Exposure Compensation

[loosecanon]

When I started serious photography 40+ years ago one used match needel TTL metering. I had a Canon F1, 12% spot meter with viewfinder indicator. Looking at the scene one quickly decided + or - exposure indicated before pressing the shutter. This was what one learnt to do as a photographer - no instant image view or histogram. An exposure meter will only measure what is in front of it, but only the photographer can analyse the scene for what is important and what is problematic and so make decisions on the exposure required using as part of that decision making process experience as well as the meter reading.

Now, despite all the technology in modern cameras its the exposure compensation (or should it be correction) dial that gets used by me. But used when looking through the viewfinder, rather than a correction to a badly exposed shot (though I do get those as well).

Have photographers lost the art of looking at a scene and judging exposure?

[PhotomanJohn]

When there is no apparent need to develop a skill then generally it simply doesn't develop. There are many other examples of skills that were common in the past which are rare today. Being an old guy, I value many of these abilities but also understand that they may no longer be all that valuable. Today we don't have only 24 or 36 exposures (or 10 - 12 for us medium format guys) available in our cameras and there is no cost of "wasting" an exposure so we can chimp the back of the camera and make an adjustment or two to get what we really want. Also, we now have all of this dynamic range we can pull out in the privacy of our own homes to "fix" mistakes we have made.

Things change over time and even though you and I make effective use of some of the skills they are not as necessary as they once were.

John

[NorthernFocus]

Nearly forty years ago now, I was a professional mariner. Back then we learned dead reckoning navigation that required an understanding of compass error, course over ground vs heading, etc. In recent years it's been appalling to me to see people set out on the sea without that fundamental understanding and relying completely on electronics. But in an age when you can have multiple layers of redundancy plus ability to call for help from anywhere in the world, what does it matter?

And so it is with photography. As long as a person can produce the desired imagery, what does it matter how they get there? Us old timers just need to get over it and move on. Nobody cares and it doesn't make any difference anyway.

[mrinmoyvk]

When there is no apparent need to develop a skill then generally it simply doesn't develop.

Amazingly great words ...
Now a days, if you buy a decent camera & lens, set it on auto mode. Device is intelligent enough to capture a great shot unless you want to try something creative.

[IzzieK]

To my mind, creativity doesn't suffer when you have all these buttons to push in newer cameras nowadays. Let us say, if you have it, use it. The problem with film cameras is the cost of delays (and not knowing if your shot was good enough to publish until you see it) and of course the cost of developing. Very prohibitive for many who has very little money yet has all the creativity undiscovered by the masses. Go figure. I've known a photographer who was very good at it but he was in the wrong profession.

[Geoff F]

It is certainly an adjustment which I regularly use. Often the initial setting is by looking at the scene before using the viewfinder; then possibly a slight change of opinion when seeing the actual camera viewfinder image.

But a quick glance of the actual shot image in the display panel is always handy. Trouble is, too often I go by that and change settings for another shot only to discover, when I get home, that the display panel was lying and my original adjustments would have been better!

I must have more faith in my own abilities to out perform technology.

[Inkanyezi]

Of course, in spite of, or perhaps just because, it being much easier now, I can see a reluctance to learn some basic stuff that just settled in the back of your head so many years ago.

When I started taking photos digitally, I hadn't yet found the compensation feature, because in that camera, it was hidden somewhere down the menus that had to be called forth by a peculiar raindance with tiny buttons on the back of it. I just settled for using it without any adjustments in the start, and a bit later, I discovered the white balance option - also hidden down in the menu morass. Little by little, I gained command over the machine, but I was still more friends with my SLR, that had fully manual controls as well as a built in light meter, which could also set shutter time automagically.

My first thought with that camera was that I should not continue wasting my money on film and prints, but might have all future pictures as files in the computer and only print whenever I'd like something printed.

I changed cameras a couple of times before settling for a system, where I could have controls more or less as I was used to. But I never became friends with the digital age way of clicking one's way through settings. I really wanted to have my old dials as before, because it is much more convenient. So when I started using my old lenses with adapter on the digital system, half of that problem was solved. I still find it easier to set my aperture with a ring around the lens than with the wheel under the shutter release button. Still that's where I have to set the shutter time.

As I hadn't ever worked with automatic exposure before, I rather soon learned to compensate, but I wasn't too happy with the idea, although I learned something new: evaluating how much to compensate. However, I was a bit puzzled that exposures so often were different from what I was used to, when the camera was in plain auto mode with no compensation. In sunny weather, it blew highlights by about a half to one full stop. Even when the scene had lots of white in it, the camera wanted to over-expose in my opinion.

I tried it for real one sunny day, when I decided to go for Sunny 16 all day, to see whether it was a viable option. I also took a few test exposures of the same scene with auto but without compensation. Alas, my Sunny 16 exposures were spot on, and the iAuto (intelligent auto) exposures had blown highlights in the SOOC jpeg.

