Under-exposing - a consistent flaw?

Looking through some recent images uploaded to various fotopic sites and Flickr I've been a bit struck by how common a photograph is under-exposed by the photographer. How many people trust their camera's metering that the light is correct when taking their photograph? When I started going out more often and taking my photography more seriously I realised that my camera gave me the incorrect metering for taking a good photograph of a steam engine - normally because the front of the engine was too dark.

Now I always over-expose - sometimes by up to a shot - and tone it down a little in the post-processing if the image is a little too bright. However, I'm not perfect and still end up with images a little too dark - this shot of 3850 at the weekend was over-exposed but by not enough, to my eye: http://www.flickr.com/photos/neilscottuk/5404384546/

Compare with this shot of 45305: http://www.flickr.com/photos/neilscottuk/5404331342/

What's the opinion of others? Do you trust the camera to get the lighting correct or do you take a risk and adjust the settings to your own preference?

 

I think it's better to under-expose generally; I find that it maintains the detail you need (providing it's only a little under exposed), whereas over-exposing can bleach. Imho, subsequently lightening an under-exposed shot can provide better reproduction that trying to darken an over-exposed shot.

 

Any chance you could put a link to one of your images so I can see what you mean?

 

At the moment i just tend to go with the camera metering, although i do plan to get the device that tells you the correct metering, but if in doubt as the linesider has mentioned i do sometimes under expose my shot just to be on the safe side, as shooting in RAW you can generally pull more out of the image

one question though, do you guys go for spot mettering, or just leave it as it is??

cheers
Matt

 

I struggle with what you are trying to say here. If a picture is over exposed to my mind its over exposed, it cant be not over exposed enough.

Personally I try and second guess the camera, but not always successfully. But isnt that what Photoshop is for

 

What I mean is that I over-exposed it but not by enough, to my mind. I could have gone 1/2 a stop more to pick out the front of the engine in more light.

 

shoting in Raw neil??

as you can pretty much do that in photoshop, although i am of the skool of thought get it right in the camera in lol =)

 

I do shoot in RAW though I prefer not to have to do too much editing in photoshop if I can avoid it.

I've always found it harder to correct an under-exposed photograph than an over-exposed one. Once something is black (ie the front of the engine) and you lose all the detail of it, it's very difficult to correct that.

 

but by over exposing it you are in effect bleching the front of the loco out??

its a lose lose situation really, and one that has frustrated me on numourous occastions lol

 

It's easier to correct though by adjusting the tones - certainly when you do B&W it is. I don't do colour very often so I'm not very familiar with editing colour images.

 

thats fair mate, see i mainly do colour images lol, if its grey and overcast thats when they normally get put in black n white =)

 

This is why film experience is useful but not available now as manufacturers withdraw film.

My simple rules over the years have been :

1) take reading of location before train arrives (train will reduce light by about 1 full stop) - use this reading as base.
2) if using transparency film saturate colours by reducing light by one full stop ( e.g. increasing from f5.6 to f8 )
3) if using negative film saturate image by increasing light by one full stop ( e.g. dec reasing from f5.6 to f4 )

With digital photography I now use rule 1) but since I use RAW I can make adjusments 2) or 3) as appropriate by editing the RAW file before calling up the edit program to do my normal PIP ( Post Image Processing ).

As those of us used to film quickly discovered the camera is simply a tool for transferring light onto a film / digital surface and therefore the amount of light that is allowed through depends on experience with the particular camera. The above rules are a guide only - practical experience with your own camera will be the best way to improve your photography.

 

When I was learning the craft of photography in the early 1960s I went to a night class. The destructor always said that a perfectly exposed photo was one where the whites were white and the blacks, black. On that basis, and a pretty good basis it is, the first photo is marginally under exposed and the second perfect. The first picture though is only marginally under exposed, by about one third to one half a stop. I don't think I'd be too bothered about that.

I wonder if you are using a film camera or a digital. The old fashioned analogue exposure meters were most particular about exposure and (bearing in mind I wasn't at the GCR, I wasn't fit) I gather from the pictures that it was pretty dark for most of the time. I used to, in these circumstances, deliberately put on exposure compensation of two thirds of a stop to a full stop. In the conditions of last weekend it would be easier to expose to get the blacks, black and therefore I would expose to get the whites, white; ie I would over expose rather than under.

If you think your camera is under exposing, then take it outside, mount it on a tripod, and take a number of photos of the same subject taking care to note the exposure on each frame. You will then know, for a given shutter speed, just by how much you camera is underexposing when you see the results. If it varies from each shutter speed then you know it's the shutter that's at fault not the exposure meter.

HTH

Regards

 

Thanks Orion, very interesting post.

I use digital, a simple Canon 1000D, nothing too fancy.

 

I use a decent small 'pocket' digital camera (Panasonic Lumix), not currently being in a position to treat myself to an SLR, and I have it set to judge it's exposure and focus from a small square in the centre of the field. When I take a picture, I am always careful to, when focussing, aim said square at an area (usually the rail) I estimate to be the same distance from me and with the same level of light as the locomotive I intend to photograph will be when it gets to where I wish to photograph it. It's not perfect but suits me. An easy mistake when taking a photograph on the level is to aim your focus/exposure setting point too close to the sky.

When I'm using my Grandad's old Olympus Film Camera's I tend to give a loco half a stop more than the camera thinks I should have. My Grandad also has a seperate mechanical exposure meter from about 1960 that is excellent, and in bright conditions he always aims it at the back of his hand to gauge the light.

 

Try bracketing

 

I've thought of that Michael but I think that it's too risky: some compositions are very tight that require only one moment to get the right shot - if you're bracketing then you may get the right moment but at the wrong exposure, or miss it at all.

 

The next best thing to an 18% grey card!

 

This is the photograph that made me change my mind about trusting the camera's settings:

http://neilscott.fotopic.net/p64214274.html

The smokebox of 45231 is lost by relying on what the camera said was correct. After this I decided to over-expose to keep the front of the locomotive in detail.

I'm not sure it's the monitor, all my shots have looked better since taking that photograph at Bridge of Allan. Exhaust, particularly with B&W can be corrected using photoshop's shadow/highlight tool.

Anyway, this wasn't just about my photography, but about what other people think works and (hopefully) providing examples.