Exposure

Speaking just for myself, learn the basics of correct exposure first and what happens when you under or overexpose. Going beyond that would depend on what you are trying to do and there are several variables. If you are shooting digital the simplest solution is to expose properly in RAW and work it from there. With film it is more critical to expose correctly as you won’t have as many options in a darkroom as you do on a digital file.

Rick H.

what is your personal method for avoiding under or over exposure

Use a meter!

With its recommendation modified by experience.

...sometimes do you think it's better to have a photograph over or under exposed for any certain type of effect?

Under or over exposure is relative. The correct exposure is the one that gives the effect you're after.

Incident metering nearly always gives a better 'baseline' exposure to work from than a reflective reading.

I strongly suggest you experiment using a digital camera in manual mode. This is a near cost-free way to try things out - not just exposure variations. Photography falls into the category of 'experiential learning' where you need near-instant feedback in order to modify behaviours/skills. A bit like learning to juggle or ride a bicycle.

Under or over exposure is relative. The correct exposure is the one that gives the effect you're after.

Exactly.

sometimes do you think it's better to have a photograph over or under exposed for any certain type of effect?

Many times. Let's say one of most common:

Think on any image, say a farmhouse this type under strong, direct sunlight and deep shadows. The automatic meter in your camera choose a "correct" exposure.

But you know the shadow will be too dark in the print (too thin, almost no detail in the film), and you want a little more detail in the shadowed wall.

So you may want to overexpose a bit (to get more densities on the film). Shadow detail and clarity will be higher on the print.

You have then overexposed your photo, but the shadowed areas are perfectly exposed for you.

The highlighted areas on your image too much dense (dark) the film, maybe too weak or bright on the image. They are overexposed.

So you know your photo has been overexposed.

--

(To have the right image on film, you should then underdevelop the film (to keep it less time than "normal" in the developer, in order to avoid too much density on the highlights, but this is another topic... -although closely and inevitably related with film exposure-).

Oops... something failed, "The highlighted areas on your image too much dense (dark) the film, maybe too weak or bright on the image... ".

I wanted to mean: "The highlighted areas on your image will be too much dense (dark) on the film, so maybe too much weak or bright on the print... "

image will be too much dense (dark) on the film...

Film!

An absolutely ridiculous medium for someone that declares themselves "super new to photography" to be learning with.

Like learning to juggle with objects that stay floating in the air for a few days before falling back down - and after being randomly tampered with by someone else while up there.

As a person who has mentored several people just starting in film photography (ongoing), I go with Joe's thinking. It is insane trying to change the logic patterns of people about the various film related subjects one needs to imprint on the little grey cells. Most young people of today are living MTV, dna altered, lives. I believe it is termed "Instant Gratification " Since low priced digital cameras with controls are widely available, the effect of over / under exposure "pops" in their brains almost instantly. They do not care about Jpg vrs Raw, noise, etc., they just see an image and can compare the difference.

Once you lead this person into the SEEING part of photography, then EZ them into the Techno aspects of our various mechanical creations and their related results. . the need to process the film and finally, The Print, be it outsourced or in house (scanned) and the computer work up.

K.I.S.S. is still a good talking point.. Aloha, Bill

Sorry guys, can't agree with you. I managed to learn using film and I suspect both of you did as well. Digital wasn't even a pipe dream in those days. We had to learn it if we wanted to get anywhere. That it took more work and time was a good thing and still is. Instant gratification is certainly an issue now and I see no reason to support it while trying to teach or learn something about photography. If that's all anyone wants then I guess their I phone will keep them happy. If one wants to learn how it works and how to achieve one or another effect like shallow depth of field and so on then do the work!

Rick H.

I believe it is termed "Instant Gratification "

Sorry, but using the best teaching tool for the job has nothing to do with "instant gratification" - the more appropriate term when using a digital camera to teach photographic basics is "instant feedback". Use the right tool for the job - direct access to a histogram sure beats having to cope with Adams' zone system. Not that the latter is something I would attempt to teach someone who just gets their feet wet in photography.

If I were to take a photography class today and the teacher would start with film, I'd run and find one that has moved on into the twenty-first century. Just because I had to start with a slide rule and logarithm tables doesn't mean anyone today has to do the same.