I guess Sunny 16 is forgotten these days, that few people ever use it, but I always think about it as some kind of litmus test to whether the camera exposes well or not, or rather if the metering system is well calibrated.

Then of course it is a matter of one's opinion on how the image should look. Maybe the Japanese engineers programming the camera preferred those blown highlights. After all, they usually were rather small areas in the image, but sometimes, as when shooting white painted vessels, much detail was lost. A simple solution might have been to always use a bit of negative compensation - if it had been consistent. It wasn't consistent.

So I never really learned how to use the meter in the camera. It does things that I don't understand. Sometimes I can use it creatively, but mostly I need the histograms. Luckily, my present camera can provide a live histogram and blinkies in the viewfinder or on screen before the shot. That makes it a lot simpler. Usually nowadays I just set it to A and adjust the aperture to taste, and use the live histogram and blinkies to double-check.

But when the situation is simpler, as in sunshine, Sunny 16 still is king. It doesn't make the poppies red blobs, but is spot on.

Philosophically, I can understand the problem of how a saturated colour will not register correctly, but I cannot understand that the camera maker didn't take care of the problem, as it is very simple. The photosites that measure light are all colour sensitive. The camera will really see that the red is saturated. So why didn't they accept that fact and let each colour separately decide where there's a highlight in the image? A meter that measures colours as if they were all three, when it sees only one of them, will choose an exposure that is three times as long as the actual value should be for the saturated colour, as it sees a fully saturated colour, one of the tri-colour receptors full, and two without information. It will see one full and two empty, only a third of the actual value of the saturated colour. One red and two black.

I think some of the technical aspects of photography are in fact more difficult to learn with the new technology, as we have unreliable meters and are not encouraged to take control. Buttons are fickly, and there are no dials as there were before. Wheels can be turned infinitely, and they change function depending on what setting another dial has. The same wheel is used for three different things and in ways that can never be learned in motorical memory. With the old camera, I knew that the diaphragm ring was on the lens, and I knew which way I should turn it to open up or close down. Distinctive clicks confirmed that I had altered the setting, and I would know how, without even looking. Same for the shutter. Now the camera had the same wheel for shutter and aperture, with a button to depress for changing function, and no relation whatever to position of the control. There was no stop when reaching full aperture or minimum. Nothing to indicate a positive position, without looking at the numbers in a display. I still haven't got used to it.

And I can understand the difficulty a newcomer might have, when "manual settings" are something that seems complicated, while it in the past was very simple.

So there's where compensation will have to be used. Newcomers must learn a new skill, but also us oldies, as that's something we did as second nature in the past, but now we have to think about it and set it accordingly. It is still rather simple, but it is different, and it calls for a different way of approaching exposure.

And yes, I use it, I use it often. Whenever I have a subject where Sunny 16 is not appropriate, I use the A setting with compensation if needed, guided by the live histogram and blinkies. I have learned how much area I can allow blinkies, so it is rather straight-forward, but it is something different from what I had learned in the past and I am rather old. Maybe the brain needs something new now and then, not to be clogged up with just the useless old knowledge, so perhaps it does me a favour. I am slowly becoming used to it. Maybe we could even one day be friends?

[FrankMi]

I must have more faith in my own abilities to out perform technology.

It is usually smartest to do what works best for you, but keep an open mind to the potential alternatives.

[William W]

Have photographers lost the art of looking at a scene and judging exposure?

When there is no apparent need to develop a skill then generally it simply doesn't develop.

. . . In recent years it's been appalling to me to see people set out on the sea without that fundamental understanding and relying completely on electronics. . .

Nearly every Saturday, from September to March, I require a classroom of High School Senior Students (17 and 18 year olds) to write in ‘cursive writing’ – about ten out of thirty don’t know what that is – which is OK it’s just a technical term – but when explained, about six out of thirty: cannot as they have not been taught how to do so.

Also, in the same class there is invariably the question/argument by some students when a particular instruction is read by me: “All the problems can be solved without the use of a calculator, however you may use a calculator provided it is on the ‘approved calculators list’ “

The in-capacity to do ‘simple’ arithmetic varies:
> many cannot reckon an approximation to ‘check’ if the calculator is correct (i.e. to check that the correct buttons were pressed) - I liken this to ‘Sunny 16’ and its derivatives being a mental check as to what information the TTL Meter is providing me.
> some cannot divide simple numbers
> mostly all cannot perform long division
> I have found no one, yet, who can work out a square root.

