joined a course with a reputable school, n


Status
Not open for further replies.

judeseah

New Member
Jan 20, 2005
474
0
0
51
1 Dalvey Road
#1
the instructor was telling us its better to
over than under expose a pic.

reason he gave was his lab, by a pro,
can bring out the details,
even if its digital.(???)
more details on the 3rd lesson, can't wait.

using digital for less than 2 yrs,
so if anyone can tell me,
if i pick the overblown area's reading,
n its 255 for RGB,
can i recover the details that's lost there?

:confused:
 

Jan 23, 2005
1,095
0
0
Singapore
#2
judeseah said:
the instructor was telling us its better to
over than under expose a pic.

reason he gave was his lab, by a pro,
can bring out the details,
even if its digital.(???)
For negative film, in particular colour negative and chromogenic b/w, overexposure usually isn't a problem. ISO standards for specifying the sensitivity of the film are based on the minimum exposure that results in optical density on the negative. If the film has enough latitude (dynamic range), it doesn't harm to overexpose (that's how disposable cameras with a fixed exposure setting work). Using colour/chromogenic b&w, contrast will be somewhat compressed when overexposing, which may be desirable.

For slides, you get what you take. Usually they handle underexposure better, as dark shadows typically aren't as objectionable as blown out highlights.

Digital is somewhat comparable to slides. There is no way to recover blown out highlight details, apart from painting them in or taking them from a second, darker shot. However, overexposure can be helpful up to the point where you don't blow out highlights yet as it ensures maximum dynamic range (you can darken the picture in post processing again). This idea often goes by the term "exposing to the right", referring to the right (= bright) side of the histogram.
 

EdenEyeZ

New Member
Dec 8, 2004
24
0
0
40
#3
Hmm... I've a feeling we are in the same class...haha...cos that's what my instructor told me last nite!
 

KNIGHT ONG

Senior Member
Dec 18, 2003
5,792
1
38
PAKISTAN
www.pbase.com
#4
judeseah said:
the instructor was telling us its better to
over than under expose a pic.

reason he gave was his lab, by a pro,
can bring out the details,
even if its digital.(???)
more details on the 3rd lesson, can't wait.

using digital for less than 2 yrs,
so if anyone can tell me,
if i pick the overblown area's reading,
n its 255 for RGB,
can i recover the details that's lost there?

:confused:
Hmmm ... :confused:

For color negatives ... you can over-exposed by up to 2-stop and still get pretty good details.

For color slide . suggest to under by 1/3 to at most 1/2 stop.

For B&W and digital, it is best to under-exposed than to over-exposed the images ..

You may not be able to recover the lost details, however you can shift the curve .... :sweat:
 

P

Phildate

Guest
#5
In digital, once it's blown out, it's blown out. Even when you shoot in RAW and can dial back the exposure, the program can't recover highlights. They were literally 'blown out' by the camera and cannot be seen again.

As for slides/film, I'll let the experts speak...
 

judeseah

New Member
Jan 20, 2005
474
0
0
51
1 Dalvey Road
#6
EdenEyeZ said:
Hmm... I've a feeling we are in the same class...haha...cos that's what my instructor told me last nite!
i m the guy with the long hair,
u?

wonder if i can ask refund???
or if i can start a class there??

my 2cents worth after shooting ONLY A FEW WEDDINGS,
rechargables with high mAh is better.

try energizer with NiMH,
shoot the march-in of the couple,
and see for urself flash using which batteries recycle faster.
 

judeseah

New Member
Jan 20, 2005
474
0
0
51
1 Dalvey Road
#7
KNIGHT ONG said:
Hmmm ... :confused:

For color negatives ... you can over-exposed by up to 2-stop and still get pretty good details.

For color slide . suggest to under by 1/3 to at most 1/2 stop.

For B&W and digital, it is best to under-exposed than to over-exposed the images ..

You may not be able to recover the lost details, however you can shift the curve .... :sweat:
film n slides i hv quite a number of yrs of experience,
but digital is relatively new to me(2yrs).

many pics i can confidently taken with film,
won't try it on digital.

so many skies blown out during my
first few months.
wonder if i can bring them to the lab he mentioned?
 

firestone

New Member
Mar 2, 2003
391
0
0
West
www.redmonsoon.com
#8
judeseah said:
the instructor was telling us its better to
over than under expose a pic.

reason he gave was his lab, by a pro,
can bring out the details,
even if its digital.(???)

Hmm,interesting..pls ask him how.
I'm pretty sure most PS professionals believe in the contrary?

