bud shot exposure test

[L33t]

Hello h0meGRwN,

Nice input

first off are you using a flash when shooting?

even beeing a 1/2 stop underexposed can create problems resulting in colorshift, added grain noise etc..

I haven't seen any problems of color shifting when changing f-stop to underexpose neither have seen added grain.Of course I don't refer to low light conditions where you need to compensate with higher ISO (which always means more noise n grain)or longer shutter speed. But I refer to the case where you can use more light to keep the same ISO and shutter speed, just change the f-stop , or when you have lots of light like when outdoors with sunlight.

your exposure isnt totaly determined to your aperture. all that aperture is letting you do is have more depth of field the smaller you go (larger f/stop). it's a matter of what you want to show or what you'd like to have sharp in you image. at f/36 if thats the maximum aperture you can achieve on that given lense then it means you're whole frame will be sharp cornre to diagonal corner .

You re right but don't forget that most lenses are not very sharp / have lower resolution at their higher f-stops (and most lenses at lower f-stops as well). So even though you may have better depth of field (more things in focus) most of the times you don't get better overall results compared to lower f-stops like f-16 or f-22 instead of f-32 due to blurring/less resolution. For example most lenses have their best resolution at around f-4 - f-8 depending on how 'fast' a lens is of course.And dont forget that in higher than 1:1 magnifications (where we use extensions most of the times:extension tubes / bellows) the 'effective f-stop' is different to what we ve set the lens ('marked f-stop') Also we get better results with medium f-stops not extremes due to diffraction and longer exposure times/higher ISO..

another factor is , is it a high key or low key scenerio . in the example above that would be considered a low key scenerio. so keying in on your whites wouldnt be th greatest way to get detail out of it, you'll just end up blowing out your highlights if you meter for your whites , you'll also loose detail in the shadow and mid tones.

if it's for the web i'd go till you just blow your whites over 1/3 of a stop. computer screens will alway be more sharp then a print and thefore having a true white is ideal for view.

if its for printing you should check with your histogram and make sure you're not blowing out your whites way too much. and check with your lab and comp screen after getting a print to see if its the same on screen as in print. every lab is different.

Generally I 'd say if you work with raw format , always underexpose just a bit even if you mean to post the images online only , just to make sure you don't get burned/overblown highlights, cause you can't recover details in overexposed highlight areas, while with shadows its easier to recover the details in the dark areas as most DSLR cams have better high dynamic range compared to most films/slide film.The best thing to do is avoid extreme contrast in your scene so you dont have problems with exposure and lost detail.A way to do this is to use 'reflector cards' photographers use and/or 'light diffusers' .


By the way I was wondering has anyone of you tried to make any HDR format images and tonemap them afterwards to make the image into a LowDynamicRange one (so its more pleasing and natural looking to the eye) ? I ve done a few and have seen another ICmag member has done it as well.Its good approach but I prefer to just make sure I have good lighting from the start to get a good pic straight from the cam. Or at least minimize the post editing and correction process time.