How do you not blow out whites?

[AKPhotography]

Is there such thing as exposing the face/body and a white shirt/dress properly in the same photo?

How do you not blow out whites, but keep he face properly exposed?

In photos of brides, in particular, I see that the photog got good exposure on the face, but blew out the dress. How can this be corrected? TIA!

[swanny338]

You mean like that?


That is just getting proper exposure. Even the white background in that picture still has detail... Pull that image up in raw with Adobe RGB colorspace and it doesn't have a single flashing highlight. In sRGB the white of the background does go to a highlight.

[swanny338]

Of course, another way is to do a double key lighting setup where one light lights the dress and the other lights the face. That way you can make the exposure of the dress match the cameras exposure and then bring a little more light onto the face to get the skin tones just right. But that is a pain to do outside the studio as it typically requires lots of flagging if you want to use softlight.


Basically there is a fine line between overexposed and perfectly exposed... If your subjects face is underexposed, the whites could probably handle a bit more exposure as well...

If you go into camera raw and place a color sampler tool on white in a photo you can look at the RGB numbers... Basically, white with detail is 245,245,245. 255,255,255 is blown out, and anything under 225 you start to get grays.

[bondarnes]

If the face and the dress are receiving the same amount of light and the whites are blown then the face is not properly exposed either. As Bryant suggested, a properly exposed image will have true skin tones and detail in a white dress.

[CaptainTom]

Ditto what Don said.

The problem lies in relying on your in camera meter to give you exposure information. It doesn't measure the light falling on the subject, but the light reflecting off the subject. Once you learn the difference you'll find your exposures will be better.

[douge]

Dittos for Bryan, Tom and Don.
Invest in a good light meter. There are a number of them out there. I like the Sekonics. Look at the Sekonic L-758DR DigitalMaster or any other light meter that will allow you to do both incident and reflective readings.
BTY it is not cheep but I have had mine Sekonic for many years.

[AeroClassics]

OK. Short of having an expensive light meter what can a person do? I don't shoot wedding but just about everything you can take a picture of has the opportunity of a blown highlight. I have my metering set to center point and use that almost all the time. It would seem to me if you are exposing on something that is a bit darker than its surroundings there is an opportunity for the camera to blow out the highlights. Something like shooting into a shadow. The subject might be well exposed but the camera will try to increase the exposure and in doing so over expose anything not in the shadow. Is that right. That seems right.

Doug

[swanny338]

The meter in your camera is a reflective meter, so it works to make everything 18% gray. So if you shoot a picture a white wall, the meter will underexpose the image by two stops.



If you add two stops of exposure, you get




If you take a picture of a black wall using your in camera meter... it will go to gray and be two stops over exposed. So basically your incamera meter, while a great tool is quite stupid. You just have to know how to use it. If you take a picture that has a lot of light shades it will be underexposed unless you compensate for it.

[CaptainTom]

Originally Posted by AeroClassics

OK. Short of having an expensive light meter what can a person do? I don't shoot wedding but just about everything you can take a picture of has the opportunity of a blown highlight. I have my metering set to center point and use that almost all the time. It would seem to me if you are exposing on something that is a bit darker than its surroundings there is an opportunity for the camera to blow out the highlights. Something like shooting into a shadow. The subject might be well exposed but the camera will try to increase the exposure and in doing so over expose anything not in the shadow. Is that right. That seems right.

Doug

The problem still lies in knowing the difference between incident and reflective metering techniques. If it was easy, I'd explain it in a few sentences. There are volumes written about this. I'm not going to write another one, so I suggest some research of : Incident vs. Reflective metering,
getting proper exposure, zone system exposure, 18% gray cards, sensor
dynamic range.

When you figure it all out, come back and explain it to me please ..

[PIC]

Originally Posted by CaptainTom

When you figure it all out, come back and explain it to me please ..

Easy answer most old guys can read w/o falling asleep ...

1. Light subject for best look w strobes and model light.
2. Take incident flash meter reading at subject.
3. exposure raw w manual settings per meter.
4. post process with camera raw- WB exp Hue brightness etc for best feel.

Dang - I could have had a V8 ...

EL

[rdcole]

With the in camera light meter you will have to guess at what its metering.
I would start with -1 to -2 EV compensation on the camera and CHIMP looking for blown highlights.
To Rework an old phrase "Expose for the highlights; Post Process for the shadows."
Of course you could get a light meter and get it right the first time.

[CaptainTom]

Originally Posted by PIC

Easy answer most old guys can read w/o falling asleep ...

1. Light subject for best look w strobes and model light.
2. Take incident flash meter reading at subject.
3. exposure raw w manual settings per meter.
4. post process with camera raw- WB exp Hue brightness etc for best feel.

Dang - I could have had a V8 ...

EL

1. strobe was not really feasible at this shoot..
2. incident meter reading would have been difficult at subject, but I did take one at my location and deduced that the light source would not be significanly different at the subject.
3. ALWAYS
4. ALWAYS

[PIC]

Originally Posted by CaptainTom

1. strobe was not really feasible at this shoot..
2. incident meter reading would have been difficult at subject, but I did take one at my location and deduced that the light source would not be significanly different at the subject.
3. ALWAYS
4. ALWAYS

My above is correct thing for Orig Poster to do and your write up is the correct thing for you to do ...

So ... just chill out and have a V8 ...

EL

[CaptainTom]

Originally Posted by PIC

My above is correct thing for Orig Poster to do and your write up is the correct thing for you to do ...

So ... just chill out and have a V8 ...

EL

El ! Have you ever been diagnosed with perceptive dislocation disorder ?
My post was a complement to your post, but I won't bother doing that again since you are offended by it. I am going to Chill !!

[PIC]

I have been diagnossed with many mental illness - more to come...
It runs in the family !
Complements are nice but V8 is better.

PS - I am so glad that you did not plaster that plane w a Watermark.
A V8mark would be much better ...