[dcstep]

The name for it is Expose To The Right (of the histogram, or "ETTR"). So you overexpose the overall image, such that it'll look washed out when you look at the Raw file. (BTW, it only works if you shoot in Raw, otherwise, don't do it). Be careful not to blow out any "important" highlights. (Ignore small, unimportant highlights that are blown out). Turn on your highlight warning in the preview screen, so they'll blink to show you any blown out highlights.

When you do your Raw conversion, you bring the levels down to something close to what your eye saw. The Raw file you created will have more digital information than a "properly" exposed or underexposed file. By bringing levels down, you reduce the chance of noise, while increasing levels (trying to raise shadows) increases noise.

The shot below was taken at +4/3EV, taking into account that the details are all in the shady side of the bunny. Also, I get more fur detail:


Bunny Close Up by dcstep, on Flickr

Shooting in Raw gives you many more post processing alternatives and will generally give a better result than jpegs out of the camera. Shooting Raw is the first step to improving your photography and ETTR is a next step.

Dave

[BMW F22]

Originally Posted by Chewy734

You're welcome. Sure, for example, you can take an exposure reading for the sky, and one for the barn, and then choose something in the middle. That's essentially what the camera might be doing in auto mode. What happens there is you don't get good exposure for either the barn or the sky, but you can see both somewhat. It all depends on what you want. If you have a nice sunset, I would expose for the sky. If the barn is your focus, I would adjust exposure towards the shadows more.

That brings me to another question: should one always expose for the darkest or brightest part (depending on what he/she is trying to keep the details of) or does it depend on how much of something one is trying to show? Let's say there is a fox in the bushes. Do I expose for the fox or the shadow in which the fox is in?

[BMW F22]

Originally Posted by dcstep

The name for it is Expose To The Right (of the histogram, or "ETTR"). So you overexpose the overall image, such that it'll look washed out when you look at the Raw file. (BTW, it only works if you shoot in Raw, otherwise, don't do it). Be careful not to blow out any "important" highlights. (Ignore small, unimportant highlights that are blown out). Turn on your highlight warning in the preview screen, so they'll blink to show you any blown out highlights.

When you do your Raw conversion, you bring the levels down to something close to what your eye saw. The Raw file you created will have more digital information than a "properly" exposed or underexposed file. By bringing levels down, you reduce the chance of noise, while increasing levels (trying to raise shadows) increases noise.

The shot below was taken at +4/3EV, taking into account that the details are all in the shady side of the bunny. Also, I get more fur detail:

Shooting in Raw gives you many more post processing alternatives and will generally give a better result than jpegs out of the camera. Shooting Raw is the first step to improving your photography and ETTR is a next step.

Dave

Great! Thank you for the tip! I never knew that about post processing. I will definitely keep that in mind.

[Chewy734]

Originally Posted by BMW E90

That brings me to another question: should one always expose for the darkest or brightest part (depending on what he/she is trying to keep the details of) or does it depend on how much of something one is trying to show? Let's say there is a fox in the bushes. Do I expose for the fox or the shadow in which the fox is in?

In general, you want to expose for the subject of your scene. So, in your example, you want to expose for the fox (generally the head/eyes region).

[dcstep]

Originally Posted by BMW E90

That brings me to another question: should one always expose for the darkest or brightest part (depending on what he/she is trying to keep the details of) or does it depend on how much of something one is trying to show? Let's say there is a fox in the bushes. Do I expose for the fox or the shadow in which the fox is in?

The most important thing is not to blow out important highlights. For the fox in the bushes, I expose for the fox and since he's relatively dark, it's usually +1EV or more compared to the whole scene.

Shooting a dark bird in the top of a tree, backed by bright clouds, I expose for the bird (probably +2EV) and sacrifice the clouds, realizing they'll be a white, blown out mass. Remember, only worry about "important" highlights.

If the scene is static and the DR is huge, then use natural, multi-exposure HDR to get a natural looking exposure.

Dave

[dcstep]

Originally Posted by Chewy734

In general, you want to expose for the subject of your scene. So, in your example, you want to expose for the fox (generally the head/eyes region).

Chewy's right, but you want to over expose the fox (ETTR) to the extent that you can without blowing out important highlights. You'll create a larger file (more megabytes of data) that you'll have further flexibility to process in Raw conversion.

I use Center Weighting metering, not Spot. With Spot, you need to be very careful and understand 100% how the meter works. It DOES NOT see a subject and figure out what's the best exposure. Instead, it sees the subjects and says to itself, what exposure will make that thing under my spot 18% medium grey? Really, that's what it does. So, if the subject is white, it underexposes it to make it darker and if it's dark, it overexposes it trying to make it medium grey. That's wonderful if you have a model holding a medium grey card up beside her face, but it sucks for most other live subjects that might leave in the next second.

Where you can, when you see an image that you like, study the EXIF data. Flickr provides it on most images, unless the owner hides EXIF.

Dave

[signes]

Originally Posted by dcstep

Chewy's right, but you want to over expose the fox (ETTR) to the extent that you can without blowing out important highlights. You'll create a larger file (more megabytes of data) that you'll have further flexibility to process in Raw conversion.

