do you shoot for the perfect histogram every time?

[danzel_c]

<p>just wondering, since up to 1 stop under or over exposed is easily correctable in PS, LR, etc, do you shoot for the perfect histogram? or is there a tolerable amount of under or over exposure you accept for the sake of moving on, especially during a time like the formals when time is usually of the essence. </p>

[joshroot]

<p>Of course, the goal is to get everything right at the moment you shoot it. That having been said...</p>

<p>Formals, for me, were always the aspect of the wedding that afforded the MOST time to check histograms and make sure things were correct. I was far more likely to be picky about exposure during the formals than I was during any other time. Ceremony, reception, candids, etc, those moments don't come back and I'd rather have to fiddle in PS a bit to correct things than to miss the right "moment".</p>

<p>But that's just me and the style of images that I shoot (well, used to shoot). Your experience may differ significantly.</p>

[danzel_c]

<p>good point josh. i usually take a few take test shots before i ever pose them for the picture to try and get exposure right the first time. but there are those instances where the sun goes in and out of clouds which i had a few weeks ago. and we were rushed as heck because the wedding started an hour late. and i was told if i took longer than 5 minutes i would be paying the overtime cost for the limo. how perfect do you try and get the histogram then? to me in that situation, slightly under or over was acceptable because that's easily correctable in LR.</p>

[danzel_c]

<p>the wedding i shoot always seem to run a half hour to an hour late and the formals is where they normally shave time to try and get things back on track...</p>

[joshroot]

<blockquote>

<p>to me in that situation, slightly under or over was acceptable because that's easily correctable in LR.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>In a situation like that, always go under. Blown highlights are much harder to correct that dark shadows.</p>

<p>But yes, that sort of thing is going to come up from time to time. And it is, in large part, what professional photographers are paid to handle. Most any fool with a decent camera and half a semester of composition can come up with a decent photo when the conditions are perfect. The professional can come up with great photos when the conditions are far less than perfect.</p>

<p>As I say though, I would much rather be a little under exposed than over exposed.</p>

[art_tatum]

<p>What is a histogram?</p>

[mendel_leisk]

<p>I'm not sure about the expression "perfect histogram" anyway: I'd say get the main subject exposure right, and let the extremes fall off the ends as it happens.</p>

<p>I guess I'm thinking of situations with bright windows in the background, for instance. I'll often just set exposure manually in such situations, so autometering is not shifting exposure all over the place, depending on how much window is in the frame.</p>

<p>BTW, I'm absolutely not in wedding photography, but exposure is exposure ;)</p>

[picturesque]

<p>The perfect histogram is pretty rare. I have near perfect histograms for flash formals, but I still touch some up by 1/3 stop. Just flash recycling variables. The rest of the time, I still try but, of course, accept under and over, particularly when following action, needing to move on, as you say, or in difficult lighting situations, such as changing light. Controlled shots done in constant, even shade are usually pretty perfect.</p>

<p>For changing light, I meter both stituations--darkest and lightest, and change shutter speed as I go if using off camera flash, and or aperture or ISO. I don't lean toward underexposure necessarily, either. I'd rather have a bit of overexposure than under, for the sake of noise.</p>

[john_deerfield]

<p>Every situation is going to be just a little different. If I am shooting groups outside with a 5-minute timeline, the camera is going in Program mode and away I go.</p>

 

<blockquote>

<p>In a situation like that, always go under. Blown highlights are much harder to correct that dark shadows</p>

 

</blockquote>

<p>If shooting JPEG, yes. If shooting Raw, I would disagree. Especially as it relates to the shadows:</p>

<p>http://www.digitalphotopro.com/technique/camera-technique/exposing-for-raw.html</p>

 

[joshroot]

<blockquote>

<p>If shooting JPEG, yes. If shooting Raw, I would disagree. Especially as it relates to the shadows:<br>

<a rel="nofollow" href="http://www.digitalphotopro.com/technique/camera-technique/exposing-for-raw.html" target="_blank">http://www.digitalphotopro.com/technique/camera-technique/exposing-for-raw.html</a></p>

</blockquote>

<p>The whole ETTR thing is pretty contentious and full of differing opinions. Suffice to say that the advice I gave is based on my own experience processing my files using the methods I use. Other's experience may, and probably will, differ.</p>

[neilambrose]

No such thing as a perfect histogram. It's only perfect if it gives you the shot you wanted. A histogram that is balanced with

tones spread evenly between light and dark could actually end up being a very boring picture, depending on what you're

photographing.

