# Overexposed? How can I fix?



## macpro88 (Apr 26, 2012)

I feel this pic is overexposed, yes? Seems to be too much lighting on the petals of the flower.

1. How can I fix this in Photoshop?
2. How can I prevent this with camera settings?

(This is the unedited original)







f/5.6
1/250
ISO 100

Thanks!


----------



## jaomul (Apr 26, 2012)

In Camera-Increase your shutter speed or reduce your aperture. The properly exposed petals may then be a little dark. It is advisable to not shoot in such harsh light or use a reflector or fill flash to balance the light falling on the whole flower to make a proper exposure throughout a little easier to accomplish


----------



## 480sparky (Apr 26, 2012)

macpro88 said:


> I feel this pic is overexposed, yes? Seems to be too much lighting on the petals of the flower.
> 
> 1. How can I fix this in Photoshop?



To some degree, but probably not to the degree it needs to be.




macpro88 said:


> 2. How can I prevent this with camera settings?



Learn to use the camera meter properly.


----------



## macpro88 (Apr 26, 2012)

jaomul said:


> In Camera-Increase your shutter speed or reduce your aperture. The properly exposed petals may then be a little dark. It is advisable to not shoot in such harsh light or use a reflector or fill flash to balance the light falling on the whole flower to make a proper exposure throughout a little easier to accomplish



Excuse my noobness 

Ok, I get increasing shutter speed, the fast the shutter speed the less light is able to be let in.
Aperture, reducing means going lower or higher numerical wise? Lower than 5.6 like 4.0 or lower?
And a reflector like a lens hood? And unfortunately I did not have a flash at the time for fill lighting, and yes, it was pretty sunny that day.

Thanks!


----------



## KenC (Apr 26, 2012)

Those highlights look like they're gone.  You should be shooting in RAW, which will give you a little more flexibility with highlights and in general, but that wouldn't have helped here.  The problem I would guess is that your meter "saw" the dark background and overexposed the image.  In the future when you see bright highlights in an otherwise fairly dark image, try setting Exposure Compensation to -1.  I don't know if this works in total auto mode ("green box" setting) but it should work in aperture priority, shutter priority and programmed auto.  Then check the image and histogram on your screen and make sure the highlights are not gone - your camera manual will explain this.


----------



## jaomul (Apr 26, 2012)

Reducing aperture is increasing the number, example you use f5.6 but try f8. A reflector can be as simple as a white sheet of paper held in such a way as to reflect light back onto the petals so they are all similarly bright. Then you can meter for the whole flower or allow the camera to do so and you should get a balanced exposure. Your built in flash on your camera (assuming it hasone) can be used for fill flash


----------



## Ysarex (Apr 26, 2012)

Sparky is right -- no fix. Many problems with a digital photo can be repaired but overexposure tops the list of those that can't. You can't manipulate data that you didn't record.

Your camera has a function called exposure compensation (EC). Look for this symbol: +/- It's your job to recognize lighting conditions when it's needed and then make the adjustment.

Joe


----------



## cgipson1 (Apr 26, 2012)

Blown out highlights... the really bright spots on your "flower" have lost all detail, and there is no way to get that detail back in post processing. In very bright sunlight like you shot this in, the dynamic range of the lighting will be beyond what your camera will be able to capture in a single shot. If you reduce the exposure to correctly expose the blown out areas... other parts of the flower will be dark and severely underexposed. You only have a couple of choices when shooting a subject that is lit like that.....

You can diffuse the existing light with a diffuser (basically this will create partial shade for the entire flower and even out the lighting...  Amazon.com: Lastolite LL LR3651 30'' TriGrip 1 Stop Diffuser: Camera & Photo

You can shoot multiple shots at different exposures to capture the entire dynamic range, and then combine them (HDR)

You can use flash to override the bright sunlight and get a good exposure that way (this would probably render the entire background as black, or at least very dark)

You can also do any combination of any of the above!