I use Center Weighting metering, not Spot. With Spot, you need to be very careful and understand 100% how the meter works. It DOES NOT see a subject and figure out what's the best exposure. Instead, it sees the subjects and says to itself, what exposure will make that thing under my spot 18% medium grey? Really, that's what it does. So, if the subject is white, it underexposes it to make it darker and if it's dark, it overexposes it trying to make it medium grey. That's wonderful if you have a model holding a medium grey card up beside her face, but it sucks for most other live subjects that might leave in the next second.

Where you can, when you see an image that you like, study the EXIF data. Flickr provides it on most images, unless the owner hides EXIF.

Dave

Great summary. Best example is if you shoot a subject on the snow or a hockey game the snow/ice becomes grey.

[dcstep]

Originally Posted by signes

Great summary. Best example is if you shoot a subject on the snow or a hockey game the snow/ice becomes grey.

Hey Signes. Did you shout at me from you bike a couple of weeks ago? (Through my M3 windshield, all bikers look alike!)

Dave

[BMW F22]

Awesome. Thank you very much guys!!

[signes]

Originally Posted by dcstep

Hey Signes. Did you shout at me from you bike a couple of weeks ago? (Through my M3 windshield, all bikers look alike!)

Dave

That was me. Hope I didn't ruin a shot...

[dcstep]

Originally Posted by signes

That was me. Hope I didn't ruin a shot...

Not a problem, at all.

[BMW F22]

For those that have been to Maui, are there photography spots that shouldn't be missed? Or is it pretty much everywhere on the island?

[M_Six]

Originally Posted by BMW E90

For those that have been to Maui, are there photography spots that shouldn't be missed? Or is it pretty much everywhere on the island?

Make that about the whole of Hawaii. We're planning a trip for Oct or Nov. I'd love to get some pics of surfers in big waves.

[dcstep]

Originally Posted by M_Six

Make that about the whole of Hawaii. We're planning a trip for Oct or Nov. I'd love to get some pics of surfers in big waves.

The North Shore of Oahu is an easy spot to get great surfing shots. You can walk right up to the Bonsai Pipeline. I'd like to try again with more reach, but I did all right with a 70-200mm:


Surfing "The Pipe"_MG_3021_DxO5D_raw by dcstep, on Flickr

Avoid December because the crowds are outrageous for the big surfing championships. January has the biggest surf and world class surfers are still there and there are NO crowds. I think that October and November will be fine crowd-wise, but the surf will be smaller, from what I'm told.

Dave

[M_Six]

Thanks, DC. I'm thinking of hauling the 400 5.6 along just for things like this. With that sun, using the 400 with a 1.4x TC should be easy.

[Weebl]

Haleakala during the day panorama at the top and all the viewpoints. Then again at night for the Milky Way but not at the top as the wind starts howling through there and you get too much vibration in the tripod. La Perouse bay below Wailea for some nice ʻAʻā pics, the blowhole on the NE corner but only if there is a halfway decent swell and a couple of spots on Hana but personally I don't feel it is worth the trip.
Those are the scenic spots on Maui for a quick trip.
Charles Lindbergs grave below Hana.

Mark,
Which Island?

We go there about once a year. Never been to Oahu,Molokai or Lanai.

[M_Six]

Originally Posted by Weebl

Haleakala during the day panorama at the top and all the viewpoints. Then again at night for the Milky Way but not at the top as the wind starts howling through there and you get too much vibration in the tripod. La Perouse bay below Wailea for some nice ʻAʻā pics, the blowhole on the NE corner but only if there is a halfway decent swell and a couple of spots on Hana but personally I don't feel it is worth the trip.
Those are the scenic spots on Maui for a quick trip.
Charles Lindbergs grave below Hana.

Mark,
Which Island?

We go there about once a year. Never been to Oahu,Molokai or Lanai.

We're thinking of hitting 3 islands for a couple days each and maybe a day trip to the volcanoes.

[Weebl]

Unless you like those 6AM-10PM days, I don't think that would be fun.
;-) they are all "volcanoes".
From Kona to HVNP where the lava is takes about 2 1/2 hours, we were there three times and didn't see everything in the park. Your first day and last day will be traveling so I think a good 4 days/island would be a minimum.
Or stay a whole week @ one and enjoy yourself.
Tell your wife, I know where to find all the kitties on Maui and who to contact about a "tour".
I think Kauai and Hawaii are the most "photogenic".

[dcstep]

Unless the volcanoes are active, then that's not be worth all the effort, given you limited time. Still, if you're on Hawaii (the Big Island), then you need to include that. I'd rather spend 3-days each in Oahu and Maui, given only six days. Still, I could also spend all six days in Hawaii.

[Weebl]

It's been active since early last year. I think the ocean entry started around Oct. We went at the beginning of the year 2 weeks Hawaii/Maui
http://hvo.wr.usgs.gov/cams/

[BMW F22]

Cool thank you for the tips guys!

Mark- you're thinking of a few days on each island? That's not enough time to explore much. Personally I like to have time to relax and unwind so if I were you I would pick an island and spend all my time there.

[BMW F22]

For HDR- what exposures do you guys set the bracketing for? Is it -1/3,0, +1/3? Or do you guys do 2/3 or +/- 1 full stop?