***

Back to photography – I think that one basic premise for the ‘difficulties’ experienced in ‘learning photography’ today is because much Photography, today, is learned by an approach which is intrinsically ‘back to front’. Mostly all folk today, at the time that they get their first camera, are already computer literate and screen-based communicative. Their world has already been inundated with scene views that they have ‘played with’. So the acquisition of camera and lens is merely a vehicle to 'record stuff' – and the computer is where they do the ‘photography stuff’.

It is difficult to infiltrate that mindset and move, to what appears to be ‘backwards’, in educating these folk to BEGIN with the camera and lens and then ‘develop and photo-finish’ with the computer.

WW

[NorthernFocus]

...I guess Sunny 16 is forgotten these days, that few people ever use it, but I always think about it as some kind of litmus test to whether the camera exposes well or not, or rather if the metering system is well calibrated...

When conditions lend themselves to it, the old f16 is a good place to start.

I think that modern cameras invite people to overcomplicate things. Personally I still shoot much as I did with film but with the benefit of instant feedback as to whether exposure was grossly missed. After all the only thing that's really different is WB.

I shoot manual 90 percent of the time or more. The in-camera meter is simply a place to start. Even when I want to bracket I do it manually if I'm shooting handheld. Mainly because if I use the built in bracketing function it's about even odds that I'll forget to switch it off and then end up with a bunch of blown shots afterward.

We all have to figure out what works for us. None of us are right or wrong. Just different...

[xpatUSA]

A most interesting thread. After a brief flirtation with a "modern" DSLR (Nikon D50) I reverted to early Sigmas in search of sharpness and also a fascination with the promise of the dreaded Foveon sensor.

Those early Sigmas (the 3.4MP SD9 and SD10 house-bricks) have a Spartan simplicity which appeals to my recalcitrant nature. No built-in flash. No JPEGS. No video. No stupid scene modes. Better get the exposure right - or suffer serious blotching almost everywhere.

And they are truly ISO-less (no amplification in-camera) thus allowing one to leave the 'ISO' set firmly to it's base ISO of 100 and never, ever change it (no stupid 'exposure triangle' on these cameras). By the same token, the EC remains at +/- 0.0 EV, and the metering stays at center spot. The PASM knob never leaves the M position, probably needs WD40 by now. The lens is almost always on manual focus.

So, when I start taking bad shots consistently, I change my technique, not the camera functions.

Not recommending these cameras to anybody, especially for Pros with work to do, but great fun for a retired old geezer. Later Sigmas such as the Merrills leave me cold in spite of the greater resolution and so-called IQ. Had a DP2M for about 2 weeks - it just had to go, grrr!

[rpcrowe]

IMO, the mark of a good photographer is the imagery which the photographer captures, not the method in which the photographer captures that imagery. If the photographer ends up with excellent imagery he or she is an excellent photographer! It makes no difference if the image is captured using full auto, programmed auto or manual exposure. It doesn't matter if the photographer uses a film camera, a DSLR, a point and shoot, or a view camera with the wetplate process. If the photographer gets good imagery using auto focus, that person is no less of a photographer than the person who always shoots with manual focus...

[Inkanyezi]

I certainly agree that the technique you use to get the image doesn't say much about how good you might be as a photographer. The images are what counts. I didn't perceive the subject of the thread to be evaluating whether one is a good or bad photographer, or that it would be that certain techniques would have to be used to become a better photographer. The question was about forgetting some particular skills.

And of course they were not forgotten, and I just tried to convey, that the dials and buttons of a digital camera don't do the same for me as old fashioned dials and rings on older cameras. I simply cannot use the same technique, if I don't have the same tools. Whether I am a good or bad photographer is not the issue there.

And for people that never saw the cameras I used in the sixties, the skills I acquired then might not be the skills required in handling a digital camera. It's different, and it calls for a different approach. The newcomer to the trade has to learn it just the way it is in the present, not the past. Of course that includes learning the available tools, among them exposure compensation. It is a rather simple control, just to get the brightness you'd like for your image. The digital camera gives instant feedback as well, something we didn't have in the past.

But I cannot see how a particular photographer would forget the technique - I didn't. However newcomers might never learn what we did in the past, and that's OK. They have to learn how to do with what they have, and some guys will get it. Perhaps some guys won't?

[ajohnw]

I find the comments about film and exposure odd in some ways as I found that much depended on the camera and in some ways the more complicated they became via in built "intelligence" the worse it seemed to be. Take a box camera that might have a simple aperture or speed setting and the instructions on the side of a packet of film. My parents managed to take loads and loads of photographs with them with few failures. Cheap ones too.

