Why would I intentionally over or under expose an image?

I would like to know why you would intentionally over or under expose a picture and what are some tips for taking good over/under exposed images. I'm new to photography and am trying to improve! Any tips are appreciated!

My cameras are routinely set to under expose minus .03 - helps avoid blown out highlights which I find hard to fix in post. Works for me.

I would like to know why you would intentionally over or under expose a picture...

Google 'high key' and 'low key' pictures.

My cameras are routinely set to under expose minus .03 - helps avoid blown out highlights which I find hard to fix in post. Works for me.

 

Hiya Sandy -

 

The OP is a new member and perhaps s/he chose the incorrect Sub Forum - "Film and Processing"?

 

OP: clarification concerning your question - are you referring to FILM as the medium?

If yes, then it will assist further, do you mean B&W film only?

 

Thanks,

 

WW

In the case of film, the usual reason for underexposing is that it is dark, you have to hand hold,

and that is as slow a shutter speed as you believe you can hold. This is especially true

in museums that don't allow flash. Maybe one stop underexposed is better than proper

exposure with too much camera motion. Maybe a few tries, and choose the best.

 

Many negative films do better with just a little overexposure. When you have

plenty of light, it sometimes helps to expose a little more.

Normal exposure typically averages a scene to 13-18% of a gray card, but if you have blacks which you truly want black you may need to underexpose by 1/3-1 stop, and the reverse is true for white snow in sunlight. A good read for you is "Light, Science, and Magic", which discusses the issues in exposure in great detail and can help you make informed decisions regarding exposure. You can often find it for sale at Amazon.

If the exposure is what I want/need to best portray something, it's neither over or underexposed!

If the exposure is what I want/need to best portray something, it's neither over or underexposed!

 

Yes agree - furthermore - many Photographic terms can have different context meanings: I think "exposure" and "correct exposure" certainly fall into that category. This comment certainly shows that.

 

WW

By under or over exposing, I take this to mean changing the aperture being set by an auto exposure camera, typically by dialling in exposure compensation. The issue being, how does the camera set the exposure in the first place? Centre weighted, spot or matrix metering all have their advantages and disadvantages.

 

I typically under expose by 0.7 or one stop when doing flower photography. The flower itself is often small in the frame, and light in tone, and can easily get burnt out. Also as stated, if you are struggling for shutter speed, underexposing gives you a little extra speed. The risk being introducing noise into dark areas if adjusting exposure in post processing.

 

The reason often given for over exposing is the mantra “expose to the right”. That is, keep the histogram as far as possible to the to the right without blowing the highlights. It's not my practice however.

By under or over exposing, I take this to mean changing the aperture being set by an auto exposure camera, typically by dialling in exposure compensation. . .

 

I reckon that's what the OP means, too: but we don't know for certain until s/he returns to clarify a few points, so we might be better placed to assist in "trying to improve!"

WW

With film, you can often get into a situation where some photographers prefer the rendition that slight over or underexposure of a particular film stock gives.

 

A really common one is exposing Velvia/Velvia 50 at 40, something which you will find arguments for and against.

By under or over exposing, I take this to mean changing the aperture being set by an auto exposure camera, typically by dialling in exposure compensation. The issue being, how does the camera set the exposure in the first place? Centre weighted, spot or matrix metering all have their advantages and disadvantages.

 

(snip)

 

I suppose so, but I believe it could even apply to a manual exposure setting camera, with either

built-in or external light meter. That is, back to the beginning of the use of light meters.

 

Some might say that it should also include corrections for known conditions, such as

snow or other unusually light or dark backgrounds.

 

Even after those corrections, you still might want to underexpose or overexpose for

some other reason.

In its heyday, Kodachrome was often slightly underexposed (Kodachrome 64 at E.I. 80 for example) to increase saturation. With high saturation films like Velvia this practice was usually not needed.

With regards to film, particularly sheet film, over/under exposure may be determined by the contrast of the scene being photographed. Over-exposing and under-developing will boost the contrast of a flat scene whereas under-exposing and over-developing will increase the apparent contrast. I mention sheet film above as I assume most people now are probably not going to shoot an entire 36 exposure role all under the same conditions.

With regards to film, particularly sheet film, over/under exposure may be determined by the contrast of the scene being photographed. Over-exposing and under-developing will boost the contrast of a flat scene whereas under-exposing and over-developing will increase the apparent contrast. I mention sheet film above as I assume most people now are probably not going to shoot an entire 36 exposure role all under the same conditions.

 

It CAN happen, although I doubt it's super common these days.

 

One of the immediate ones that comes to mind when I use to routinely do this-about 15 years ago(mid-2000s) my church built a new fellowship hall. It's a big, spacious room with a beautiful view out the westward-facing nearly full height windows.

 

I've taken a lot of photos in that room, and at any time during the day(but especially the afternoon/early evening) it can be challenging to handle the extreme amount of contrast on a person's face of course depending on where they are located. Back to the windows or facing the windows are one thing(facing is easiest since they're nicely front-illuminated, while back to the window is strongly backlit). Perpendicular leaves you with one side of their face nearly in daylight, and the other side basically at room light. Flash would be the best option, but the ceiling is too high to bounce and the far wall can be too far away. So, consequently, I use to routinely rate Tri-X at 100 to take advantage of the much reduced contrast. Color negative would have been even better, except that mixed daylight and fluorescent makes for an interesting mix of color on your negatives.

It CAN happen, although I doubt it's super common these days.

 

(snip)

 

Color negative would have been even better, except that mixed daylight and fluorescent makes for an interesting mix of color on your negatives.