Under expose if 'pushed' will result in noise,etc
But over exposed, if there's no info in the digital image in the Ist place, CANNOT be recovered.

Maybe he meant something else lah...
 

Venom81

Senior Member
Nov 16, 2004
10,466
3
38
36
#9
EdenEyeZ said:
Hmm... I've a feeling we are in the same class...haha...cos that's what my instructor told me last nite!
What class you guys join? Care to tell? :think:
 

judeseah

New Member
Jan 20, 2005
474
0
0
51
1 Dalvey Road
#10
firestone said:
judeseah said:
the instructor was telling us its better to
over than under expose a pic.

reason he gave was his lab, by a pro,
can bring out the details,
even if its digital.(???)

Hmm,interesting..pls ask him how.
I'm pretty sure most PS professionals believe in the contrary?

Under expose if 'pushed' will result in noise,etc
But over exposed, if there's no info in the digital image in the Ist place, CANNOT be recovered.

Maybe he meant something else lah...
10 others can be my witnesses
as i asked just to confirm i get him right,

:(
 

Will03

Senior Member
Jun 28, 2004
6,373
9
38
41
#12
judeseah said:
i m the guy with the long hair,
u?

wonder if i can ask refund???
or if i can start a class there??

my 2cents worth after shooting ONLY A FEW WEDDINGS,
rechargables with high mAh is better.

try energizer with NiMH,
shoot the march-in of the couple,
and see for urself flash using which batteries recycle faster.

jus curious... y would u want to ask for a refund ? :dunno:
 

Clown

Moderator
Staff member
Mar 24, 2003
3,780
1
38
Singapore
#13
judeseah said:
the instructor was telling us its better to
over than under expose a pic.

reason he gave was his lab, by a pro,
can bring out the details,
even if its digital.(???)
more details on the 3rd lesson, can't wait.

using digital for less than 2 yrs,
so if anyone can tell me,
if i pick the overblown area's reading,
n its 255 for RGB,
can i recover the details that's lost there?

:confused:
answer: if it's digital, NO. period.
 

student

Senior Member
Jul 26, 2004
3,078
0
0
#15
KNIGHT ONG said:
For B&W and digital, it is best to under-exposed than to over-exposed the images ..

You may not be able to recover the lost details, however you can shift the curve .... :sweat:
Knight, you know I am ignorant on digital. But I think on B&W film, I dare say that even if you overexposed by four stops you will still have a very usable negative. Your printing might require a lot more time, but the details will be there. The lattitude of B& white films goes up to somewhere near "Zone" 14!

Underexposing a B&W film will lead to poor shadows details. And no amount of "pushing" will help.
 

melnjes

New Member
Aug 12, 2003
1,198
1
0
#16
Clown said:
answer: if it's digital, NO. period.
Ya, I wonder if the instructor knows what he's talking about. I don't know which school this is, but I know for certain it's not the one which conducted the course I went to.
 

ST1100

Senior Member
Jun 18, 2003
1,785
0
0
Singapore, Bedok
#17
Firstly, you cannot recover a completely blown highlight (255). However, the camera may not flag 'blown' at 255 - usually a little lower, like 250. There is still some detail there.

The idea is to overexpose as much as possible without blowing the highlights. i believe that is what your instructor meant. You can check with him again.

The reason for this is that in any image format (jpg, tif, etc, but not raw), there are more values to play with in the upper range than in the lower range, and curve adjustments in the brighter ranges are less likely to lead to posterization effects. (That's the effect you see on smooth colours in a very low quality jpeg.)
 

Witness

Senior Member
Mar 18, 2004
6,943
0
36
33
www.maverickatwork.com
#18
yes ya instructor and wat my shifu taught me is totally opposite..

i was told tt its better to slightly underexp then overexp ....
i tink the reasons are already stated ....
 

judeseah

New Member
Jan 20, 2005
474
0
0
51
1 Dalvey Road
#20
thnx guys for the feed back.

other than the over/under expose issue,
there r a lot more.

btw, which sch r u from? (melnjes)

answer to one of the question asked(y u want refund?).
-i was there to learn to be a better wedding photographers,
imagine my instructor told me to forget about malay/indian
wedding be cos i don't speak their language.
i can always pick up a language course,
but here i m to learn to shoot a m/i wedding,
he says don't bother.
what if tomorrow m/i friend ask me to do?

if anyone free n want to know more,
PM me or lets go for some coffee,
it will take very long to finish.

up the pirate's boat.
 

Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom