Why need to under expose?

Martin · 16th January 2006

Anyone can tell me why the FZ10 photographer need to under expose (shown in exif) in most his photos, even in backlit condition? Thanks in advance...

http://razorsharp.smugmug.com/gallery/587263/2/24915643

rhair78 · 17th January 2006

Seems he used flash quite a bit.
Who knows... maybe the flash blows the shot badly, and so he chose to down EV?
(Just a wild guess, but I think he might have an external flash that does not allow him to tweak the power? So no choice but to down EV on the camera. When shooting in bright skies, it is also a technique to shoot metered at the background, and using the flash to fill in the subject in the foreground, thus getting super saturated and beautiful backgrounds, and also nicely exposed subjects)

This is speculative. Why not contact the author directly to get the absolute answer?

natnivek · 17th January 2006

From the exif, no flash was fired right?

Most likely the reason is that it was a sunny day & any exposure more than that will overexpose the pic.

In any case, check out his settings. ISO200, Shutter 1/1600s, f4.6, EV -1, flash did not fire. In any normal circumstance with an fz10, it'll be severely underexposed. I stand corrected.

Sunny man...

obewan · 17th January 2006

Wow...

The link got some of the best FZ series shots...
oops OT.

natnivek · 17th January 2006

Originally Posted by obewan

Wow...
The link got some of the best FZ series shots...
oops OT.

I think so too... Sigh... I miss my fz20.

Photography was not so cheem at that point of time... (or expensive)

surge · 17th January 2006

digital cameras have narrow dynamic range like slides. for the same reason underexposure will retain details in the bright areas.you can adjust your curves later to brighter/darken so that you can see e details better. however, if you over exposure, the area will render all white and even if you adjust your curves, u get nothing cos thtere is nothing there in the first place.

tkp77 · 17th January 2006

Hi guys....

I think of all the explanation above, I have to say Ricky's is the most relevant one.

The FZ10 user did fire his flash... he is using force fire mode... Because he is in external manual mode, the Panasonic is too dumb to know if it is fired...

I did not look at the exif much and I have conclude how he took most of the shots.

You look at the nice blue skies behind the subject? Nice right? Then again how come the subject in the front can be correctly exposed?

The thing is, he actually meter the sky, since the sky is bright, the camera will adjust the setting to faster shutter speed so to retain the blue sky. Then to get the people infront correctly exposed, he fire a fill flash. Therefore, the reading in the exif shows the shot underexposed (not really, think I should say, correctly exposed for the sky...)

For such shot, if we meter at the people infront, you will blow the sky....
So, who says flash is only for night photography??

Cheers,
Francis Tan.

natnivek · 17th January 2006

Aiyah....

Depends on which picture you use as example mah...

If taking the one the thread starter used.
http://razorsharp.smugmug.com/gallery/587263/2/24915643

The flash wasn't fired and he metered the subjects. Nothing wrong with that.

If you use a example of a groupshot like this
http://razorsharp.smugmug.com/gallery/587263/2/24778154

He did use a fill flash like you said in your post. Also nothing wrong with that.

On a personal note, I like the idea of metering the sky and providing a fill flash... Very useful method.

Martin · 17th January 2006

Thank you all....so many tips to learn from...

sk.images · 17th January 2006

Originally Posted by surge

digital cameras have narrow dynamic range like slides. for the same reason underexposure will retain details in the bright areas.you can adjust your curves later to brighter/darken so that you can see e details better. however, if you over exposure, the area will render all white and even if you adjust your curves, u get nothing cos thtere is nothing there in the first place.

What surge said + the FZ10 has a maximum shutter speed of 1/2000sec, so to maintain the relatively low depth of field to isolate the subject and maintain a high shutter speed to freeze motion...

dominator · 17th January 2006

although the link got some FZ best shots......some i do feel differently.
http://razorsharp.smugmug.com/photos...&Size=Original

closer look at all the photos and they looks funny. shot under to have more allowance to ps?

tkp77 · 18th January 2006

Originally Posted by dominator

although the link got some FZ best shots......some i do feel differently.
http://razorsharp.smugmug.com/photos...&Size=Original

closer look at all the photos and they looks funny. shot under to have more allowance to ps?