The only way to even come close to fixing it in post would be to fill the highlights, but very difficult to do.. even for an expert photoshopper (which I am not!) Just doesn't look that "REAL" to me... don't you agree?

View attachment 7075


----------



## macpro88 (Apr 26, 2012)

Sweet, thank you guys for all the tips.

So lesson learned, try to avoid overexposure the most as it can't be fixed, unless shooting RAW correct?

Avoid full auto (which I think that's what I shot this with) and learn to use the meter.

Reducing Aperture means going higher on the numerical scale, this also means the aperture is more closed, letting in less light? where as a smaller number means the aperture is more open and letting in more light?

And also learn to use exposure compensation.

You guys are awesome. Thank you so much for the help.


----------



## KenC (Apr 26, 2012)

macpro88 said:


> try to avoid overexposure the most as it can't be fixed, unless shooting RAW correct?



Not quite, RAW allows you to recover some highlights, but not much.  It is always best to get the right exposure in camera.


----------



## KmH (Apr 26, 2012)

Yep. There are limits to overexposure recovery using Raw, and the best application for doing that is ACR - Adobe Camera Raw (CS5 Camera Raw/Lightroom 4).

The color in a digital photo is is made by combining 3 colors red, green, and blue - RGB. So each image has those 3 RGB color channels, and how much of each channel there is can be checked by sampleing some potion of the photo. The sampeling tool can be set to sampleing pixle-by-pixel, or to sample larger square pixel arrays, up to 100x100 pixels. The sampeler displays all 3 RGBcolor channels.

The luminosity of each color channel ranges from 0 to 255. Zero means there is none of that color at that point in the photo, and 255 means there is the maximum amount of that color at that point in the photo.

When all 3 channels are *0, 0, 0* - the color is black. 255, 0, 0 would be red. Green would be - 0, 255,0. Blue is - 0, 0, 255. 

Yellow is 255, 255, 0. Magenta is 255, 0, 255. Cyan is 0, 255, 255.

Pure white is 255, 255, 255. When all 3 RGB color channels are maxed out at 255 there is no detail, just pure white, a condition also known as 'blown out' because there is no detail. No details can be recovered when all 3 RGB vlaues are maxed out.

If with over exposure only 1 channel is blown (maxed out) - say 255, 240, 240 - most of the detail can be recovered using judicious editing adjustments.
If 2 channels are blown - 255, 255, 240 - a little detail can usually be recovered, but not as much as when only 1 channel is blown out.

The other extreme 0,0,0 - or pure black is known as blocked, and again there is no detail.

Real World Camera Raw with Adobe Photoshop CS5

The way digital images work, we usually want as much image data as possible as close to maxed out as possible without blowing out  a lot of the photo. (Known as ETTR - 
Expose-To-The-Right of the histogram)
Some bright spots, called specular highlights will, by neccesity, be blown out.

http://www.adobe.com/digitalimag/pdfs/linear_gamma.pdf


----------



## macpro88 (Apr 26, 2012)

Wow sweet, thank you for continued info, very very helpful, deff taking notes haha

@cgipson, the flower looks better, but you are right, not quite natural looking.

Thanks again everyone!


----------



## Kerbouchard (Apr 26, 2012)

There is still data in the blue channel.  You can use Photoshop Channels to use the data recorded in the blue channel to rebuild the red and green channels.  Simply copy the blue channel, select the red channel, goto apply image, select your blue copy, and you can begin to rebuild the data.  Do the same with the green channel.  You'll have to experiment with the blend modes to make it right.  Generally, luminosity is where you want to be.

This shot may not warrant the effort, but as long as there is data in one channel, the other channels can generally be rebuilt.


----------



## Kerbouchard (Apr 27, 2012)

Since everybody said it couldn't be done, I figured I would give it a shot from the jpeg you posted.  For fun, here is a two minute edit.


----------



## 480sparky (Apr 27, 2012)

You really haven't 'recovered' any data. You have simply created new data to replace what was not there to begin with.


