what happened to Exposure?

[ndsimm]

OK, I'm probably showing my age, but I learned photography on an old Pentax with a needle for a meter with a + on the top and a - on the bottom that you had to adjust shutter and f-stop to keep the line as close in the middle as possible, Every camera I've gotten since then because more and more automatic of course, but the "basics" were still there.
Fast forward to today and IMHO very seldom to you hear people talk about exposure, let alone proper exposure, but rather they brag about how many layers and actions they used in PS to get a "great shot"
Mind you, I'm not hatin on anyone that uses PS, heck I use it myself, but why can't we talk more about getting it right in camera before were process?

I'll step off my soapbox now....

[MicWayWal]

+1

[donlfaulkner]

My Agfa didn't even have a meter. Which is fine. I didn't know what I was doing.

[RightAngle]

Amen. Love to hear people say that.

[janikphoto]

You must be listening to the wrong people. My circle of friends still talks about getting the image correct... in the camera!

[jeffkohn]

Let's be honest, exposure is a lot easier with digital than it was with film.

[ndsimm]

Originally Posted by jeffkohn

Let's be honest, exposure is a lot easier with digital than it was with film.

I agree Jeff, but my issue is those that don't even try to get the exposure right in the first place - or keep the camera on P and never bother to learn and then call themselves "professionals"

[srwatters]

+1

I am having issues with the P45 back creating underexposed captures at ISO 50 when my Sekonic reads dead on with the camera settings. I posed this question over on a medium format message board and the most common answer was 'fix it in post'. Seriously! My D3 and Sekonic are dead on perfect, yet my $25k digital back isn't? To be more specific, at ISO 100 & 200, the exposures are very close, maybe a tenth or two one way or the other, but only at ISO 50 is it at least 1/2 stop under. Same metering techniques used, so I don't think it's pilot error...

Anyway, yes. Let's get old school and do it right on the front end and simply enhance in post.

[ronocnikral]

Originally Posted by ndsimm

I agree Jeff, but my issue is those that don't even try to get the exposure right in the first place - or keep the camera on P and never bother to learn and then call themselves "professionals"

agreed. film rocks. it will only make you that much better with digital. it has with me.

pretty soon the digital cameras will be wiping our butts. but...in the meanwhile people can use P, fix it in post, give their work away in indolence, carry the title of "pro," and wipe their own rear.

[MRCPix]

+1
I still believe you have to get it right in the camera becuase if you do you can make a great photo amazing or just leave it as it was shoot and still have a great photo

[90 5.0]

Originally Posted by srwatters

+1

I am having issues with the P45 back creating underexposed captures at ISO 50 when my Sekonic reads dead on with the camera settings. I posed this question over on a medium format message board and the most common answer was 'fix it in post'. Seriously! My D3 and Sekonic are dead on perfect, yet my $25k digital back isn't? To be more specific, at ISO 100 & 200, the exposures are very close, maybe a tenth or two one way or the other, but only at ISO 50 is it at least 1/2 stop under. Same metering techniques used, so I don't think it's pilot error...

Anyway, yes. Let's get old school and do it right on the front end and simply enhance in post.

I agree with the op's comment, it seems a lot of people just want to fix things in post. But thus is the newer digital era.

On your back metering issue. I doubt it's user error just the way that camera's meter reads. I'm sure you remember years back when camera meters were much less accurate and didn't have ec dials on them. You would scratch a +1 or -1 into the iso dial on your different bodies to remind you how they metered.

If this is something that repeats constantly just adjust exposure, aggravating on something that expensive but simple enough to work around correct??

None of my camera's have every metered "perfect" in every situation, it's our job as photographers to learn our gear and it's in's and outs and use it to the best of our ability.

I find when I'm shooting all the time i seem to intuitively make these adjustments on the fly with out thinking about them even. But if I haven't been in that kind of siuation in a while I might have to slow down and think about what I'm doing more to get the exp/comp etc nailed.

Fwiw, not all of my lenses meter and render the same as well either. Some are cooler, some are hotter. I have to try and think about this as well.


I'm absolutely horrible at pp so I try to get it as right as possible sooc. I kinda miss dropping off rolls of film and picking up the results later. So much easier to cull. Just toss the 4x6's or slides that suck in the trash and pick the ones to enlarge.

[staceylking]

Amen to this thread! I also learned photography on a similar manual focus SLR. Unfortunately the focus of that course (21 years ago) was more darkroom techniques than lighting, metering, exposure, etc. By the time I was able to afford my own SLR, it was a Canon EOS Elan 7e, with automatic everything, and I gradually taught myself the basics.

My blog project this month is to take and post at least one reasonably fabulous UNTOUCHED photo per day taken completely in manual mode. And I'm having a great time with it! Relearning stuff and getting into the groove of automatic brain settings rather than automatic camera settings.

[mmuhlenkamp]

I agree that proper exposure should be had in camera, but even on well exposed images I love to fiddle with curves and contrast a bit. Sometimes PP is required to get the image you actually "saw" (extreme lighting conditions) or wanted to see. Proper exposure creates a technically correct image, but not always the best. Rules are made to be broken :)

On a side note, I get aggravated at work when someone gives me a scratched and beat up product to take a shot of and says "You can fix that on the computer right?" Maybe, but it's a hell of a lot easier, faster, and more convincing if we have something that looks nice to begin with.

[ronocnikral]

getting it correct in the camera allows you the latitude to do the "Creative" post on them. otherwise, the more things you do incorrectly (exposure, focus), the fewer options you have in post.

my favorite is, can you whiten my teeth? or the funniest request we had was, can you remove my bunyan? yes, but it's cheaper for you to just do it in real life than to have us do it in a picture.

[venchka]

Originally Posted by jeffkohn

Let's be honest, exposure is a lot easier with digital than it was with film.

I don't think correct exposure is any different no matter what meter you're using.

Now, if you want to talk about expansion & contraction based on exposure and development...........

venchka added 2 Minutes and 19 Seconds later...Double Post Merged Below

Originally Posted by srwatters

+1

I am having issues with the P45 back creating underexposed captures at ISO 50 when my Sekonic reads dead on with the camera settings. I posed this question over on a medium format message board and the most common answer was 'fix it in post'. Seriously! My D3 and Sekonic are dead on perfect, yet my $25k digital back isn't? To be more specific, at ISO 100 & 200, the exposures are very close, maybe a tenth or two one way or the other, but only at ISO 50 is it at least 1/2 stop under. Same metering techniques used, so I don't think it's pilot error...

Anyway, yes. Let's get old school and do it right on the front end and simply enhance in post.

So shoot an extra 1/2 stop for good measure. Maybe bracket + and - 1/2 stop? Truth be known, 1/2 stop is probably within tolerance. 1/3 stop for sure.