# Postprocessing an underexposed photo (Lightroom)



## nicolasnico (Dec 4, 2016)

hello everyone, 
my question is about post-processing a picture that underexposed. Generally, my pictures are underexposed so as to bring up (while shooting) the colors I see with my eyes. Requires then postprocessing. Now, I've been struggling with the picture here enclosed. When I change the exposer (in Lightroom), the colors become maybe unreal, I loose the areas of shades vs light... 
Any advice? (I'd be interseted to work that out with someone). Thanks!
PS: I would send you the DNG file but it's not possible to upload them.


----------



## john.margetts (Dec 4, 2016)

On this particular image, no advice I'm afraid. In general, do not under-expose. To get the most information as possible in the image file you need to expose to get the histogram over to the right . You can always get Lightroom to ignore some of the the image information (reduce 'exposure') but you cannot use image information you have not recorded.


----------



## weepete (Dec 4, 2016)

Here is my attempt






There is no reason to underexpose this shot though, as the dynamic range is fine. By underexposing you are just making things more difficult for yourself in post. If you are trying to keep as much detail as possible then you are better off overexposing as long as you don't blow the highlights as more data is retained at the lighter end (AKA ETTR). By underexposing you just introduce more chance of shadow noise


----------



## smoke665 (Dec 4, 2016)

As others said it's better to shoot for the correct exposure for the image. However that doesn't mean always expose "right" or "never" underexposed.  You didn't say which version of LR you have. Older versions had a Recovery Slider, that has been replaced with a highlights, shadow, black and white slider, in the later versions.  Unlike a blown highlight (no detail at all), shadows can hold a lot of detail, by adjusting the sliders, you can recover most of it. In my opinion though you have several other issues. White balance looks wrong, and the only thing I noted even close to being in focus was the large stem (center top), none of the flowerettes were in focus.


----------



## The_Traveler (Dec 4, 2016)

By underexposing you are losing information and gaining noise.
Expose as far to the right as you can without blowing highlights; that will give you information and will separate the lower tones from the ambient noise.


----------



## KmH (Dec 4, 2016)

If a digital camera uses 12 digital bits to encode a photograph those 12-bits can only encode 4096 levels of tone, and unlike our eyes which are non-linear, a digital camera records light in a linear manner.

Because digital at it's most basic uses a base-2 numbering system and the camera we are using uses 12 bits to encode the photo, with the 4096 levels, then level 2048 represents 1/2 the number of photons recorded at level 4096.
Another way to put it is that it takes 4096 photons to make the camera record level 4096 and 2048 photons to record level 2048 - a linear relationship.

Lets next assume, for the sake of simplicity, that this camera has only 6 stops of dynamic range. Your camera has more dynamic range than just 6 stops.
The brightest stop of exposure will have 1/2 of the 4096 levels, or just 2048 of the 4096 levels available.
The next brightest level (stop) will only have 1024 levels, the next brightest will have 512, the next brightest will have 256, the next brightest will have 128, and the last will only have 64 levels.

By under exposing you are limiting how many photons can get to each pixel and you are not utilizing the full dynamic range of your camera.

With digital cameras we need to expose for the highlights and let the dark areas be whatever they are.
With film we did the opposite. We exposed for the dark areas and let the highlights be what they are.

Use the histogram that can be displayed on the rear LCD of a digital camera to gauge exposure, not the photo itself, because the rear LCD of a digital camera is to small and is used in to wide a variety of lighting conditions to judge if the exposure is accurate, or not.

Understanding Histograms, Part 1: Tones & Contrast
Understanding Histograms, Part 2: Luminosity & Color

http://www.adobe.com/digitalimag/pdfs/linear_gamma.pdf
Optimizing Exposure - Luminous Landscape
Expose Right - Luminous Landscape
Exposing to the Right
Exposing to the right - Wikipedia


----------



## Ysarex (Dec 4, 2016)

nicolasnico said:


> hello everyone,
> my question is about post-processing a picture that underexposed. Generally, my pictures are underexposed so as to bring up (while shooting) the colors I see with my eyes. Requires then postprocessing. Now, I've been struggling with the picture here enclosed. When I change the exposer (in Lightroom), the colors become maybe unreal, I loose the areas of shades vs light...
> Any advice? (I'd be interseted to work that out with someone). Thanks!
> PS: I would send you the DNG file but it's not possible to upload them.



Create a free Dropbox account and you can post the DNG file -- be happy to look at it. I can't agree more with what others have said: Do not underexpose.

Joe


----------



## dennybeall (Dec 12, 2016)

Just played a bit for a different look..................


----------



## adamhiram (Dec 14, 2016)

The two biggest issues I see here are exposure and white balance - the photo looks to be underexposed by about 1.5 stops, and the white balance is way too warm.  I'm not sure how closely it matches what you saw in person, but the image looks pretty usable to me once those two items are fixed.

Keep in mind that the only reasons to overexpose or underexpose are to preserve shadows or highlights that otherwise would have been lost.  If you're not at risk of getting blown-out highlights, there's no reason to intentionally underexpose the image.


----------



## table1349 (Feb 24, 2017)




----------



## KmH (Feb 24, 2017)

Looks like it was a now banned spammer that dug up the thread.