----------



## Kerbouchard (Apr 27, 2012)

480sparky said:


> You really haven't 'recovered' any data. You have simply created new data to replace what was not there to begin with.



The 'data' is there.  It is just in a different channel.  If I would have had a bit more time, it would have been better balanced.  Like I said, it's just a 2 minute edit.

As is, I would probably put my version over the original at about 60% opacity to create a final.  With the original file, a lot more data could have been recovered(or as you prefer, recreated).


----------



## 480sparky (Apr 27, 2012)

Kerbouchard said:


> 480sparky said:
> 
> 
> > You really haven't 'recovered' any data. You have simply created new data to replace what was not there to begin with.
> ...



So how do you make yellow with just the data in the blue channel?


----------



## Kerbouchard (Apr 27, 2012)

480sparky said:


> Kerbouchard said:
> 
> 
> > 480sparky said:
> ...


By utilizing the luminosity blend mode that does not effect color.  Basically, you treat each channel as an individual black and white image and blend the channels so that you can recreate the detail that you want.

Basically, duplicate the layer, adjust the channel that you want to bring out, and change the mode to luminosity.


----------



## 480sparky (Apr 27, 2012)

By the same token, you can do the same thing using paint on a print.


----------



## cgipson1 (Apr 27, 2012)

Kerbouchard said:


> Since everybody said it couldn't be done, I figured I would give it a shot from the jpeg you posted.  For fun, here is a two minute edit.



Color is way off......


----------



## Kbarredo (Apr 27, 2012)

You can't repair this in photoshop. Parts of the flower are so bright that it is simply seen as white. so even if you lower the brightness it will still be white.


----------



## Kerbouchard (Apr 27, 2012)

cgipson1 said:


> Kerbouchard said:
> 
> 
> > Since everybody said it couldn't be done, I figured I would give it a shot from the jpeg you posted. For fun, here is a two minute edit.
> ...


It was a two minute edit...  It wasn't meant to be a final result.  It was just an example of the data being reconstructed.


----------



## Bukitimah (Apr 27, 2012)

You shot this using f5.6, 1/250 sec and ISO 100. I think the light on that day is very strong, in the middle of the day? Using PP, I hope you would like this better


----------



## Kbarredo (Apr 27, 2012)

Its a little better but some parts are still blown out. Try taking a picture with the flower in the shadow.


----------



## Ysarex (Apr 28, 2012)

Kerbouchard said:


> Since everybody said it couldn't be done, I figured I would give it a shot from the jpeg you posted.  For fun, here is a two minute edit.



Excellent observation -- this technique Kerbouchard identified is legit with qualification. In this specific case it really couldn't be done since the blue channel is in fact clipped. However the blue channel is barely clipped -- it's hard to overexpose the blue channel with a yellow rose. To really have a case of overexposure where the only remedy is replacement data, you've got to blow all three channels. Most of the data that appears blown in this rose is in fact recorded in the blue channel. Therefore, as Kerbouchard correctly pointed out, the blue channel data can be used to reconstruct the missing data in the red and green channels. This process is not the same as manufacturing replacement data. "Photographic data" is quite unique and extremely difficult to mimic. The texture, exact lighting direction, noise pattern and shadows on the rose petals can't be painted in convincingly. If it's intact in the blue channel it can be transferred back into the red and green channels.

I've done this many times to save a sorry photographers butt. No offense to the OP who is learning here; this is the qualification I mentioned above. If you ever have to do this with one of your own photos you should be put over someone's knee and spanked. If you do it again you should have your camera taken away for a week. So we're talking about a method here that only applies when you've screwed up really bad and should be punished.

