Exposure

[Barry Beckham]

Here is a serious look at Exposure, but also a pop at all those who still whine all the time about image manipulation Top of the page

http://www.beckhamdigital.co.uk/freestuffdigslidesw4.htm

[trailertrash]

Great explination of exposure in the digital arena Barry. I did learn something actually, but damn! did somebody p*ss in your pool?

[rick235]

SPOT ON BARRY

[Ed Overstreet]

Excellent tutorial as well as some excellent photographs. Should be required viewing for anyone starting out in digital photography, as well as for some of those who have been at it for a while. I'm recommending this to my photo club, if you don't mind.

[stonemason]

Barry probably the best explanation I've ever seen, definitely a keeper.

Hope life's treating you well down under.

Geoff

[nelson]

Would like to see and hear more, so I ordered the DVD.

looking forward to it,

Kieron

[Barry Beckham]

I think I have been listening to the nonsense spouted by far too many on these issues for years and decided enough was enough. However, understanding exposure and accepting that important fact that what we see is not what we get makes a lot of difference to the standard of our photgraphy.

Edd, No problem using the tutorial

Geoff. Australia is fine, well into late Autumn now, but today was sunshine and 26c a glorious day

[trailertrash]

Barry, I remember being in the darkroom with card cutouts and hands in all shapes burning and dodging. I still have my Weston Euromaster light meter and its as accurate as ever.

However, using photoshop [i just upgraded to CS5] is far easier and more fun. No more waste. I still dont fully understand exposure,[and thats after 40+ years] in particular the histogram thingy,but I now thank god for digital where the camera helps me out.

[davegee]

Excellent tutorial, Barry, illustrated with some stunning images.

I too, will be posting a link at my CC's Forum.

DG

[Barry Beckham]

Modern cameras make photography a little easier, but they cannot make the decisions for us, which was the point of the slide show. There must be a few on the forum that feel I am talking a load of twaddle (no change there then) with regard to exposure and what you see is not what you get.

To those I would suggest a small experiment. Put a pad and pen in the camera bag and next time your out on a bright sunny day, make a simple sketch of the subject in front of you. Write down what you can see in the shadow areas, the highlight areas and other various parts of the scene. Then take 3 bracketed exposures of that scene. More often then not, when you get any one of the three images on your PC screen they will not match your notes. The detail you could see with your eyes from the shadows will be gone and they may be completely black. Other areas will be very different too.

Once we understand and accept there is a gap between what we see and what we can capture, then we can sometimes do something about it while we are still in front of the subject. Not always though as this isn't an exact science. I have found that I can do something it in enough cases to make a significant difference to the quality of my photography.

Its rather stating the obvious as the saying goes, but AV is just two things, the A and the V and in my view the V part is squarely in our control.

What appears to be an insignificant light area when we look through the viewfider of our camera is often enough in the resulting photograph to drag the image appeal down to the level of a snap, a record shot only. Once we realise and accept that, it makes us far more careful when framing up an image, but if you have a digital SLR you should be adept at exposure compensation and bracketed exposures. Its worth getting that instruction manual out.

Dave

Thanks for your comments on the images, which although I never said it, makes my point. These are all recent. Any competant photographer can find 12 great images from the last 5 years, but the last few months is a different matter. It makes the point that if you get this right, your success rate climbs sigbnificantly

[Peter S]

Hi Barry,

Very interesting and right on the mark. I have been trying to get good pictures of bluebells in a beech wood and there are always gaps in the trees with varying amounts of light peeping through. A perfect exposure in one shot? Not any of my shots that's for sure.

Interestingly the Mac version plays very well but now with a slightly distorted sound. It has slowed the sound down a little and thereby reduced your pitch by around a semi-tone. I played the two versions together on a Mac and PC side by side and it is quite noticeable.

More work obviously needed by Igor and the team to get this just right.

Kind regards

Peter

[Barry Beckham]

Bluebells in a Beach wood is like our Rainforsts out here in Australia. You need to shoot the images on a day that is not bright and sunny. Or you will never control those high lights.