 

I choose my exposures for the effect I want, rather than for the shape of the histogram. Sometimes this means deliberately

moving away from an average exposure.

[david_schilling___chicago_]

<p>Unless I am deliberately looking to blow-out some areas, I always shoot to avoid clipping any whites unless they are actual light sources or highly reflective sources of light. I don't believe that over-exposing by a full stop is easily correctable in post so I'll err on the side of slightly under-exposing and then bring it up in post.</p>

<p>The most common deficits that I see from many shooters isn't actual exposure problems but the lack of lighting and light modification at the time of capture.</p>

[john_tran14]

<p>Since you can do a lot of posing in wedding and social events, maybe you can get a "perfect" histogram (or whatever histogram you want). And then what? will you print the histograms and give them to your clients? are those histograms what they want for their memories?</p>

[picturesque]

<p>OK folks, we all know that perfection in histograms isn't the goal of wedding photography. There are a lot of other things we need to be concerned about. I think it is obvious from Danzel's description that he is talking about exposure. We don't need to re-hash the definition of a histogram to get that.</p>

<p>I can say, though, that digital capture allows more leeway in exposure at the time of capture, and allows deliberate under or overexposure with post processing manipulation in mind. With film, I never thought that way. Manipulation with color negative film is fairly narrow, so (with negative film) shadow exposure had to be there or you didn't get detail in the shadows, and lighting ratios had to be there because you couldn't manipulate that easily afterward.</p>

[christopher_tucker2]

<p>Dunno if you can "correct" a 1-stop exposure error in PS, etc ... I would word it this way: "since up to 1 stop under or over exposed is coped with somewhat acceptably in PS, LR, etc ..."</p>

[john_deerfield]

<blockquote>

<p>I can say, though, that digital capture allows more leeway in exposure at the time of capture, and allows deliberate under or overexposure with post processing manipulation in mind... ...Manipulation with color negative film is fairly narrow</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I might say the Raw file along with todays post-processing applications allows for a greater range of possibilities. Color negative film had a decent leeway, unlike shooting JPEG alone which is similar to shooting transparencies: you have to nail exposure right the first time. </p>

<p>As far as ETTR goes, I am not suggesting anyone actually clip the highlights (at least insomuch as where they matter). The simple fact of the matter is that the Raw file is a linear file and the histogram is based on a JPEG which has a curve applied. If you are shooting Raw, you can easily go one to two-thirds over (and in some cases more), as judged by the histogram, and easily bring the highlights back and get better shadow detail. It isn't magic, it is pure science: linear data vs curve adjusted. </p>

 

[dan_south]

<p>What exactly is the perfect histogram?</p>

<p>If you take a picture of a groom on a motorcycle in the sunshine and there are specular highlights where the sun reflects off of the chrome, do you overexpose those highlights because you're not going to try to pull detail out of them later? If so, how much do you overexpose them and how does the histogram tell you how much is enough and not too much?</p>

<p>Or do you adjust the exposure ETTR style so that nothing overexposes, your specular highlights are safe, and everything that should be at a normal exposure level is now two or three stops too dark?</p>

<p>How about Dad giving the bride away with candles in the background? Do you expose for Dad's face or to save every last detail in the candle flames? What does that histogram look like, and why should I go for it?</p>

<p>If you take a close-up of a Navy blue bridesmaid's dress with no highlights, do you overexpose to the point where the histogram is almost pegged to the right (ETTR) and then adjust the exposure down three stops in post processing? Or do you take a gray card reading and expose navy blue to look like navy blue? Does the color change if you do one approach versus the other?</p>

<p>When someone can explain what the perfect histogram is and why I should use it in every case, maybe I'll put some effort into striving toward that end.</p>

[fuccisphotos]

<p>Art did you ask that question for real? if so I'm sure one of us can point you in the right direction to your manual to learn how to see it on your camera's LCD. As for how to use it, I'm sure others on this forum could give a much better description of how to use it than I could. I'm just starting to use it more and more, but mostly use it when I'm outside in super bright conditions and the LCD preview of the image really wouldn't tell me much, but the histogram does.</p>