Hey Sparky, this works in GIMP, just for reference though since we all know you'd never need it . Create an empty layer above the background layer. Paste a copy of the blue channel into that empty layer and set the blend mode to Luminosity. The tone response of the blue layer is now the tone response of the image. The result is a disaster since you only want the blue channel tone in the blown highlights, not the rest of the photo -- you need a layer mask. You'll have to add a highlight layer mask to the blue channel. You've got tone now but you're still missing color where the original highlights blew to white. Create another empty layer above the blue channel layer and sample a highlight color from the background layer. Paint bucket that color into the empty layer and set the blend mode to Multiply. Again you'll need a layer mask to restrict the color to the highlights. In the illustration below I marked locations where the blue channel was clipped, the color there now is from my flat color layer -- you see it in the leaf. It's color without texture and as such is non-photographic -- beyond repair.








So, I really went to this trouble because if you look at this technique carefully and think about it, some really intriguing possibilities emerge. Think b&w and filters. I'm thinking about a photo by Ansel Adams of the San Fransisco Golden Gate before they built the bridge. The clouds in the sky are breathtaking. As a photographer you see that photo and say to yourself, yep that's old Ansel and his 25A red filter -- nothing like puffy white clouds in a blue sky shot b&w through a red filter. Now you've got a color photo with white clouds in a blue sky and the day was a bit hazy and wouldn't it be nice if those clouds popped like you know a good old b&w would with a red filter over the lens? You've got a red channel! Why not use it?

Joe


----------



## Kerbouchard (Apr 28, 2012)

Ysarex said:


> Kerbouchard said:
> 
> 
> > Since everybody said it couldn't be done, I figured I would give it a shot from the jpeg you posted.  For fun, here is a two minute edit.
> ...



Awesome edit and explanation.  You definitely put a lot more effort into it than I did and I just wanted to say it is appreciated.  Nicely done.

And yes, the blue channel was clipped a bit in the JPEG posted.  With the original, it could have probably been recovered.

For your edit, about the only thing I would have done different is with the two lower left petals(maybe three...the ones in the shade), I probably would have used a layer mask at about 40% Opacity to let the original come through to get it a little less 'muddy' and balance it out a bit better.

That was the problem I had with the edit and why I quit so soon.  Seemed like most of the 'improvements' just made it look a bit more 'muddy'.  Having the RAW file would help a ton.  Create as a smart object and then reprocessing for each of the individual elements and then blending with layer masks would be the way to go.  The Blue channel would still have to supplement the Red and Green, but it would be a lot easier to get natural colors and an overall balanced image.

In any case, again, nicely done.


----------



## Ysarex (Apr 28, 2012)

Kerbouchard said:


> snip...
> Awesome edit and explanation.  You definitely put a lot more effort into it than I did and I just wanted to say it is appreciated.  Nicely done. snip...



Many thanks, I did want to pick up on this because of the tangential potential. I'm constantly using a monochrome blend layer (often one of the RGB channels, sometimes the L channel and sometimes a channel mixed derivative) to alter the color original's tone response. I'd be crippled without the technique. Here's a simple example -- caught the Ed Renshaw pushing up the Mississippi in central MO. The top version is textbook processed: white balance, Levels to tweak density and set end points and a slight contrast boost in Curves. The bottom version uses an extracted red channel  to increase contrast with an Overlay blend. The difference in the two skies is dramatic and it derives from the tone response of the red channel. The clouds near the horizon that begin to disappear into the Midwest haze in the top version, stand out in the bottom version.








One more time going back to the OP's original photo and you're assertion that the clipped red and green channels could be reconstructed from the blue channel. I've had this argument before and I've taken your position; real overexposure requires all three channels blown. If data is retained in even one channel reconstruction is possible. My experience is that many camera JPEG engines with their "auto white mangle" engaged will clip one or two channels but not all three and so a repair is possible. This kind of stuff however bothers the BLEEP out of me when it's presented as a legitimate processing method (not saying you did that! -- others do). I think it's fair to say that I now devote 1/3 of my time in class to stopping my students from doing all the horrible things they've picked up on Youtube and Facebook. I have to detox them and constantly watch them for iPhoto and Picassa relapses. A good definition of stupidity would be anyone who gets into the habit of regularly repairing their screw-ups.