 

XP2. The contrast of color negatives (and chemistry, too), but the spectral sensitivity of black and white.

My cameras are routinely set to under expose minus .03 - helps avoid blown out highlights which I find hard to fix in post. Works for me.

Google 'high key' and 'low key' pictures.

Google 'high key' and 'low key' pictures.

Thanks! Will do!

Hiya Sandy -

 

The OP is a new member and perhaps s/he chose the incorrect Sub Forum - "Film and Processing"?

 

OP: clarification concerning your question - are you referring to FILM as the medium?

If yes, then it will assist further, do you mean B&W film only?

 

Thanks,

 

WW

Yes I am referring to black and white pictures. I am in a photography class where we are learning how to process and print film

In the case of film, the usual reason for underexposing is that it is dark, you have to hand hold,

and that is as slow a shutter speed as you believe you can hold. This is especially true

in museums that don't allow flash. Maybe one stop underexposed is better than proper

exposure with too much camera motion. Maybe a few tries, and choose the best.

 

Many negative films do better with just a little overexposure. When you have

plenty of light, it sometimes helps to expose a little more.

very Helpful! thank you!

Normal exposure typically averages a scene to 13-18% of a gray card, but if you have blacks which you truly want black you may need to underexpose by 1/3-1 stop, and the reverse is true for white snow in sunlight. A good read for you is "Light, Science, and Magic", which discusses the issues in exposure in great detail and can help you make informed decisions regarding exposure. You can often find it for sale at Amazon.

Ill make sure to look it up!

By under or over exposing, I take this to mean changing the aperture being set by an auto exposure camera, typically by dialling in exposure compensation. The issue being, how does the camera set the exposure in the first place? Centre weighted, spot or matrix metering all have their advantages and disadvantages.

 

I typically under expose by 0.7 or one stop when doing flower photography. The flower itself is often small in the frame, and light in tone, and can easily get burnt out. Also as stated, if you are struggling for shutter speed, underexposing gives you a little extra speed. The risk being introducing noise into dark areas if adjusting exposure in post processing.

 

The reason often given for over exposing is the mantra “expose to the right”. That is, keep the histogram as far as possible to the to the right without blowing the highlights. It's not my practice however.

Thanks for the reply!

I reckon that's what the OP means, too: but we don't know for certain until s/he returns to clarify a few points, so we might be better placed to assist in "trying to improve!"

WW

Yes that is what i meant. Im still pretty new so im not doing anything advanced. sorry for the late replies, I didnt think id get such quick responses.

I do not over or under expose an image. I do increase or decrease the exposure from what the meter recommended to get the right exposure.

I do not over or under expose an image. I do increase or decrease the exposure from what the meter recommended to get the right exposure.

 

I suppose so, but there are a lot of assumptions in doing that.

 

One is that you know a "right" exposure, even when the meter doesn't.

Unusually light or dark background that can fool a meter, or when there are light sources

in the field of view for the meter to read. In that case, I agree.

 

Often, though, there is a range of what might be "right".

Negative films have a lot of latitude. When the subject is brightly lit, one can use some of

that latitude by increasing the exposure. Is that new exposure more "right" or less?

I tend to round up with negative films, but don't consider that it is more "right".

 

ISO ratings, and ASA before, include one stop of safety margin.

That can be useful against all the possible reasons for underexposure, including lighting

conditions that fool meters, simple cameras without adjustments, when you don't have

a meter, when your meter gives the wrong value, or when it is too dark to hand-hold

the desired exposure. I consider those underexposure.

 

If I know that I am using the safety margin, underexposing one stop, I don't tell myself

that it is the right exposure, but instead that I am underexposing and hoping for the best.

(That mostly happens in museums that don't allow flash.)

 

When you bracket exposure, you hope one is right, and the others are either over or under

exposed. I rarely do it, but if I do, it is because I don't know which one is right.

(I suspect that makes me an exposure optimist.)

 

Reminds me of when we used to live near Washington D.C., and my father would point

out the flashes coming from the Washington monument at night, people hoping for

a good picture of the city!

I suppose so, but there are a lot of assumptions in doing that.

 

One is that you know a "right" exposure, even when the meter doesn't.

Unusually light or dark background that can fool a meter, or when there are light sources

in the field of view for the meter to read. In that case, I agree.

 

Often, though, there is a range of what might be "right".

Negative films have a lot of latitude. When the subject is brightly lit, one can use some of

that latitude by increasing the exposure. Is that new exposure more "right" or less?

I tend to round up with negative films, but don't consider that it is more "right".

 

ISO ratings, and ASA before, include one stop of safety margin.

That can be useful against all the possible reasons for underexposure, including lighting

conditions that fool meters, simple cameras without adjustments, when you don't have

a meter, when your meter gives the wrong value, or when it is too dark to hand-hold

the desired exposure. I consider those underexposure.

 

If I know that I am using the safety margin, underexposing one stop, I don't tell myself

that it is the right exposure, but instead that I am underexposing and hoping for the best.

(That mostly happens in museums that don't allow flash.)

 

When you bracket exposure, you hope one is right, and the others are either over or under

exposed. I rarely do it, but if I do, it is because I don't know which one is right.

(I suspect that makes me an exposure optimist.)

 

Reminds me of when we used to live near Washington D.C., and my father would point

out the flashes coming from the Washington monument at night, people hoping for

a good picture of the city!

 

I rarely making assumptions. I consult the manufacturer's characteristic curve then confirm by doing test. Then I can expose a given area of the image to get certain density on the negative (or slide ).. Of course I do make mistakes but never intentionally over or under expose the film.