've been able to recover what looks like a totally black pic by boosting 5 stops into something usable. Love the extra dynamic range of the K-5 !!

The whites are different kettle of fish though, also it's amazing what you can recover from RAW

I tend to always correct in PP like Snappychappy though

It will work quite often, but when your pixels are completely burnt, you can't recover them. You always get the best results with the best exposure.

Always thinking you can recover in post is very a bad practice.

I'm more of a seat your pants shooter though

I like the serendipity of sometimes messing things up. For example recently I was shooting indoors in TAv mode and had shutter and aperture set for something to cater for that. ISO was hovering between 3200 and 12800

I then went outside in daylight and forgot to change settings. K-5 tried to go lower than ISO80 but wouldn't let itself - 'correct' exposure was ISO 0.001

Anyway until I realised and changed settings about 6 or 7 shots were mostly blown out as you can imagine. However it made for a nice effect on a couple of the shots.

Similarly when inadvertently using shutter speeds that are too low I've got some nice blurred effects.

Another example: I never use Lens hoods as I often like the flare.

I often kick myself after a shoot when I haven't abused the settings enough.

So I guess what is good or bad practise depends on the individual photographer and their style of shooting.

My Canon shooting buddy thinks it's bad practise to not look through the viewfinder ( or live view ) when taking a picture. I Love it. Got many cool pics by that method.

But yes you're right in that once clipped the signal is not recoverable as it doesn't exist anywhere

Well, Smeggypants, if that's how you like to shoot and that's your style, fair enopugh. You go for it.

However, it's not the model I'd advocate that beginners try for. I would suggest that being able to operate a camera properly and produce a standard, correctly exposed result is a better place to start. After the techniques are mastered, then that's the time to spread out and develop a style.

In other words, break the rules by all means, but understand what the rules are.

Wise words John

See what you are doing is defining what is 'proper' and 'correct' - You're not qualified to do this. In fact no one is. What is correct is down to what the individual

There are no 'rules' - In fact rules are the antithesis of what art is all about.

In fact IMO the worst way to develop a style is to start off by being indoctrinated by so called rules. The best way to develop a style is, on the contrary, to just go out and shoot and learn what turns you on and what doesn't. If that includes occasionally blown whites, blur, flare or what ever else the 'proper' and correct' brigade have taken upon themselves to deem is bad then so be it.

Of course if anyone chooses to shoot in manner where they are careful to abide by certain rules they have chosen to abide by then they are of course free to do so.

But I don't think we should be lecturing people on what they should do, especial on the excuse they are beginners.

Telling people what is 'proper' and 'correct' is not wise words at all John

Beginners should learn first to master exposure, depth of field and blur control (or lack of). When they know what causes what, then it's time to break the so called rules. Then, they'll be able to analyse their pictures, and decide what works for them and what doesn't. And they'll know what to do to repeat what works for them.

Going haphazardly is not the way to learn. At least for 99% of the people. Maybe you're in the 1% who'll make it works, but it's not the way to go for the average people.

I'm sure that you realise what I mean by correct exposure. Correct exposure provides an accurate rendition of the tones of the original scene, as far as is possible.

The idea that there is no framework, no standard, no right way is unsustainable. We have certain inescapable properties of film and of digital sensors. Physics defines these, not me.

I think you are confusing the word rules with restrictions. Knowing the rules, and I use the word in a broad sense, enables us to break them intelligently. The alternative in not freedom of will, but pure chaos.

How do you know what what works for someone else or not? I only know what works for me I wouldn't even think to be so presumptuous as to claim to know what works for someone else.

Plus you've changed your goalposts in one paragraph. First it's the 99% and then it's the average person ( whatever that is? )

Why not let beginners do what feels right for them?


You don't need to know any 'rules' to do that. You just need to look at the results and see what settings you used. My point is that not being indoctrinated with rules in the first place cultivates a freer mind.

I know the difference between a rule and a physical restriction.

To me the correct exposure is the one that gave a pleasing picture. Sometimes that might be an accurate rendition of what the eye sees, other times I might be having half the tones blown out

You're moving the goalposts in your debate now. Of course there are physical restrictions and I wasn't accusing you of defining those at all.

My contention is with you and Yves trying to dictate what beginners should do or not do based upon some fixed and methodical curriculum.

Nonsense. To claim that is focussing on photography purely as a technical means of capturing a scene as accurate as possible

When it comes to the art side there are no rules.

Your approach is more suited to learning a trade like an electrician or structural engineer. There you have to have rules and fixed methods of both learning and application for obvious reasons.