Ranting on with the theme and picking up on some of the other comments in this thread: My blood pressure quickly reaches dangerous levels every time I encounter the term "highlight recovery" :gah: I blame Adobe and now I find myself wasting days in class detoxing my students from Adobe drugs. This semester I had a student taking camera processed JPEGs straight into LR and using the highlight recovery slider to fix blown highlights -- if it sells more copies of LR!!

Joe


----------



## TCampbell (Apr 28, 2012)

When in doubt about an exposure, learn to take a peek at the histogram.  Not sure what camera you use, but usually when you're viewing a photo on the LCD screen of your camera there's generally a display button you can press repeatedly to change what sort of extra info gets displayed and one of those displays will show the histogram.

Here's the histogram for this image:



If you're not familiar with how to interpret a histogram there are numerous tutorials on the web.  Here's one:  Understanding Digital Camera Histograms: Tones and Contrast

You can think of the histogram as 256 columns ... standing side-by-side.  The height of each "column" represents the number of pixels in your image that have that particular level of tonality.  A tonality of 128 would be exactly in the middle.  A tonality of 0 would be complete blackness.  A tonality of 255 would be completely white (maximum values on all three color channels).  

If the black graph is "climbing the walls" on either the left or right side then the image is clipped.  If it's climbing the walls on the LEFT then it means you had so much data at tonality of 0 that REALLY you probably had data at tonalities in negative values that your camera simply could not capture.  In other words, your "shadows" got clipped.  If it's climbing the walls on the RIGHT then it means you had so much data at the maximum tonality of 255 that REALLY you probably had a lot of data at tonalities even higher than 255... but your camera couldn't capture those.  As a result you lost data because your "highlights" got clipped.  

Once you lose data there is no recovery (not unless you're a really talented artist and you can fake in something that make it look reasonable.)

A quick glance at the histogram after any shot where you question whether the exposure was good will tell you if you're safe or not. 

ALSO... since you posted the exposure info (ISO 100, 1/250th @ f/5.6) we can see immediately that your exposure would have predictably over-exposed this shot.  How could we possibly know that without being there when you took this shot and metered the light for ourselves?   The "sunny 16" rule:  The rule says that in "full sunlight" that a correct exposure should happen at f/16 (hence the "16" part of the name) AND with the shutter speed set to the inverse of the ISO speed.  So at ISO 100, you'd use 1/100th (and for a lot of cameras the closest they can come to that is 1/125th). 

We can see that this was taken in full-sun.  You were at ISO 100.  Had you been at f/16 and 1/100th, you'd have got a "correct" exposure (although the background would have been sharper than you may have wanted).  Your shutter speed was 1 stop down (1/250th -- technically that's 1-1/4 stop faster, but close enough for round-off) but your aperture was 3 stops up.  That means your exposure was predictably 2 full-stops (or 4 times more light) than you wanted for this shot.  

If you wanted to shoot this at f/5.6 (as you did) to create the same level of background blur, then you're shooting 3 stops down from f/16 (f/11 -> f/8 -> f/5.6.  That's three stops down.)   So you have to move the shutter speed three stops UP.  From 1/100 -> 1/200 -> 1/400 -> 1/800.  And if you had a non-digital camera (mechanical shutter speeds were generally 1/125 -> 1/250th -> 1/500th -> 1/1000th) then 1/1000th would have worked.  There would not be a significant difference in exposure results from 1/800th to 1/1000th.  I know this "seems" like a large difference, but "stops" require a full doubling or halving.  The actual difference would be only slightly noticeable -- close enough that either 1/800 or 1/1000 would have been useful.

The "sunny 16" rule was designed as a base-line back in the days when cameras didn't have built-in light meters.  The rule is a bit more elaborate than what I've stated above (it has guidelines for what to do in light overcast, heavy overcast, various levels of shade, etc.)  Even though modern cameras have built-in meters, knowing the manual rule can help as a kind of sanity check.


