DPChallenge: A Digital Photography Contest You are not logged in. (log in or register) 
 

DPChallenge Forums >> Photography Discussion >> exposing to the right of the histogram?
Pages:  
Showing posts 1 - 21 of 21, (reverse)
AuthorThread
 06/02/2006 01:12:50 AM · #1
I'm sorry I'm confused. I read on one of these threads that it is preferable to expose to the right of the histogram. I went out recently and tried that. The closer that the curve got to the middle of the graph, the more overexposed it looked. By the time it got to the right I could barely determine what the picture was--with no texture or detail. How is this accomplished successfully?

Thanks
Eric
 06/02/2006 01:17:20 AM · #2
In exposing to the right, only the right-most portion of the histogram is near the right-hand side. One way to look at this is to push the highlights as far to the right as possible -- not everything to the right. It is not uncommon to have a part of the curve stretching all the way to the left.

The result may look over-exposed when first looked at, but it won't normally be by much and there is no benefit in blowing highlights you want to keep.

David

/Edit: to add a link to the article on this in case you haven't found it. (Expose Right)

Message edited by author 2006-06-02 01:18:59.
 06/02/2006 01:18:28 AM · #3
I found that I use Exposure Compensation (to the minus side) a bit to get histogram to move to the left.

Your post just hit me... where'd you here to the Right...I've always heard you want to expose to the dark side (Left) if anything. Too high and you will have no detail... go a little dark and you can lighten in Post P and bring detail back.

Andy
 06/02/2006 01:21:24 AM · #4
For digital it's to the right and bring it back in post. If shooting dark and bringing it up in post, you'll introduce noise in the shadows.

When shooting to the right it means the histogram extrends as far right as possible without spiking at the right (no blown highlights).
 06/02/2006 01:21:34 AM · #5
Exposing to the right is only for RAW. If you don't shoot RAW, don't worry about it. If you do, you get the most detail by keeping your histogram to the right and then lowering it in conversion.
 06/02/2006 01:58:45 AM · #6
Got it, to get the best possible signal-to-noise ratio (lowest amount of noise) shoot RAW and expose right, bring back down to desired exposure during RAW conversion. Makes sense mechanically.

I've been shooting jpg and sligthly under exposing with ExpComp to avoid blowing out skys/highs on bright days...

Message edited by author 2006-06-02 01:59:11.
 06/02/2006 02:12:23 AM · #7
Originally posted by awpollard:

I've been shooting jpg and sligthly under exposing with ExpComp to avoid blowing out skys/highs on bright days...


Yeah, you always want to expose for your tastes. Sometimes I'd rather a little noise in the shadows that a big white blownout sky. :-)
 06/02/2006 10:01:53 AM · #8
that makes more sense now. I don't shoot raw often because I use photoshop elements (just don't have the funds at the moment to buy photoshop cs2 or 7.0), and elements doesn't allow RAW manipulation. My camera is Olympus, and it comes with Olympus Master software that does allow RAW conversion but I've been frustrated when using this software because it's really not as efficient as photoshop for adjusting pictures.

Unless people out there know more inexpensive software for manipulating RAW photos that are generally good for photo management.

Eric
 06/02/2006 10:38:15 AM · #9
Originally posted by anmldoc:
that makes more sense now. I don't shoot raw often because I use photoshop elements (just don't have the funds at the moment to buy photoshop cs2 or 7.0), and elements doesn't allow RAW manipulation. My camera is Olympus, and it comes with Olympus Master software that does allow RAW conversion but I've been frustrated when using this software because it's really not as efficient as photoshop for adjusting pictures.

Unless people out there know more inexpensive software for manipulating RAW photos that are generally good for photo management.

Eric

Doesn't Elements 4.0 accept RAW?

Message edited by author 2006-06-02 10:39:05.
 06/02/2006 11:11:08 AM · #10
Originally posted by anmldoc:
that makes more sense now. I don't shoot raw often because I use photoshop elements (just don't have the funds at the moment to buy photoshop cs2 or 7.0), and elements doesn't allow RAW manipulation. My camera is Olympus, and it comes with Olympus Master software that does allow RAW conversion but I've been frustrated when using this software because it's really not as efficient as photoshop for adjusting pictures.

Unless people out there know more inexpensive software for manipulating RAW photos that are generally good for photo management.

Eric


There are free utilities out there that are plenty good. Raw Shooter Essential comes to mind.
 06/02/2006 11:27:51 AM · #11
photoshop elements 4.0 may take RAW
I have 2.0. We're getting ready to move soon and my wife won't let me spend alot of money on things that aren't "essential" at the moment--cause we're also taking a bit of a paycut when we move too...*sigh* oh well

I'll try to check out the RAW shooter essentials
thanks

Message edited by author 2006-06-02 11:29:03.
 06/02/2006 11:30:54 AM · #12
Originally posted by anmldoc:
photoshop elements 4.0 may take RAW
I have 2.0. We're getting ready to move soon and my wife won't let me spend alot of money on things that aren't "essential" at the moment--cause we're also taking a bit of a paycut when we move too...*sigh* oh well

I'll try to check out the RAW shooter essentials
thanks


Apparently she isn't clear on what's *essential* then. ;)

But yeah, check out Raw Shooter Essentials which is free and pretty well liked. Make sure you use a junk email to sign up though cuz they'll spam the heck out of you.
 06/02/2006 11:50:31 AM · #13
Everytime I think I learn something in photography I realize just how little I know. I've been trying my hand at posting my photos on a stock photo site for a year now (simply because it was there and had some forums for learning and such)--and I feel my composing skills have increased a ton...but now I really need to learn how to properly expose and manipulate a photo to get the best photo possible. I always seem to get strange looking pictures in RAW (ie I never know how much to change the exposure value or the WB to get the best looking picture).