The photo is overly PS...

natnivek · 18th January 2006

Originally Posted by dominator

although the link got some FZ best shots......some i do feel differently.
http://razorsharp.smugmug.com/photos...&Size=Original

closer look at all the photos and they looks funny. shot under to have more allowance to ps?

Hellllooooooo Neatimage!

My friend in time of need.

16th January 2006	#1
Martin Member Join Date: Jun 2005 Posts: 108	Why need to under expose? Anyone can tell me why the FZ10 photographer need to under expose (shown in exif) in most his photos, even in backlit condition? Thanks in advance... http://razorsharp.smugmug.com/gallery/587263/2/24915643

17th January 2006	#2
rhair78 Member Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Singapore Posts: 1,043	Re: Why need to under expose? Seems he used flash quite a bit. Who knows... maybe the flash blows the shot badly, and so he chose to down EV? (Just a wild guess, but I think he might have an external flash that does not allow him to tweak the power? So no choice but to down EV on the camera. When shooting in bright skies, it is also a technique to shoot metered at the background, and using the flash to fill in the subject in the foreground, thus getting super saturated and beautiful backgrounds, and also nicely exposed subjects) This is speculative. Why not contact the author directly to get the absolute answer? __________________ RH Last edited by rhair78; 17th January 2006 at 01:02 AM.

17th January 2006	#3
natnivek Member Join Date: Feb 2005 Location: Eastside Posts: 836	Re: Why need to under expose? From the exif, no flash was fired right? Most likely the reason is that it was a sunny day & any exposure more than that will overexpose the pic. In any case, check out his settings. ISO200, Shutter 1/1600s, f4.6, EV -1, flash did not fire. In any normal circumstance with an fz10, it'll be severely underexposed. I stand corrected. Sunny man...

17th January 2006	#4
obewan Member Join Date: Feb 2005 Posts: 1,795	Re: Why need to under expose? Wow... The link got some of the best FZ series shots... oops OT.

17th January 2006	#6
surge Member Join Date: Mar 2002 Location: north Posts: 1,248	Re: Why need to under expose? digital cameras have narrow dynamic range like slides. for the same reason underexposure will retain details in the bright areas.you can adjust your curves later to brighter/darken so that you can see e details better. however, if you over exposure, the area will render all white and even if you adjust your curves, u get nothing cos thtere is nothing there in the first place.

17th January 2006	#7
tkp77 Member Join Date: Nov 2004 Location: Sengkang Posts: 999	Re: Why need to under expose? Hi guys.... I think of all the explanation above, I have to say Ricky's is the most relevant one. The FZ10 user did fire his flash... he is using force fire mode... Because he is in external manual mode, the Panasonic is too dumb to know if it is fired... I did not look at the exif much and I have conclude how he took most of the shots. You look at the nice blue skies behind the subject? Nice right? Then again how come the subject in the front can be correctly exposed? The thing is, he actually meter the sky, since the sky is bright, the camera will adjust the setting to faster shutter speed so to retain the blue sky. Then to get the people infront correctly exposed, he fire a fill flash. Therefore, the reading in the exif shows the shot underexposed (not really, think I should say, correctly exposed for the sky...) For such shot, if we meter at the people infront, you will blow the sky.... So, who says flash is only for night photography?? Cheers, Francis Tan.

17th January 2006	#8
natnivek Member Join Date: Feb 2005 Location: Eastside Posts: 836	Re: Why need to under expose? Aiyah.... Depends on which picture you use as example mah... If taking the one the thread starter used. http://razorsharp.smugmug.com/gallery/587263/2/24915643 The flash wasn't fired and he metered the subjects. Nothing wrong with that. If you use a example of a groupshot like this http://razorsharp.smugmug.com/gallery/587263/2/24778154 He did use a fill flash like you said in your post. Also nothing wrong with that. On a personal note, I like the idea of metering the sky and providing a fill flash... Very useful method.

17th January 2006	#9
Martin Member Join Date: Jun 2005 Posts: 108	Re: Why need to under expose? Thank you all....so many tips to learn from...

17th January 2006	#11
dominator Senior Member Join Date: Mar 2005 Location: Amazon Forest Posts: 1,623	Re: Why need to under expose? although the link got some FZ best shots......some i do feel differently. http://razorsharp.smugmug.com/photos...&Size=Original closer look at all the photos and they looks funny. shot under to have more allowance to ps? __________________ Cleanse your thoughts, not by the foods you eat.