----------



## markj (Apr 30, 2012)

great explanation, thanks


----------



## KmH (Apr 30, 2012)

All of which points up the fact here's a hell of a lot of technical knowledge that has to be acquired to do digital photography consistantly well.


----------



## Ysarex (Apr 30, 2012)

TCampbell said:


> When in doubt about an exposure, learn to take a peek at the histogram.  Not sure what camera you use, but usually when you're viewing a photo on the LCD screen of your camera there's generally a display button you can press repeatedly to change what sort of extra info gets displayed and one of those displays will show the histogram.
> 
> Here's the histogram for this image:
> 
> ...



I want to make one qualification here concerning this point: * "A quick glance at the histogram after any shot where you question  whether the exposure was good will tell you if you're safe or not."
*
I'm assuming you're referring to the histogram display available on the camera. Camera's have either a live histogram that you can check before the shot and/or a histogram after the shot. It can be valuable to check the camera histogram however its data is only valid for the camera processed JPEG. Both the live and after-shot histograms displayed by the camera are derived from how the camera JPEG engine will or has processed the sensor data. If you shoot camera JPEGs that histogram is golden. BUT if you shoot RAW that histogram is false. I shoot RAW only and both my cameras will typically hand me a histogram that indicates clipped highlights when in fact I have the exposure right.

Shoot RAW and get the best exposure and you get better end results. To do that you have to understand that the camera histogram is the product of the camera's image processor and take it with a very big grain of salt.

Joe


----------



## 480sparky (Apr 30, 2012)

Ysarex said:


> ...........Shoot RAW and get the best exposure and you get better end results. To do that you have to understand that the camera histogram is the product of the camera's image processor and take it with a very big grain of salt............



Because the histo is of the embedded jpeg.


----------



## shefjr (May 1, 2012)

I'm a noob so I could be wrong in my thinking but, I usually slightly underexpose my raw photos knowing I can fix them in photoshop. (as sparky can attest to. Thanks again sparky for a great explanation!) Also to help myself with overexposure I use the "blinkies" setting on my camera when reviewing a photo I have taken.


----------



## Ysarex (May 1, 2012)

shefjr said:


> I'm a noob so I could be wrong in my thinking but, I usually slightly underexpose my raw photos knowing I can fix them in photoshop. (as sparky can attest to. Thanks again sparky for a great explanation!) Also to help myself with overexposure I use the "blinkies" setting on my camera when reviewing a photo I have taken.



The "blinkies" setting is just a way to see where in the photo the clipping is taking place. If the the histogram is climbing the right wall the "blinkies" will blink. It can help to know what specific content in the photo the camera is clipping. When we talk about overexposed highlights as the worst possible exposure error it's assumed we mean the diffuse highlights and not specular highlights. Clouds for example are diffuse, a white tee shirt is diffuse, the sun reflecting off chrome is specular. A specular highlight is a small reflection of a light source from a mirror or mirror-like surface. So if you're photographing your low rider in the sun those specular highlights will clip and that's OK. But NEVER overexpose a diffuse highlight.

Back to the problem of how to know; It's a problem. Right now if you wanted an answer that came with a guarantee, I'd say sure, that answer exists: A properly used handheld incident light meter in conjunction with a carefully tested camera. But I don't do that and I don't know anyone right now who does, I assume some few do. It's too tedious and impractical.

The problem is that as soon as you engage "matrix metering" or start chimping histograms you have software algorithms intervening between you and your goal and so back to the problem. In this case your feedback data coming from the camera is skewed by what the software engineers designed into your camera in order to get the camera to produce a final JPEG. All kinds of basic assumptions are being made and since those engineers aren't there at the time and don't know what you really want, those assumptions must be predicated on a rule of averages -- the very big grain of salt.