I managed to learn using film....

The key word here is "managed", and what's omitted is "because there was nothing better available at the time."

Can you immediately see the effect of a shutter speed change using film? No!

Or immediately see how aperture affects depth-of-field? No!

Appreciate how tones are transformed from real life to a two dimensional and tone-compressed image? No!

It has nothing to do with instant "gratification" (like that's a bad thing anyway) and everything to do with learning in the most efficient manner.

This whole attitude against digital is like something out of a comedy sketch - "Eeee. If it were good enough for me, and me father afore me, and his father afore him, why then it ought to be plenty good enough for thee. Eat thy gruel an' be grateful!"

This whole attitude against digital is like something out of a comedy sketch - "Eeee. If it were good enough for me, and me father afore me, and his father afore him, why then it ought to be plenty good enough for thee. Eat thy gruel an' be grateful!"

Uhm... This thread contained nothing of the sort, but someone posted a comment "Film! An absolutely ridiculous medium" and the, no, your comedy show took off from there.

No. This is where the comedy started:

(To have the right image on film, you should then underdevelop the film (to keep it less time than "normal" in the developer, in order to avoid too much density on the highlights...

That's absolute gobble-de-gook to a complete beginner, and makes little sense to anyone else that doesn't use sheet film that can be individually developed.

Well, that's an opinion.

I agree that the time it takes between exposure decision and the time you get to see the result is not helpful. But the fact that you get to do things in between that also shape the result is something digital cannot provide.

Is it gobble-de-gook? I do not think so. It's part of the knowledge to be acquired. You do not learn anything when only presented with things that are not new and do not present a challenge to master.

Indeed, it would help if you could develop each frame individually. So ideally, you learn things using a view camera (good for learning a bit about focus and perspective too) and sheet film.

It in particular is advice that is applicable to roll film as well. I routinely did that. SOP: standard operating procedure.

Is film and absolutely ridiculous medium? Not for someone wanting to learn about exposure. Not as a medium in general.

And that suggestion is where the comedy really started.

I do agree with your metering recommendations. Both that incident metering provides the best starting point and that you have to learn and build up experience.

The trouble with using film to learn exposure, aside from the problems designated above, people look at the prints they get back and not at the film itself. A printer analyzer may see a dark underexposed frame and print it lighter so it looks better. If one didn't look at the film, one would think that it was a good exposure taken. I once took several shots of surfers near the beach. All shots were manual and the settings were all the same determined by an incident light meter. The frames were all of the same density on the film but In shots where there was a lot of white water the photo would be very dark because the analyzer was "fooled" by all the white in the frame and printed the photo darker to "compensate." Looking at the print, one would think that it had been underexposed.

And, most people just look at the print. I don't know how many time I have told people to look at the film when they ask a question about something that looks wrong and they are just looking at and posting an image of the photo.

This may be of interest:

http://jdainis.com/film_expos.html

But the fact that you get to do things in between that also shape the result is something digital cannot provide.

Care to elaborate?

Care to elaborate?

Sure. As you know, before you get to see the result of your decision how to expose a frame, you have to process the film (many variables there, including what film to use to begin with). You select a paper and paper grade, determine how to expose that, using what type of light. Dodge, burn, split grade, etc. How to process the paper (not a lot of choice, except what developer to use. Unless, of course, you're not going the silverbromide paper route).

That sort of stuff.

Yes, digital allows post processing. But that's in post. No instant learning tool either.

No headaches from noxious fumes or itchy and stained fingers, though. I like digital. I also appreciate film.

The trouble with using film to learn exposure, aside from the problems designated above, people look at the prints they get back and not at the film itself. A printer analyzer may see a dark underexposed frame and print it lighter so it looks better. If one didn't look at the film, one would think that it was a good exposure taken. I once took several shots of surfers near the beach. All shots were manual and the settings were all the same determined by an incident light meter. The frames were all of the same density on the film but In shots where there was a lot of white water the photo would be very dark because the analyzer was "fooled" by all the white in the frame and printed the photo darker to "compensate." Looking at the print, one would think that it had been underexposed.

