# underexposing test



## wannabe photographer (Dec 31, 2019)




----------



## smoke665 (Dec 31, 2019)

Interesting composition, but not sure where you were going with the underexposed part.


----------



## johnfreed0 (Dec 31, 2019)

wannabe photographer said:


> View attachment 184479


 Nice shot!  Where?


----------



## wannabe photographer (Dec 31, 2019)

Münich


----------



## Derrel (Dec 31, 2019)

Nice picture.


----------



## Scott Whaley (Dec 31, 2019)

I tend to under expose a lot of my shots.   If I don't like it I can always raise the exposure in post processing.   Under exposing tends to give more detail in the photo.   To the OP:  I like it.


----------



## K9Kirk (Jan 1, 2020)

Nice pic, very interesting. I don't know if it was the same for you with this pic being in B&W, I can't compare without seeing the original but I like a dark background in certain color pics because it gives a little "pop" to the subject. Good playing around, I think it probably makes it more moody being underexposed. I'm assuming that was your intention.


----------



## Jeff15 (Jan 1, 2020)

Good shot..........


----------



## 480sparky (Jan 1, 2020)

Scott Whaley said:


> I tend to under expose a lot of my shots.   If I don't like it I can always raise the exposure in post processing.   Under exposing tends to give more detail in the photo.   ..........



I can see using the method to keep the highlights from getting blown out and retaining the details in those areas, but don't you run the risk of losing the details in the shadows as a result?


----------



## Scott Whaley (Jan 1, 2020)

I can bring out the shadows in post processing.


----------



## 480sparky (Jan 1, 2020)

Scott Whaley said:


> I can bring out the shadows in post processing.



Even when they start out as 0:0:0?


----------



## smoke665 (Jan 1, 2020)

Scott Whaley said:


> I can bring out the shadows in post processing.



Which also enhances any noise present.


----------



## K9Kirk (Jan 1, 2020)

480sparky said:


> Scott Whaley said:
> 
> 
> > I tend to under expose a lot of my shots.   If I don't like it I can always raise the exposure in post processing.   Under exposing tends to give more detail in the photo.   ..........
> ...


That's true but it all depends, if the detail isn't interesting some dark shadows for contrast can be an improvement over it. Especially so when you see parts of the detail in the light and have a good idea of what it looks like and they fade into darkness. I personally like that kind of drama in a pic. It's relative, you can never please everyone.


----------



## Scott Whaley (Jan 1, 2020)

smoke665 said:


> Scott Whaley said:
> 
> 
> > I can bring out the shadows in post processing.
> ...



That is true.  I use LR6 and I use the Detail dropdown and raise the Luminance in the Noise reduction section.


----------



## 480sparky (Jan 1, 2020)

I guess we have a new standard digital exposure method: ETTL.


----------



## smoke665 (Jan 1, 2020)

@Scott Whaley granted there are choices to be made when considering whether to clip highlights or blacks, or creative choices as in the OP. However as a matter of practice I prefer a full data file. You can't generate image without data, in the highlights or shadows. As 480Sparky mentioned above 0.0.0 is black period, there is no detail to recover. Maybe its my imagination but I  find that colors benefit more from a properly exposed image rather then one that's been raised post, especially on skin.


----------



## Scott Whaley (Jan 1, 2020)

That's something I know nothing about since I don't do portrait photo.  I'll leave that to you that do.


----------



## wannabe photographer (Jan 1, 2020)

I just wanted to make little bit dramatic ,i don't have any program for editing,just trial version of  Nik silver.


----------



## K9Kirk (Jan 2, 2020)

wannabe photographer said:


> I just wanted to make little bit dramatic ,i don't have any program for editing,just trial version of  Nik silver.



You did great. It was dramatic and it caused some drama in here as well so you're on the right track, keep playing around and have fun doing it!


----------



## TWX (Jan 2, 2020)

wannabe photographer said:


> I just wanted to make little bit dramatic ,i don't have any program for editing,just trial version of  Nik silver.


On Linux I variously use a combination of Darktable (wannabe-clone of Lightroom), rawtherapee, and GIMP.  Lately I've been leaning towards opening my raw files in rawtherapee and then sometimes exporting tweaked results to GIMP for additional tweaking.

Not sure what's for Windows or Apple.  I've used Canon's raw editor a bit when I've needed to export pictures quickly while at work, but just for quick and dirty adjustments, and admittedly I don't really know what I'm doing with it.

Darktable seems to offer the most manipulation potential but it wants to be a whole-universe package, with importation into its own filenaming format etc, which is overkill for just basic manipulation.  Rawtherapee does a better job of respecting my existing directory structure and filenames.


----------



## johngpt (Jan 7, 2020)

wannabe photographer said:


> View attachment 184479


I don't get an underexposed feel from this. I'm running my cursor over the brightest highlights using the Mac's utility app Digital Color Meter. I use it in LAB mode. The brightest highlights are 92. 100 would be so bright that there's no data or detail. It looks like Wannabe captured pretty close to a full range of luminosity. I see a lot of midtones and detail in the image. The statue has the greatest contrast, as it should if as main subject the eye should go there.

It seems as though Wannabe exposed to the right and just avoided blowing out highlights.
Nicely done Wannabee.


----------