Not having a Mac myself I am unable to comment on the sound, but I already have some feedback that it was OK. Perhaps it was my conversion process from Mono to Stereo. A later version of PTE will probably put things right.

[jfa]

Barry

Just found this one and I think you are spot-on with your good explanation of exposure and have provided a very tempting introduction to your disks on the subject. For many years I have carried a 18% gray card in my camera bag and it can be quite helpful with exposure and very enlightening.

It is just not possible to get it right in the camera most of the time with the current digital camera technology, the dynamic range of the sensor is nowhere near that of the human eye. Maybe some-time in the future, probably a long time in the future.

[alantha]

Barry, Just magnificent!! I'll be making sure others in my family watch this. It is a great explanation of why

we have to post-process to get the scene that we saw represented on the computer screen or in print.

Really excellent photographs that complement your narrative extremely well. Congratulations on an exceptional slideshow.

Regards, Alan

[Barry Beckham]

Thank you Alan

I intend to use it as an opening to tow demoa I will be giving in the next few months

Barry

[cjdnzl]

Barry

Just found this one and I think you are spot-on with your good explanation of exposure and have provided a very tempting introduction to your disks on the subject. For many years I have carried a 18% gray card in my camera bag and it can be quite helpful with exposure and very enlightening.

It is just not possible to get it right in the camera most of the time with the current digital camera technology, the dynamic range of the sensor is nowhere near that of the human eye. Maybe some-time in the future, probably a long time in the future.

Just to be a bit pedantic here, I have often heard and seen remarks about the dynamic range of the human eye versus digital sensors. Actually, the eye does not have a huge dynamic range at all. When one looks at a bright area, the iris closes down, and when one looks at a darker area the iris opens up. So you have 'exposure compensation' built-in which works automatically below your conscious level. If you can, look at a bright area in the scene, say the sky, and then, without moving your eye, take note of how the darker areas look. Then, look at the darker areas and note how bright the light areas look, again without moving your eye. Fact is, the dynamic range of a good sensor is about 10 or 12 stops, that's a range of 1:2^12, or 1:4000, far greater than your eye can handle without iris control.

Colin

[Barry Beckham]

Well, we can look at this anyway we want, but the upshot is that what we see ain't what we get. When our cameras can do the same as the eye and record a different exposure in many different parts of the image, then we won't ned image editing.

I wouldn't hold your breath though

[deskjet1uk]

Hi Barry,

Due to personal issues ive been away from the forums for awhile and just started to post again.

Ive viewed some sequences and left remarks as I felt they were well justified because of the good work produced.

But Barry, this post of yours is excellent.

Ive been a user of photoshop for ten years going back to version 5 and have always preached its benefits.

Ive left the camera club I was a member of but I would have loved to have played your slide show to the members.

Hopefully one or two of them will read your post and view the slideshow you put together.

I would of loved to have seen replies to your post from even more of the experienced photographers!!!!!!.

Barry, well done, brilliant.

regards

Ralph

[Barry Beckham]

Ralph

Thank you, you probably noticed that the inspiration for the slide show came from a degree of anger too. I just got fed up with intelligent people who for reasons I still don't understand still believe that the camera is an instrument that is designed to record exactly what is there. It isn't and it doesn't and the sooner the penny drops for them, the sooner they start to produce some decent images.

[Paul T]

Hi Barry

For some reason I had missed this on the forum back in May. However, I’m glad that I have picked this up now, and what a great way you have explained the myth of the perfect exposure. I believe every newcomer to photography should watch this presentation and maybe they will not be brainwashed by the countless hogwash some so called experts talk about regarding the cameras ability to offer the correct exposure what ever the conditions if it is set correctly. I would also say camera manufactures have a lot to answer for, as their promotional stuff leads one to believe that the camera they are selling you will produce the correct exposure because it has a highly technically metering system. I have seen the quality of work you turn out Barry and that must be proof enough to support your claim to all I hope.

Regards Paul

[Barry Beckham]

Well, you can lead a horse to water, but you can't force them to drink

[Nikonos]

Very well explained topic Barry and put together (as always) in a superb fashion using PTE.

Regards - Malcolm