Exposing for the Highlights.

[DrMoab]

Just curious on where you guys stand on always "exposing for the highlights"

It seems to me, if I always do this I end up with dark photos. Seems no matter how or where I shoot I always end up with the little blinkers in my LCD.

I keep hearing differing opinions on this. Some people say you should always try to get rid of every blown out area but if you shoot a lot in bright daylight or snow, or chrome bumpers or...or...or... It's pretty impossible unless you want a lot of really dark photos.

What do the rest of you do? Is their any tricks to get more balanced light, other than just shooting in better light

 

[Lost Canadian]

It really depends on the image and what you're trying to achieve, but if blown highlights are inevitable, try to use them to your advantage. Don't get hung up on blinkies.

Examples:

 

[Michael Slade]

I teach my students that 95% of all photographs need two things:

1. A little bit of pure black
2. A little bit of pure white

Where they are in the image is what counts. if you have specular highlights that mimic what you are seeing, then leave them in there. They will add contrast and punch to your image. Where you decide to place them, or how much of the image you decide to 'clip' is up to you and your exposures.

You should do my black-on-black and my white-on-white assignment to get a better handle on how to properly expose for the ultra-difficult situations. It's located here:

High/key - Low/key Assignment

Chrome highlights? Let 'em blow out. They are really just small reflections of the sun. Do you really care about details that are in the sun? No. You can't do it in real life with your eyes, so don't try to do it with your camera. It'll look all wrong.

Good luck!

 

[Aspen d'Grey]

Edit: this is a different explanation than Michael's, but basically says the same thing. It goes a bit more into technical matters by discussing medium...

Part of this understands the medium you are photographing with.

The advice to generally 'expose for highlights' is because digital photography is very similar to color reversal (slide) film - by exposing for the highlights, you're more likely to be able to recover useable data in the shadows, rather than blowing out the highlights (which, with digital cameras, will often turn blue or pink). I like to keep my highlights around 250 RGB in studio, except for reflective areas, which will almost certainly blow out (which is fine!). As Michael says, knowing your subject is important.

When I'm shooting with black and white negative film, I'll be doing the exact opposite. Any areas that are pure black, or 'no' exposure, will not have any silver crystals exposed, so I can't pull anything out of them. On the other hand, it's very very unlikely that I'll blow out highlights so much that I cant burn them in somehow in the darkroom. I'm also going to be using Ansel Adam's zone system in this regard, via a $2000 light meter called a Nikon D200. I want to make sure nothing goes below the minumum EV of the film, which is about 3.5 stops either way from a middle grey with the film I use.

Although he has some strange and oftentimes annoying opinions on gear, lighting, and politics, Ken Rockwell does a bang-up job of explaining exposure. Google him. =)

As for worrying about the 'blinkies' - if you have them over large areas of the photo, yes, do worry about that. A better way is to learn to read the histogram your camera displays - if theres a bunch of lines all the way to the right, and not much in the rest of the image, you're like overexposed despite what you see on the LCD. Remember that that LCD isnt a very accurate representation of what you'll see on the computer or what you'll see in a print.

Finally, take you digital files to a reputable local lab or an online digital lab such as White House Custom Color (whcc.com) for printing. They'll do the BEST possible job and wont just run it through all the same like CostCo or Walgreens does.

Edit: Michael -read your post, I like your explanation & the assignment, I'll be doing it this weekend at Sand Dunes & will update you on my results if you'd like. (Just because I have my degree doesnt mean I shouldn't still be learning!)

 

[Michael Slade]

My bracketing assignment is also a great way to fully understand what you are doing when you make an exposure. The *extreme* bracketing is called for when you are first understanding the camera and exposure techniques for different subject matter. The goal is to make the bracket narrower and narrower (is that a phrase?), as you increase your confidence to make a correct exposure. Ultimately you shouldn't do more than a 2-3 shot bracket. I still bracket when shooting digitally after 11+ years of shooting RAW.

I don't bracket when shooting 8x20.

 

[Aspen d'Grey]

My bracketing assignment is also a great way to fully understand what you are doing when you make an exposure. The *extreme* bracketing is called for when you are first understanding the camera and exposure techniques for different subject matter. The goal is to make the bracket narrower and narrower (is that a phrase?), as you increase your confidence to make a correct exposure. Ultimately you shouldn't do more than a 2-3 shot bracket. I still bracket when shooting digitally after 11+ years of shooting RAW.

I don't bracket when shooting 8x20.

LOL! I'd hope not -- that stuff is EXPENSIVE! (Here I am lamenting being on my last package of 4x5!)

When I'm shooting digital in studio, I don't bracket or chimp - I've metered and I know what it's going to be.

When I'm shooting landscapes - yes, I still bracket, but for another reason; I want to turn a lot of these images into HDR, so I'll bracket 3, 6, or 9 frames depending on the scene.

 

[Every Miles A Memory]

Hey Ryan, Michael and Aspen are spot on, but if you dont have time to bracket each shot, I'd rather over expose a tad than under expose.

I've found that when trying to bring the exposure up after the fact, it brings out a ton of grain, but when toning it down due to over exposure, you have alot more to play with

But bracketing will always get you your shot in the long run if you have the time

 

[DiploStrat]

I've found that when trying to bring the exposure up after the fact, it brings out a ton of grain, but when toning it down due to over exposure, you have a lot more to play with

This is partly a reflection of two esoteric aspects of digital photography:

-- Fully HALF of all of your data is in the brightest single f stop of your image. The next f stop has only half as much, and so on. When you get to the shadows you have almost nothing left. Thus it is almost always better to darken an image (aka crushing a few blacks, as noted above) than to try to lighten. Crushing blacks will lose noise while brightening will add it. If you must brighten, start with exposure and then try brightness or, if your software has it, special shadow [Aperture] or fill light [Lightroom] tools which have a bit of intelligence built in. You can sometimes cheat a bit by blowing some highlights and then “recovering” a bit.

-- Unlike film, which tends to have a curve, digital hits a brick wall at both extremes. Once you hit pure white or black, there is nothing left. This puts you between the Scylla of blowouts and the Charybdis of an underexposed image.

Out of idle interest, this is sort of the reverse of digital audio where there are lots of samples in the bass range and almost none in the treble; one reason that most digital recordings actually add noise to the high end (dither) to smooth it out.

 

[Ryanmb21]

Sort of related.

In this shot I took, it was tough because there was a fog that was quickly burning off. I kind of like it, but it too "blown out"?

 

[Michael Slade]

Is it too blown out? Here's how I'll answer...

Are your tires too full?
Are your shocks to old?
Is your paint too scratched?
Are your shoes too small?

I can only tell you if I like it or not. If it's 'too' anything, that's only something YOU can decide.