 

And, most people just look at the print. I don't know how many time I have told people to look at the film when they ask a question about something that looks wrong and they are just looking at and posting an image of the photo.

 

This may be of interest:

 

http://jdainis.com/film_expos.html

What you say about analyzers is true. Such a thing is just a light meter, and as with meters used to analyse the original scene, you can't 'just' use such a thing and expect good results. You have to learn how they work and how to use them. Your example is just that old black cat in the snow or in the coalshed thing that is part of metering 1.0.1 literature.

I don't think it is an obstacle. It shouldn't be. If one knows how to use a meter, one will know how to use one on the printing stage. If not, it will be an extra lesson.

Which is: do not blindly follow a meter that averages an entire scene.

Joe as much as I enjoy film and as much as I learned using it I have nothing against digital, I use it all the time. I find it a bit boring at times but it has its uses and on occasion makes life easier. Then again I once made the mistake of using an older generation card reader to download a large card. It took 15 hours. Had I been under a deadline there would have been a problem.

Rick H.

Yes, digital allows post processing. But that's in post.

you have to process the film

I would submit that film development and most certainly creating print is also post-processing. Unless I shoot JPEG, I "develop" a RAW file almost exactly equivalent to like I would film - lot's of parameters to consider and optimize. Starting with the "correct" exposure of a RAW file - which quite often can deviate from the exposure chosen from the "SOOC" school: quite overexposed and then "underdevelopment" on the computer. Helps keeping noise in check and allows for all the selective adjustments that you mention - before you ever think about creating a print.

I like digital. I also appreciate film.

+1 on the first.

I have forgotten that film even exists.

I enjoy film and as much as I learned using it I have nothing against digital, I use it all the time. I find it a bit boring at times but it has its uses and on occasion makes life easier

In all likelihood I would no longer photograph at all had digital not come along - I had grown to quite dislike dealing with the shortcomings of film.

Surely photography is about the vision - getting what you see in your head into a form that you can present to other people?

Not about learning chemical process control.

Not about fondling cameras and admiring their workmanship.

Not about spending time in dark smelly rooms.

Not about fumbling about in a cloth bag trying to push a bit of curly plastic into a slot.

Certainly not about giving over control of the final image to someone, or some machine that couldn't care less about the result.

In short: Not about being distracted into learning skills that have absolutely nothing to do with said transference of vision.

Learn about lighting, composition, perspective, the power of symbolism, how to focus attention on and isolate a subject, and all the rest of the stuff that the viewer of the result will actually see. Because they won't give a damn about the process that was used to get there.

Those skills, Cowboy, are the things that allow us to get exactly what we want, instead of making do what a lab produces after we hand in the film or with whatever the 'engine' of a dslr does to produce the jpeg we find on our memory card.

Those skills are all about getting what you envisioned. It, Rodeo Clown, is again a comical diversion to suggest they have nothing to do at all with that.

But you apparently just have to wish for something to have it be. I will mail a list to you of things you may wish for me. Hope you will oblige.

You cannot get exactly what you want unless you either find the above happens to be exactly what you want, or spend considerable time applying a multitude of skills. Film and digital do not differ in this at all.

Joe , you just listed every reason I only (well almost always) use film :) . I couldn't have envisioned a better list .

It kinda puts a smile on my face ! Thanks , Peter

Hi @brizzybunny, great question! With a couple of 'keywords' to use in google searches - see my suggestions underneath - you can find a wealth of tutorials (on Youtube and in text articles) on all aspects of managing exposure and using this creatively. The best ones gives examples of 'correct exposure' and over- and under exposure (explaining why). If you have access to a library, the photography section will undoubtedly contains some basic photography books explaining how to manage exposure to get the effect you want (usually correctly exposed photos).

Compared to many other photo-sharing and discussion websites (Flickr, 500px, Photocrowd, etc.), Photonet (PN)has a relatively high percentage of members who prefer to use (classic) film cameras rather than digital ones. This is reflected in the forum topics, discussion threads, and some responses to your question. As sometimes happens, the thread has (IMHO) degenerated into a ‘talk amongst ourselves’, mostly about film photography.

I’m an exclusively digital photographer. I do understand that film - as a medium - reacts differently to variations in light than a digital sensor does. But I can only respond from my experience as a digital photographer.