----------



## OGsPhotography (Feb 24, 2017)

Looks like Gryph dug it up with the meme lol.

Dill?

FYI the yellow part on Dill which looks like this may be is the more dilly part of dill. The green fronds in comparison have no  flavor.


----------



## limr (Feb 24, 2017)

KmH said:


> Looks like it was a now banned spammer that dug up the thread.



A-yup. At least it wasn't that old and could still be useful. Not like Leaderboard.

Speaking of which...


----------



## nicolasnico (Feb 25, 2017)

hi everyone,
hey, I'm SORRY!!! I obviously missed the answers? In any case, thank you to all of you for your help! I appreciate that! Thank you for taking the time! I'd be happy not to miss your answers next time. THANK YOU!


----------



## OGsPhotography (Feb 25, 2017)

But is it dill or no?


----------



## nicolasnico (Feb 26, 2017)

Again, thanks all for your advices ! The reason I generally underexpose is because to get the real colors (which I saw with my eyes when shooting). If not, colors become kind-of “greyish”, not so intense as I think they appear in reality.

I appreciate the different feedback on the problems that comes up with underexposing (noise, for instance). So, you would rather advice to expose to the light and correct the pictures in post-processing? (in the case of my question, it would mean: use postprocessing to get closer to the colors I actually saw while shooting)

(YSAREX (Joe), thanks for the offer about the DNGs! I appreciate that! You might receive DNGs from me .

(smoke665 and adamhiram: you mention the problem with the white balance. Is that a problem at shooting (anything I should change in my camera settings?) or do you mean I should simply correct the white balance in post-processing?) (I use Lightroom 5.7.1)

(Studio101 kmh: thank you for the technical explanation regarding exposure! If I understand it right, it comfirs what others have said: underexposure means you lose information?)


----------



## nicolasnico (Feb 26, 2017)

weepete said:


> By underexposing you are just making things more difficult for yourself in post. If you are trying to keep as much detail as possible then you are better off overexposing as long as you don't blow the highlights as more data is retained at the lighter end (AKA ETTR). By underexposing you just introduce more chance of shadow noise



Hey, what are the main things you did to get that result, if I may ask? (in Lightroom?)


----------



## nicolasnico (Feb 27, 2017)

OGsPhotography said:


> But is it dill or no?



what is dill? the name of the plant? (Not sure of that plant's name. It actually grows quite high, mountain area here in Kyrgyzstan, Central Asia). And I wonder if they don't have quite a strong smell


----------



## weepete (Feb 27, 2017)

nicolasnico said:


> Hey, what are the main things you did to get that result, if I may ask? (in Lightroom?)



I didn't do much at all, just brought the exposure up by +1.5 EV, set the white point to +10 and black point -12, custom white balance by altering the tint to +5 and an ever so slight desaturation setting it to -3. I was really tryjng to just bring the shot closer to a proper exposure but keep the greens quite green and the yellows pretty yellow.


----------



## smoke665 (Feb 27, 2017)

nicolasnico said:


> (smoke665 and adamhiram: you mention the problem with the white balance. Is that a problem at shooting (anything I should change in my camera settings?) or do you mean I should simply correct the white balance in post-processing?) (I use Lightroom 5.7.1)



My suggestion would be to leave the camera set to AWB, if you don't have a white/gray card, take a piece of white Styrofoam (plate, cup,etc) before you start shooting, hold this out and take a shot of it. Then go on to shoot your set. When you open the set in LR, go to the shot of the known white, use the eyedropper tool to set the WB. Now highlight all the images in the set, and click on the Synchronize button, select just WB, and continue. All your images will be set to the same WB. If you want to make sure your colors are correct, get one of these  Vello White Balance Card Set for Digital Photography WB-CS B&H
you can also find them on Ebay cheap. Spread the cards and put them at the front of your series.


----------



## nicolasnico (Feb 27, 2017)

weepete said:


> nicolasnico said:
> 
> 
> > Hey, what are the main things you did to get that result, if I may ask? (in Lightroom?)
> ...



that's helpful to know, thank you! Hey, about the white point though, I'm going up/down between 0 and + 10. Not so easy to see the difference. Would you mind explaining what you try to achieve with the white point? (my question might show how little I know ;-)


----------



## nicolasnico (Feb 27, 2017)

smoke665 said:


> nicolasnico said:
> 
> 
> > (smoke665 and adamhiram: you mention the problem with the white balance. Is that a problem at shooting (anything I should change in my camera settings?) or do you mean I should simply correct the white balance in post-processing?) (I use Lightroom 5.7.1)
> ...


----------



## weepete (Feb 28, 2017)

nicolasnico said:


> that's helpful to know, thank you! Hey, about the white point though, I'm going up/down between 0 and + 10. Not so easy to see the difference. Would you mind explaining what you try to achieve with the white point? (my question might show how little I know ;-)



No problem. Setting a white and black point helps make sure you have a good range of tones in your shot (have a look at your histogram while you adjust it and you'll see what it does). Rightly or wrong I also find that setting them properly helps maintain good colour as well. 

I should also probably mention I did my edit in lightroom mobile, and I'm not sure if its less or more aggressive with some settings.


----------

