Sorry, but this is not generally valid. To constantly underexpose is wrong but better than overexpose. In my camera there is definitely no need for underexposure as a general rule. As for the last sentence, that is true for both digital and film. Overexposed pictures are generally more difficult to correct that slightly underexposed ones, but if there is no information in shadow or highlight area, nothing else just black or white than it is equally impossible.
[ Olympus Colours ] - Show Your Blues, Greens and Reds!
- Thread starter drakon09
- Start date
- Status
hhho
Senior Member
E500 with kit lens. Please advice how to have a more balanced exposure as some parts are "washed out".
Thanks.
using kit lens 14-45mm, you should get this colour for the same things
metering ESP and programe setting mode (P)
a higher resolution picture at myfourthirds.com
http://www.myfourthirds.com/document.php?id=31216
Yes, there is a reason, that is to compensate for abnormal conditions, like if you want to catch the face of somebody who is getting a strong backlight. If you don't compensate for the light the face will be all black. There is another way, that is to measure the light on the face (Spot metering near the face) than lock the measurement and move back for the composition. That methode does actually almost the same thing.
It is definitely not there to set it to a permanent value, if you have to do that and the pictures you are getting always turn out right than there is something wrong with your camera. I know nothing about the E-1, except what I read. I only have the E-500 and usually not have to compensate. But as I and others say, details can be fixed better from somewhat underexposed images (film or digital, no difference) than overexposed ones. The best is though to have correct exposure from the start, if -0.7 is the right for you (no post processing most of the time) than I would say there is something wrong with the camera.
Yes, but there is one difference, in your picture there is a better light balance, the bright sky part is not there. That makes a huge difference also for the camera, whatever mode you use.using kit lens 14-45mm, you should get this colour for the same things
metering ESP and programe setting mode (P)
a higher resolution picture at myfourthirds.com
http://www.myfourthirds.com/document.php?id=31216
Thank you Drakon, Tune, Oly and HHHo for your helpful comments. HH, wow looking at your photo and mine, it just shows who is the expert and who is the novice. Luckily I am thick skin enough to ask for advice and now I not only gotten advice, but also know how far I have to go. OK back to more practice.
Caught this rainbow on 1st of Jan07 from Bukit Panjang..... this is about the best I could edit without getting too unreal.
Taken with 14-54mm on E-500.
The only thing missing is a unicorn...
Hmm, maybe it's because of the response curve of your E-1's CCD... perhaps there's more dynamic range in the darker luminance range compared to the E-300,500,330's sensors? :dunno:
I mainly underexpose to gain shutter speed but at the risk of making high ISO noise worse or bringing out banding in the relatively more underexposed areas. Just a desperate measure to combat handshake... not that I like low-key images. Never really thought of underexposure to bring out details. If anything, it diminishes the details due to a poorer signal-to-noise ratio (less light hitting sensor photosites but same amount of heat and electrical noise).
No problems Firefly, we all have to go through that learning curve; it also helps if you understand the relationship between aperture, shutter speed and metering.
But hey, you'll do just fine. Meddle around with your cam, make the mandatory mistakes, your pictures will get better! :thumbsup:
I work primarily with RAW; I use JPEGs only when I need to deliver images on the spot. Digital sensors inherently retain more detail in shadows than in highlights, blown-out highlights remain blown out. Nothing you do will bring back the detail.
Slightly underexposing brings out richer colours in my experience, and yes I do think the DR in the darker luminance range is wider. I routinely underexpose with my E-300 as well.
I'm never too bothered by noise; you always need that little bit of noise to make a picture a picture. A picture without noise lacks depth; it looks artificial, it lacks grit.
But that's just my personal take.
Perhaps I should chip in on this, because it is a common evil all photographers, learner or not, go through.
Perfect exposure is of course, perfection (that sounds dumb to even say). As a still-life photographer with a good spot meter, you meter your subject in its two extremes and you derive with a good average. As a still-life photographer with your subject in a natural background, you find the perfect backlit environment - that is, possibly metering in different times of the day, during different seasons. My lecturer once mentioned an old photographer who did that... but that man's name slips my mind now (or perhaps it was my apparent lack of taking notes).
(I personally cannot do that. I'll start feeling bad if I try to put a spot meter at someone's face...)
Anyway, no one (well, almost no one) has the time to really do that, especially for photography that doesn't warrant you the benefit of constant metering and probing about with a spot meter. As a general rule, a slight 1/3 down underexposure is ideal for most purposes on colour. If you work with tmax films, given the film's better tolerance of bad underexposure, a full stop down is almost fine. I believe this translates to digital nearly the same: a full stop underexposure in b&w is nearly fine to me.
HOWEVER - do take into account that several digital cameras in the market already compensate for overexposure by default. That is, some cameras already underexpose by 1/3 stops or so. In addition, some lenses/teleconvertors suffer bad calibration that don't match up with the body's f-stop:exposure calculation. That is a good reason why certain cameras do not perform well when set for exposure compensation.
I guess both Drakon and OlyFlyer are right.
Rangefinder_fan
Senior Member
My turn.
Some pix from my Siem Reap trip.
Purples in the morning.
Silvers (is that a colour??)
Orange
And more orange
Some pix from my Siem Reap trip.
Purples in the morning.
Silvers (is that a colour??)
Orange
And more orange
Rangefinder_fan
Senior Member
Happy New Year to you as well.
The 11-22mm is a dream. Spent 6 days in Siem Reap and shot about 600 plus images.
Sorting them in RAW was not exactly fun, but I'm pretty happy with the results.
The orange robes of the monks were just screaming out to be photographed!
cheers
Alvin
The 11-22mm is a dream. Spent 6 days in Siem Reap and shot about 600 plus images.
Sorting them in RAW was not exactly fun, but I'm pretty happy with the results.
The orange robes of the monks were just screaming out to be photographed!
cheers
Alvin
hhho
Senior Member
Actually, it's more than one difference.
1. different time of the day taking photos
2. different angle i.e. top down vs bottom up
3. different camera E500 vs E300
4. different setting (metering, aperture, shutter speed ......)
5. different camera man
6. different day Rainy day vs sun shine day
so it gives different result (photos) of course.
Cheers,
hhho
Senior Member
Hi! Firefly
Don't mention that as I'm no expert here and there so much things to learn
I didn't help you much. just happend that I've taken the same photos as your
so I share it with fellow 4/3 users
I hope you can pick up something from different photos.
One has to be thick skin sometime in order to learn from others.
That's the spirit of learning
Cheers,
microcosm
Senior Member
Actually, the shadows is the reason why I bought the ring light. It is by Sunpak.
- Status
Similar threads
