Shooting your shots slightly underexposed

I always had a tough time with high contrast shots and recently started to shoot all my shots slight underexposed.  All my shots will cross through Lightroom and therefor get some edit work done.  I find I get more detail and better control of my highlights doing this way. 

But if this is remotely a good practice, then why aren't the manufactures building this into the exposure algorithms these cameras use?  

Zach Mosher wrote: I always had a tough time with high contrast shots and recently started to shoot all my shots slight underexposed.  All my shots will cross through Lightroom and therefor get some edit work done.  I find I get more detail and better control of my highlights doing this way. 

But if this is remotely a good practice, then why aren't the manufactures building this into the exposure algorithms these cameras use?  

Sony kind of did this and it drives me crazy. It’s anywhere from 1/2-2/3 of a stop low. Shadows can be just as harmful as highlights, especially in some areas of photography, like macro. I find that I can lose detail in dark hair (spiders), and in those tiny little spaces. For birds, the darker feathers can start causing issues too. 

At one time photogs “Exposed to the left” to get less highlights, but now that we have histograms, can see what is happening in the field,  and digital editing, a lot of photogs have gone the other direction and actually expose slightly right. 

Personally, I try to get as close to the correct exposure as possible, but will over/underexpose for certain shots

Your meter may be off ... you may have Exposure Compensation wrongly engaged ... or you may be metering incorrectly.

All light meters read for Medium Gray.  If you meter off a black wall, center the meter and make a print, it will come out medium gray.  If you meter off a white wall, center the meter and make a print, it will come out medium gray.  Using the meter as a guide, the photographer needs to adjust the camera settings to properly capture the desired reflective qualities of the scene (either actual or artistic). 

The meter is merely a guide.  Modern camera's meters are hooked to the camera's onboard computer which interprets the meter's medium gray readings and "automatically" makes adjustments, (right or wrong), which were previously allocated to the photographer. 

This is an other reason why exif data is non significant.

Exposing films had the same tolerances, the ONLY important point
is, IMO, that you underexpose at will as long as the histogram (your
best friend at all times!) is good.

The STTR approach is passé with the later developments in cameras;
I teach the STTL so one has the best chance to protect the whites.

I don't check my histogram till generally in Lightroom.  It seems to be begged a lot more in the center since I started going for the underexpose.  

Are you checking in camera or do you keep it on your LCD screen? 

Troponin wrote:

Zach Mosher wrote: I always had a tough time with high contrast shots and recently started to shoot all my shots slight underexposed.  All my shots will cross through Lightroom and therefor get some edit work done.  I find I get more detail and better control of my highlights doing this way. 

But if this is remotely a good practice, then why aren't the manufactures building this into the exposure algorithms these cameras use?  

Sony kind of did this and it drives me crazy. It’s anywhere from 1/2-2/3 of a stop low. Shadows can be just as harmful as highlights, especially in some areas of photography, like macro. I find that I can lose detail in dark hair (spiders), and in those tiny little spaces. For birds, the darker feathers can start causing issues too. 

At one time photogs “Exposed to the left” to get less highlights, but now that we have histograms, can see what is happening in the field,  and digital editing, a lot of photogs have gone the other direction and actually expose slightly right. 

Personally, I try to get as close to the correct exposure as possible, but will over/underexpose for certain shots

Didn't know that about the Sony's.  But the detail is easier to pull out from an underexposed area vs blown out.  I do agree, that the extremes are pretty much PITA regardless.  


So what sort of shots will you underexpose for?  Give me an example please.  

Zach Mosher wrote:

Troponin wrote:

Zach Mosher wrote: I always had a tough time with high contrast shots and recently started to shoot all my shots slight underexposed.  All my shots will cross through Lightroom and therefor get some edit work done.  I find I get more detail and better control of my highlights doing this way. 

But if this is remotely a good practice, then why aren't the manufactures building this into the exposure algorithms these cameras use?  

Sony kind of did this and it drives me crazy. It’s anywhere from 1/2-2/3 of a stop low. Shadows can be just as harmful as highlights, especially in some areas of photography, like macro. I find that I can lose detail in dark hair (spiders), and in those tiny little spaces. For birds, the darker feathers can start causing issues too. 

At one time photogs “Exposed to the left” to get less highlights, but now that we have histograms, can see what is happening in the field,  and digital editing, a lot of photogs have gone the other direction and actually expose slightly right. 

Personally, I try to get as close to the correct exposure as possible, but will over/underexpose for certain shots

Didn't know that about the Sony's.  But the detail is easier to pull out from an underexposed area vs blown out.  I do agree, that the extremes are pretty much PITA regardless.  


So what sort of shots will you underexpose for?  Give me an example please.  

As NS pointed out, a perfect time to underexpose slightly is when you’re dealing with whites, especially in your subject. I had a really long conversation with him on the topic and it was extremely helpful. His white bird shots are pretty killer. You should check them out if you haven’t seen them. 

Another situation that can call for underexposure is when dealing with backlighting. It’s not difficult to blow highlights and lose that nice glow affect. 

Zach Mosher wrote: I don't check my histogram till generally in Lightroom. 

Forget Lr… it's all on the camera screen  — where a quick look
will confirm or infirm your exposure. Really your best friend.

Nikon Shooter wrote:

Zach Mosher wrote: I don't check my histogram till generally in Lightroom. 

Forget Lr… it's all on the camera screen  — where a quick look
will confirm or infirm your exposure. Really your best friend.

Cool, thank you.

So do you have it showing on your photo preview screen? 

Zach Mosher wrote:

Nikon Shooter wrote:

Zach Mosher wrote: I don't check my histogram till generally in Lightroom. 

Forget Lr… it's all on the camera screen  — where a quick look
will confirm or infirm your exposure. Really your best friend.

Cool, thank you.

So do you have it showing on your photo preview screen? 

If there is only one thing on my screen, it’s the histogram. I have it turned on to view at all times. 

Zach Mosher wrote: So do you have it showing on your photo preview screen? 

I see my capture and the histogram… I wouldn't be bothered
with the first but the second, as Troponin suggests… a MUST.

If your camera is ISO invariant, then under exposing is much much preferred than over exposing. A lot ify Nikons are ISO invariant while a lot if Canons aren't.

YMMV

This is why we chimp.

Nonetheless, one must know how the image on the camera display translates to reality. And whether flagged highlights on the LCD are actually a problem. And how your sensor handles shadows. And whether each can be recovered/managed in post.

I'd rather deal with under- than overexposed any day. You can't recover data that's lost to blow-outs.

It all comes down to knowing your equipment and what can be accomplished in post.

I had just thought of this, but a couple other times I push my exposure up a bit is when I am photographing butterflies in shade (Some of my best shots!), and black ones that that will most likely end up under exposed because the rest of the scene is much lighter. Watch your meter though. If your camera has zebras, you can use those, otherwise, watch the histogram and make sure it’s not clipping. 

Why not just use -1 or -2 exposure compensation and keep exposure set at center?