The Outdated Fuss About Exposure

It was serious business, not a fuss. in film times but it is now!

With digital recording technologies, dynamic range latitudes
are so great that as long as you consider the histogram and
the EV button on your camera as your best friends at capture,
exposure is NO MORE the ultimate criteria but rendition is.

It hurts me painfully when ever I hear/read: "good" exposure",
"well exposed" etc. How can they know how it was exposed?

I say that it is not with the exposure that the mastery lies but
with the rendition of a capture.

What do you say?

G'day NS

Not everyone goes in for -or is capable of- extensive PP and the associated rendition of an image

There are many people - perhaps more 'amateurs' than 'enthusiasts' &/or 'professionals' who do little or no PP of an image as "that's the way they like it for their hobby"

On the other hand, regrettably to my eye, I see too many images that appear over-processed and while some others "wow" over the image, I say to myself 'no-it would not grace my loungeroom wall if it were mine'

Equally, I see plenty of images here and on similar fora where the image has been rendered delightfully - where muddy brown waters of a river or lake have been rendered to become a delightful blue shade ... something that Downunder people haven't seen for a long, long time

Phil from the great land Downunder
www.flickr.com/photos/ozzie_traveller/sets/

Even with the wide DR cameras, and Photoshop for rescue I still prefer a "proper" exposure. Better exposure, less post, no?

effron wrote: Even with the wide DR cameras, and Photoshop for rescue I still prefer a "proper" exposure. Better exposure, less post, no?

Agreed
I am busy enough with other things ...
I spend enough time at the keyboard 'doing business' ...
I want to enjoy my 'photography' ~ so

the more I can minimise the PP side of things, the happier I am
even if the result "might" be only 95% what a PP expert might create, it is usually 100% good enough for me

Phil from Downunder

Add me to those supporting a correct exposure for the result desired. 

What’s a ‘correct’ exposure?

Tom-Dinning wrote: What’s a ‘correct’ exposure?

A good question.

To me, a good exposure will record a scene — within the limits of the
dynamic range — so that all the data will be accessible for what ever
intent may be explored and expressed in the final rendition.

Nikon Shooter wrote:

Tom-Dinning wrote: What’s a ‘correct’ exposure?

A good question.

To me, a good exposure will record a scene — within the limits of the
dynamic range — so that all the data will be accessible for what ever
intent may be explored and expressed in the final rendition.

Seems reasonable although it’s not the sort of thing most people would think of when pointing their camera into the wide blue yonder.

I’m  curious. The word ‘rendition’ or rendering is used quite a lot in this forum. Is that a thing here. It sounds like I should be applying stucco to the walls or playing some jazz on my piano.

aince the digital age has been upon us I’m more inclined to be the lazy photographer and leave the tech stuff to the camera. 
invariably I’ll apply a mode that is quick and easy and suits my needs at the time. This turns out to be either P or A and when I’m a little intoxicated, Auto.
I like P because I can still control the aperture. That, for my needs is usually the most important feature of my results. I’m also aware that being able to alter aperture, I also have control over shutter speed which is a secondary consideration when the desire takes me.

as for exposing for detail, it’s usually only that part of the frame in which detail is necessary for the end result. The rest I can manipulate to my hearts content later on.

Another lazy way of exposing is to let the camera decide then crank the exposure control dial + or - for the desired effect.

And lastly, if it’s too dark I’ll give the ISO knob a twirl.

Im pretty sure I’m causing havoc among the aficionados and perfectionists here. But, hey, it’s good to have a slob like me in the mix to show what can be done when you don’t do the housework or iron your clothes.

 

Tom-Dinning wrote: I’m  curious. The word ‘rendition’ or rendering is used quite a lot in this forum. Is that a thing here. It sounds like I should be applying stucco to the walls or playing some jazz on my piano.

A rendition is the fact of introducing an artistic intent that
will take the final result higher that the mere technology it
used… by opposition to copying for example.

Tom-Dinning wrote: Since the digital age has been upon us I’m more inclined to be the lazy photographer…

I never use anything but manual… I'm lazy at times too but
always on manual.

Nikon Shooter wrote:

Tom-Dinning wrote: I’m  curious. The word ‘rendition’ or rendering is used quite a lot in this forum. Is that a thing here. It sounds like I should be applying stucco to the walls or playing some jazz on my piano.

A rendition is the fact of introducing an artistic intent that
will take the final result higher that the mere technology it
used… by opposition to copying for example.

Tom-Dinning wrote: Since the digital age has been upon us I’m more inclined to be the lazy photographer…

I never use anything but manual… I'm lazy at times too but
always on manual.

I was manual back in the old days. No choice, really. Cameras didn’t have light meters let alone exposure control. My Old  Man taught me to use guessometry for exposure. We’d challenge each other to guess the aperture and exposure, then he’d check it on his hand held Weston. I wasn’t allowed to use it until I could guess 9 out of 10 correct. By that time I didn’t need it.

like driving a manual car, I’d never go back to that for quids. I still have his old meter. Doesn’t work any more. Photo cells are fucked.

Rhe point here is probably what we’d agree on. It’s the end product that’s important. How we get it is our own business.

I do use light meter but only in studio.

Nikon Shooter wrote: I do use light meter but only in studio.

I won’t tell anyone. Promise!

Thanks Tom… you're a good buddy!

effron wrote: Better exposure, less post, no?

Yes and no.

Yes because no additional work will be needed to correct
what could have been a good image to work with.

No because, even with a very correct exposure and RAW
file, a minimum of development is still required to transla-
te a mineral recording in an organic rendition.

Nikon Shooter wrote:

effron wrote: Better exposure, less post, no?

Yes and no.

......to translate  a mineral recording in an organic rendition.

Now that sounds like avoidance to me. You might need some therapy to rid you of that last statement. It could have an everlasting effect on you bowel movements, effron