I am amazed at the quality of images on this site--I just hope to increase my skill to begin matching or at least bringing my skill up to some of those at this site
Thanks for your help
Eric
 06/02/2006 11:57:16 AM · #14
FWIW, I want to disagree that "expose to the right" is only for RAW. It will benefit JPEG as well, but you need to be more conservative with it. Whereas in RAW, yoiu can recover as much as a stop of "blown" highlights, in JPEG what's blown is gone for good. But that still means you get the most signal-to-noise ratio when the histogram is as far to the right as possible, withoiut blowing out what you don't want blown.
 06/02/2006 12:38:20 PM · #15
Originally posted by kirbic:
FWIW, I want to disagree that "expose to the right" is only for RAW. It will benefit JPEG as well, but you need to be more conservative with it. Whereas in RAW, yoiu can recover as much as a stop of "blown" highlights, in JPEG what's blown is gone for good. But that still means you get the most signal-to-noise ratio when the histogram is as far to the right as possible, withoiut blowing out what you don't want blown.


I disagree kirbic, at least from real world application. I have felt that exposing to the right in JPEG led to inferior results compared to normal shooting. Just my opinion after trying it though.
 06/02/2006 01:05:31 PM · #16
Originally posted by anmldoc:
that makes more sense now. I don't shoot raw often because I use photoshop elements (just don't have the funds at the moment to buy photoshop cs2 or 7.0), and elements doesn't allow RAW manipulation. My camera is Olympus, and it comes with Olympus Master software that does allow RAW conversion but I've been frustrated when using this software because it's really not as efficient as photoshop for adjusting pictures.

Unless people out there know more inexpensive software for manipulating RAW photos that are generally good for photo management.

Eric


You convert the RAW image with the Olympus converter, using it to adjust white balance, contrast, and exposure, then save it as a TIFF file and open that in Elements to do the rest of your work. This is exactly my workflow, except of course I have Canon not Oly; PS7, which I use, won't work on RAW files either.

R.
 06/02/2006 01:27:09 PM · #17
I tend to be a "to the left" kinda girl. I've always been weird.

06/02/2006 01:56:53 PM · #18
Take a reading of your KEY light. Expose to that.

It's that simple.
 06/02/2006 02:00:19 PM · #19
thanks everyone for your replies
I have alot of work to do...try and practice a little.
Eric
 06/02/2006 02:03:15 PM · #20
AH makes a good point. I often shoot something with lots of low lights and not very many highlights (or so it seems to me at times.) I need to expose for the light part of the picture - ie have that part "to the right", which will still often leave me with a bulk of the histogram to the left, which I believe is OK.
 06/02/2006 03:16:17 PM · #21
Originally posted by kirbic:
FWIW, I want to disagree that "expose to the right" is only for RAW. It will benefit JPEG as well, but you need to be more conservative with it. Whereas in RAW, yoiu can recover as much as a stop of "blown" highlights, in JPEG what's blown is gone for good. But that still means you get the most signal-to-noise ratio when the histogram is as far to the right as possible, withoiut blowing out what you don't want blown.

E-> with jpeg does use more bits in the RAW sensor information prior to conversion to jpeg in-camera, which gives the advantage of lower S-N. But, as I see it, that advantage is never realized. The advantage when shooting RAW is realized when stretching the histogram to the left in the RAW converter, basically sharing the extra values of the brighter stop. Converting to jpeg in-camera without stretching to the left and those extra values are simply lost. A 1-stop stretch to the left in RAW will take roughtly a third of the values of the stop on the right, but in jpeg that same stretch will take roughly half the values for the left stop. As I see it, the benefit to E-> is in the stretching and most of that benefit is lost if the conversion to jpeg (or tiff for that matter) is made before the stretching is done.

I have found no reason not to follow the same advice that has been around for a long while. With film negatives it was 'expose for the shadows and process for the highlights', but with digital positives it becomes 'expose for the highlights and process for the shadows'. I find giving the highlights the exposure they need to be where I want them in the final image gives good exposure. It may just be what I shoot, but I find very few scenes that exposing for the highlights doesn't place the histogram to the right. Sure there are a few scenes it doesn't, and there may be a bit more that can be gained by overexposing the rest a bit more -- but I don't find it worth it to flirt with disaster.

David
Pages:  
Current Server Time: 08/31/2025 03:41:31 AM

Please log in or register to post to the forums.


Home - Challenges - Community - League - Photos - Cameras - Lenses - Learn - Help - Terms of Use - Privacy - Top ^
DPChallenge, and website content and design, Copyright © 2001-2025 Challenging Technologies, LLC.
All digital photo copyrights belong to the photographers and may not be used without permission.
Current Server Time: 08/31/2025 03:41:31 AM EDT.