I fully agree with @Rick Helmke that learning to take ‘correct exposures’ is a fundamental learning goal for all beginning photographers. Once you’ve mastered this, you might want to learn more how you could tweak your exposure settings to make more ‘creative photos’.

My number 1 tip is to learn more about - and fully internalize - the concept of the ‘

My number 2 tip is to learn more about how digital cameras measure light and expose for this and also about the 2 main options you have for adjusting this:

- adjusting the light-metering mode (where in the frame does a digital camera measure light and how much weight does the camera place on measurements in different areas in determining what a ‘correct exposure’ is?)

- dialing in ‘exposure compensation’ to manually adjust the camera’s ‘correct exposure’ reading to get a brighter or darker exposure that the one based on the camera’s automatic light metering

My third tip is to learn how to correct and adjust the exposure (within certain limits) when post-processing (RAW) digital images.

Some Google search terms:

exposure triangle

exposure

aperture

shutter speed

ISO

Light metering

Metering modes

exposure compensation

correcting exposure post-processing

RAW images

Depth of field

Motion

As this previous linked

I almost always shoot photos in a 'semi-automatic mode'. This means that my starting point for exposure settings is based on the type of scene I photograph. Because I usually photography people, I usually dial in a wide aperture setting so that the subject(s) are more sharply in focus than the background in the photo. This makes them 'stand out' from the background. I set my ISO as low as possible while making sure that my shutter speed (determined by my camera) stays fast enough to avoid any 'motion blur by my subjects or myself. I not, then I increase my ISO.

When taking 'sport/action shots' my subjects are fast-moving so a fast shutter speed becomes my main priority. I normally want a fast shutter speed to 'freeze' the motion. Everything else is secondary. So I dial in a fast shutter speed with the lowest ISO that allows me to do this. But I also keep an eye on the aperture to make sure that I have sufficient 'depth of field' (aperture) for the shot that I want. I adjust the ISO as necessary. The most challenging shots are action shots in low-light (indoor) situations. Often the only solution is often to increase the light sensitivity of my sensor by bumping up my ISO, knowing that I'll need to digitally reduce the resulting 'noise' in these photos in post-processing.

For any 'photo-shoot', I review and rate my photos in Adobe Lightroom, giving some forethought to potential post-processing (cropping, exposure adjustments, adjusting clarity and color vibrance, etc.) Based on my initial rating, I select the most highly rated and post-process these by cropping, adjusting exposure, clarity, vibrance, etc. In my (amateur) photography, 'shots as taken' are just the raw materials for creating 'photos' in post-processing. Not everything can be 'fixed in PP. So even with all the PP-options available, the quality of the 'shots taken' determine the quality of the photos produced in post-processing.

I hope you have a truly inspiring 1st semester! The field of photography (from informal to sport/news to documentary to artform) is vast. The same applies to videography.

Best wishes,

Mike

In the case of film, we knew we had to learn about exposure.

To know which situations the meter tends to get wrong, and which right.

Most important is wanting to learn, either with film or digital.

This thing about digital is it is so easy to go making lots of shots, hoping that enough will turn out.

That isn't the way to learn, though. You have to actually have some thoughts about each scene.

For both film and digital, scenes with some bright spots and some shadows will be harder.

With practice, we learn which ones they are and how to expose for them. But you have to

want to learn.

When all we had was averaging meters, we learned what might fool the meter.

We learned to approximate the exposure, even without a meter. (Human vision is good at

adapting to low light, so it isn't so easy to know when a scene is too dark.)

The little screen on the back of the camera isn't always good enough to tell how

well exposed a shot is. Most don't read the histogram, and even when you do, it isn't

so easy to know what it means.

Even more, though, film and digital are different. Learning to expose one correctly

isn't quite the same as the other.

Hello, I'm super new to photography. I'm taking my first ever class for this semester. I wanted to ask the more seasoned photographers here what is your personal method for avoiding under or over exposure, and sometimes do you think it's better to have a photograph over or under exposed for any certain type of effect?

Do you have to use film for your class? If so ask the instructor. He may not be right but he is one who is supposed to teach you. You paid him didn't you?