So how do you get an excellent exposure in a RAW capture. A small group of photographer's have been complaining to the camera manufacturer's for years asking for a "RAW histogram" display on the camera. Right now we don't have that -- it'd be nice. In the meantime we do what we've always done. Vigorously test our equipment. Before you begin testing, understand what you're testing for, how the machine you're testing was designed to work,  and the performance outcomes and limits you expect. Make sure your testing methodology is valid.

To help with the question of exposure in RAW you want to understand the concept of ETTR (simple Google search). The implication of ETTR is that for excellent results you want to push your exposure as close to the edge as possible. cambridgeincolour.com uses the best analogy: Best exposure is a game of shuffleboard. The puck closest to the edge wins. Just remember that if your puck goes off the edge your loss is total -- no partial points for falling off the cliff into the abyss.

Afraid of falling off the cliff? Want to play it safe? Sure. Hold back from the cliff a little. You used the word "fix" in reference to what you can do in Photoshop if the exposure is a little under. I've fought this battle all my life. Back in the day they used say, "shoot color negative film if you want to be safe, it's got plenty of exposure latitude." No it didn't! What they meant was, "shoot color negative film if you want to be safe, if you miss the exposure you can save your a** and still pull a print you can sell." When we keep using the words that make us feel better about our less than excellent performance we quickly settle into complacent acceptance. So we need a different word than fix here. Fix implies it's as good as if it were right in the first place. Well.... how about "patch it up."

Joe


----------



## Kerbouchard (May 1, 2012)

Ysarex said:


> A small group of photographer's have been complaining to the camera manufacturer's for years asking for a "RAW histogram" display on the camera. Right now we don't have that -- it'd be nice.
> Joe



Technically, we do.  If you don't mind green looking pictures, you can use a unibal as a preset white balance and adjust your picture controls to get you as close to a 'RAW' histogram as possible.  Only problem with that, is with HDR techniques, being able to process a RAW several times, and shadow recovery advances have made it more effort than it is worth.

In any case, it is available for those that want to extend the effort.


----------



## Ysarex (May 1, 2012)

Kerbouchard said:


> Ysarex said:
> 
> 
> > A small group of photographer's have been complaining to the camera manufacturer's for years asking for a "RAW histogram" display on the camera. Right now we don't have that -- it'd be nice.
> ...




You're right, Uni white balance does exist and I've been aware of it. I don't mention it because it's not endorsed or supplied by the manufacturers and you basically have to kludge your camera to use it. But if you're camera will take it, it is an option for the truly committed ETTR practitioner. Personally I lean toward ETTR practice but I'm not that committed.

Joe


----------



## Kerbouchard (May 1, 2012)

Ysarex said:


> Kerbouchard said:
> 
> 
> > Ysarex said:
> ...



And neither am I.  With the last few years of advancement in sensor technology and post processing, tweaking out that little bit of extra performance is hardly worth it to anybody.  Actually, I don't personally know any photographer who needs that last bit of dynamic range enough to accept the inconvenience.

In any case, just to add to what was said earlier, an 'overexposed' image that is not clipped in all channels can still be recovered.  Also, specular highlights are supposed to be blown, rendering the 'blinkies' a bit less useful.  Just because it's blinking doesn't mean it matters.  Like you said earlier, it is only important if it is detail that needed to be retained.  The sun reflecting off a bumper is not something that needs to be retained.  It is supposed to be bright.

Overexposure isn't near the problem that it used to be, and to be honest, neither is underexposure.  As much as you hate the phrase, 'yes, we can fix it in photoshop'.

Now, the next step is actually creating good light, good composition, and a compelling subject.  Those items aren't nearly as easy to 'fix in photoshop'.


----------



## shefjr (May 1, 2012)

Ysarex said:
			
		

> When we keep using the words that make us feel better about our less than excellent performance we quickly settle into complacent acceptance. So we need a different word than fix here. Fix implies it's as good as if it were right in the first place. Well.... how about "patch it up."
> 
> Joe




I certainly don't want to settle for complacent acceptance. However as was pointed out before I don't want to lose photo data. Also I am getting used to the meter on my new d7k. I use spot metering for a lot of the photos that I take and have noticed that quite often the meter reads good but the photo appears over exposed. 

