Exposure Help Needed

Discussion in 'Beginner Questions' started by arlingtonbeech, May 20, 2022.

  1. Thanks for your comment BeBu Lamar
  2. Ken Katz - thanks for your input. I agree that the subject required more light. Im also sure that the IDX M2 would have been able to handle the dynamic range required. THanks again
  3. Arlingtonbeech,

    I think this thread may have led you astray.

    I finally saved your image and read it into Photoshop. You don't have room to expose more. The thin white circles have luminosity values up to 96 (out of 100), so if you exposed much more, you'd blow them out. The face is darker than you would want, but the luminosity values are fine, mostly ranging from the mid 30s to the 40s and even 50s. There is plenty of detail there.

    I think the solution is a simple dodge and burn, using a technique like the one I described, not a change in the exposure. For example, here is a quick and dirty edit, with a substantial brightening of the face and some darkening of the background.


    arlingtonbeech likes this.
  4. And just what helpful advice have you offered to the OP Sam?

    This is the beginner forum.
    We shouldn't expect posters to know all the tips & tricks of post processing.
  5. Indeed. Hence my initially simple post--dodge and burn. For a beginner, getting the simple advice to dodge and burn may be more helpful than detailed explanation of a complex method for doing so, like the one I gave in response to your criticism.

    I don't think anyone here was "expecting [the OP] to know all the tips & tricks of post processing". Exactly the opposite: several of us were offering suggestions on the assumption that the OP doesn't yet know these tricks.

    and if avoiding complexity is your goal, let me remind you of part of your response to my simple suggestion that the OP dodge and burn:

    I'm not going to respond further, as I don't see the value in continuing a gratuitous argument that is a distraction from the help the OP asked for.
  6. It wasn't meant as a criticism. Just an expansion on your advice to dodge or burn. I apologise if it seemed that way.
    And neither was it meant as a means of self-aggrandisement, or belittling of your post. That sub-text has been added by yourself and a certain other wooden-spoon bearer.

    Can we not pass on our hard-learned knowledge without it being seen as an ego trip by other members?

    So now the OP has been offered details of at least two different ways to achieve the lightening of shadows or darkening of highlights. Isn't that what a beginners forum should be about? Advice and instruction - complex or otherwise. Since avoiding complexity could easily be seen as being patronising.
    Tony Parsons likes this.
  7. I would like to thank you all for contributing to this post. As a newbie on the platform it can be quite daunting to show your inexperience in matters of photography. This post, was not that. I found you all to be helpful as it affirmed my belief that with flash being permitted, I gave more credence in terms of exposure - to the background and its logo for the sponsors - and not exposed for the speakers. Thanks to your sound advice this won't happen again. What I love about photography is the continous learning it requires. Thanks again all for sharing your expertise - Arlington
  8. In the days of film, and especially averaging (over the whole scene) light meters,
    we were good at watching for backlit subjects.

    Spot metering (on the actual subject) and matrix metering are better.

    Looking at the picture, though, the bright background attracts
    my eye much more than the subject. That is true, even if there
    is enough dynamic range for the whole scene.

    So, yes, maybe some dodging would help.
  9. The back lighting will fool the exposure meter and the face will be darker. One trick is get the meter to split the difference, in other wards if on a digital camera use the tightest spot you have and get your exposure so there is some detail in the face, yet the background isn't totally blown out. You will then have to work it out in post by bringing up the tones in the face and body, and lowering the brightness/exposure in the background. Kind of a do-it-yourself HDR. But unless you are allowed to use flash, it's kind of what you have to do, especially if the background is a significant portion of the frame. It's easier when the subject takes up most of the frame at the time of exposure.
  10. WIDE dynamic range is hard to handle.
    Sometimes you will be reduced to what do you want more the background or the speaker/subject.
    When in doubt, take different exposures, and decide when you get home on the computer.

    As was said, a flash would have been a good addition in this case.
    BUT you got to watch out for the shadow and red-eye. Especially red-eye. yuk. A flash is not a silver bullet.

    While matrix meters are neat and do a great job, they can still be fooled by both dark and bright background.
    I have lots of shots where the matrix meter failed to deal with the lighting of the scene, and I had an over or under exposed subject.

    The more you shoot, the more you learn. Keep good notes.
    Next time use a flash, and see what you learn.
  11. How true.... There were some Dilbert cartoons on this character.

Share This Page