[William Michael]

<blockquote>

<p>“but there are those instances <strong>where the sun goes in and out of clouds</strong> which i had a few weeks ago. and we <strong>were rushed as heck</strong> because the wedding started an hour late. and i was told if i took longer than 5 minutes i would be paying the overtime cost for the limo. how perfect do you try and get the histogram then?"</p>

</blockquote>

<p><strong> </strong><br>

In this particular situation, <em>for the Formals</em>, I would have the exposure and Flash Fill nailed (and in my head) for the sun out of the clouds.<br>

When the sun moved behind the clouds, there could be continuous changes in EV if the cloud cover is speckled - and I would adjust the exposure to those changes: but if I were unsure of any particular shot – or group of shots I would bracket.<br>

My Standard Bracket for Digital is Over & Under ⅔ Stop.<br>

If I were using Flash Fill as the clouds came over, I would most likely pull back (lessen) the flash fill ratio also.<br>

I use the same Bracketing for Sunset Formals, if I am unsure of the “correct” exposure<em> I want.</em><br>

Concerning viewing the LCD for "confirmation", I don’t use the Histogram, as often as I look at the “Blinkies”.</p>

<p>WW</p>

<p>Vail, you are truly kind to offer to help Art: but Art doesn’t use his histogram any more, because he is sick and tired of changing the Histogram Sensitivity Dial each time he loads a different ASA film. . . :) </p>

 

[dave_wilson1]

<p>The short answer to your question, for me, is no. If and when I look at the hg it is to examine a shot carefully on my computer and study the hg to see what I can learn from it, if anything being that I am very limited with digital knowledge. I do know that in the last 20 months since using the digital format I use mostly my spot metering and my instinct and expose mostly as I did transparency film in the past and I'm pretty much gtg. I have been getting better at understanding the hg, but find in the end it means little to me because I shot what I wanted and exposed accordingly so perhaps if I shot for a "better" hg, the look I wanted might not be there. Not sure if I'm making sense (as usual) but that's how I operate.</p>

[savagesax]

I've never look at the histogram, in fact it is disabled on my cameras. I found it too distracting.

[gregory_c]

<p>Nah, just make it look good !! The histogram & image on the back of the camera has become a crutch.</p>

[frolickingbits]

<p>I don't usually go by histogram, but I much prefer to get my exposure right on in camera-the less time I spend in post tweaking less than perfect exposures, the more time I have to spend with my family. <br>

I don't spend a whole lot of time looking at the back of the camera these days, and I agree with the others that histograms can be horribly misleading-the bell curve is a pretty rare occurrence, especially at a wedding.</p>

[cjogo]

<p>Still use the trusty hand meter -- never failed</p>

[ianivey]

<p>I honestly don't know whether to take Art and Bob seriously.</p>

<p>A. Davis wrote:</p>

<blockquote>

<p>I don't usually go by histogram, but I much prefer to get my exposure right on in camera-the less time I spend in post tweaking less than perfect exposures, the more time I have to spend with my family.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Most people here are talking about the camera's histogram, which is one tool that can help you get exposure correct in-camera, thus helping avoid a bunch of post processing.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>I agree with the others that histograms can be horribly misleading-the bell curve is a pretty rare occurrence, especially at a wedding.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>A bell-curve histogram isn't the goal. The fact that it is a pretty rare occurrence is both a truism and a non-sequitur (few scenes have a bell-curve distribution of shadows-to-highlights). The main value of the histogram, in wedding and other shooting, where the event will move along with or without you, is that it helps you evaluate whether you're blowing out highlights and/or losing detail in shadows, and is more reliable than looking at the image on the LCD (which can be very misleading).</p>

<p><a href="http://digitalprotalk.blogspot.com/2010/05/perfectly-perfect-exposure-it-all-in.html">Ziser talks about how he uses the histogram and what the "perfect" histogram is</a> on his blog (as well as in his book). And here's another lesson on <a href="http://super.nova.org/DPR/Histogram/">how the histogram works</a>. The benefit of using taking a quick test shot and using the histogram (as opposed to using a hand-held meter) is that you don't have to move from the shooting position to the subject and back. This can be especially valuable when you're shooting in a PJ style and don't want to be obtrusive.</p>