In either case you all have given the OP and many other noobs (myself included) a lot of info to digest and I don't want to overtake his thread. Thanks to all for the overwhelming details. :thumbsup:


----------



## shefjr (May 1, 2012)

Kerbouchard said:
			
		

> Now, the next step is actually creating good light, good composition, and a compelling subject.  Those items aren't nearly as easy to 'fix in photoshop'.



These are the areas that I lack! I am a mason and do stone walls which can be like a puzzle. Every once in a while we (masons) get what's called "rock block" which is where none of the stones seem to fit. I have the equivalent of "rock block" when it comes to good composition and compelling subjects. The majority of the people's photos on TPF IMO far surpass what I create.


----------



## Kerbouchard (May 1, 2012)

shefjr said:


> Kerbouchard said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Keep experimenting.  Don't worry so much about what other members are doing.  Some of them have been doing it for 20+ years.  Some are relatively new.  It's a pretty wide gamut of experience.

My advice, once a month or so, go through everything you have shot, and make a copy of those images to one folder.  Delete everything but about 10 photos(Deleting the copies, not the originals).  The next month, do the same with all of your newer images.  Go through those, and delete all(of the copies) except about 10 or so.  Next month, do the same thing.  After a while, you will know what you like and what kind of situations get you there.  Ansel Adams used to say if he had one good image a year, he was successful.  When you get where it is hard to decide on the top 10, drop it to five.

Honestly, that's how you improve.  Having 10's of thousands of files in harddrives that you are never going to look at again isn't going to get you any further.  Constantly looking at your best work and refining it is what is going to take you to the next level.


----------



## shefjr (May 2, 2012)

Kerbouchard said:
			
		

> Keep experimenting.  Don't worry so much about what other members are doing.  Some of them have been doing it for 20+ years.  Some are relatively new.  It's a pretty wide gamut of experience.
> 
> My advice, once a month or so, go through everything you have shot, and make a copy of those images to one folder.  Delete everything but about 10 photos(Deleting the copies, not the originals).  The next month, do the same with all of your newer images.  Go through those, and delete all(of the copies) except about 10 or so.  Next month, do the same thing.  After a while, you will know what you like and what kind of situations get you there.  Ansel Adams used to say if he had one good image a year, he was successful.  When you get where it is hard to decide on the top 10, drop it to five.
> 
> Honestly, that's how you improve.  Having 10's of thousands of files in harddrives that you are never going to look at again isn't going to get you any further.  Constantly looking at your best work and refining it is what is going to take you to the next level.



That is great advice for me! For two reasons. One as you said, "After a while, you will know what you like and what kind of situations get you there." and two, I have been really overwhelmed with the amount of photos that I have been loading onto my computer. Not that I'm "spraying and praying" I am trying to take time to set up/ compose the shot. I'm just taking a lot of photos. These are both two simple yet great tips that will really help me! Thank you!


----------



## rokvi (May 2, 2012)

Also seeing as your flower is the brightest part of your picture, try using partial or spot metering rather than evaluative which is what Im guessing you used.


----------



## Kerbouchard (May 2, 2012)

You are more than welcome...how about every month or so, you post that top five.  Give us a chance to see the progress...


shefjr said:


> Kerbouchard said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## shefjr (May 4, 2012)

Kerbouchard said:
			
		

> You are more than welcome...how about every month or so, you post that top five.  Give us a chance to see the progress...



I would love to do that but, I'm lucky if I have one mediocre photo a month. I've been on TPF for months and have only started two threads for c&c. It comes down to time and decent weather neither of which I have enough of unfortunately.


----------



## fotomumma09 (May 4, 2012)

I'm a chronic underexposureist so I spend some time learning how to understand the histogram. I googled and googled, and read and watched you tube video's. I totally recommend spending time on learning the histogram among 1001 other things


----------