I started with a Zenith E. Can't say I found it much of a problem. Then a Topcon same. Then a Nikkormat picked because of the style of metering it used. Centre weighted via an oblong shape very biased to towards the bottom of the viewfinder. Exposure compensation just meant tilting the camera up to include more sky and watching how the meter needle moved. Lots of slide shot with this camera with very few problems probably down to technical aspects relating to the film used - it could cope. At the same time a couple of friends bought cameras. One a Mamiya the other a Minolta which had some sort of back lighting fancy metering sensitive system. He was the person that had most exposure problems by a large margin. Mamiya man found that tiny spot metering wasn't a good idea and the larger one not much better. He went on to be a fairly successful rather expensive professional. Some of this probably depends on the person behind the camera. Modern evaluating metering is way better now than it used to be but there is still as there was then a need to get to know what the camera does in terms of results when the shutter button is pressed.The other aspect as far as I am concerned is that film exposure wise had way more exposure latitude than many sources would suggest. I'm inclined to feel that some sources have never really used it. Digital still has the same problems it has always had - the darker end. It gets better but the problem is still there due to linear sensors.

The problem these days with people getting into photography is too many people grabbing for their attention. Money is often the reason. Also attempting to say something new about a subject that has been around for a long long time. Alongside this is something I find hard to accept - a reluctance to think for themselves, rather be told what to do as then all will be ok. Also the need for specialists and a reluctance to do anything themselves - eg I'm reminded of a younger person who was sick to death with the service charges on his car and couldn't even contemplate changing oil, filter and worse still spark plugs on his car. It took a while to persuade him to buy a few spanners. Later he did other things himself too. This sort of things seems to relate to a lack of self confidence to me after a fashion. Over complicating things rather than just having a go. Sound familiar but do certain photographic buzz words help? Exposure triangle for instance what an earth does a triangle have to do with the relationship between ISO, aperture and speed other than it has 3 points. Many of us probably coped with a few examples. Hyperfocal distance is another as wonderful as it might be but how did so many people take shots only being aware that aperture changes depth of field. The F64 club springs to mind as well. Sort of kill it stone dead when needed but I suspect they had other reasons as well.

Shutter speeds are in fractions - it seems this might cause some problems so maybe they should be switched to simple decimal but ISO is just a number that has been around for a long time. Apertures are also a bit weird in a decimal sense. There have been attempts to change this area but it looks like it's here to stay. Personally I have long since forgotten equal 1/4 1/2 and stop values as there isn't any need to know them even on a Nikkormat really. Just what aperture does - the important aspect.

Really photography boils down to 2 areas. Getting a shot, technically and getting a good shot. The 1st one means exposure, dof as needed and that sort of thing - choosing settings to do what is needed. The 2nd one is more intangible - a so called good shot that might for instance win a competition on CinC. PP is likely to influence that aspect, another skill that can correct problems within limits that relate to both the limitations of the gear used and correcting exposure problems at the technical end. Thirds, leading lines and many other things in that area are often unlikely to be of much help yet they are rammed home by many sources - do this and all will be ok again when it wont.

Bill maybe you should follow cursive with the word joined up as an explanation. The usual UK term, may be the same where you are. Me I found that when I came to revise notes they had been taken so quickly that I couldn't read them at times so switched to printing instead. The end result is awful printing at speed but at least I and even others can read it. It has caused some raised eyebrows at time because I now generally print without even thinking about it and have to make a concious effort to join it up.

I spent some time on a drawing board in my early career so I can print copperplate that even pleased an instructor earlier also produce marvellously black thin lines with a pencil and turn out a A0 sheet a day easily. Shudder. At that time I could do fairly complex sums in my head especially with fractions. Then came calculators which Bill mentions. Initially reverse polish notation. Stick values in 2 locations and then tell the calculator what to do with them, add more swap them around and etc. The interesting thing about this area is that it involves some mental exercise, The brain is like a muscle it needs it. Then calculators changed 1+2 and an = button but still x y swap brackets added. Still needs some thought. Then came VPAM, enter it as it would be if written down, it does it but no mental exercise in actually doing the calculations manually. I probably can't do calculations in my head now as well as I could due to lack of practice. Kid's today probably learn to use a calculator first so are unlikely to have any interest or reason to learn how it's done. All sorts of things now need less thought.. Educational TV is another interesting aspect of that.

Personally having sat a fair few people down in front of a computer of one sort or another I think more complex cameras are much the same. Faced with a computer some people's faces just glaze over. The answer to that is get them to play games on it for a while. That's why they are generally there even on an old VAX, no mouse just a keyboard. Some others get alert and can take some info in and slowly build on that. Some ask questions later and others like to manage for themselves. After all there are usually some instructions around on anything even if it's only the manual. Games still aren't a bad idea as they build on mouse and or keyboard skills. Same with a camera in some ways except this time play with taking photo's. The subject doesn't matter only varying conditions, open a window and stick the camera out, go into the garden. Go some where and stick to P mode changing settings for a day. etc etc There are all sorts of things that can be done to get to grips with the technical aspects even PPing the shots even at any time of the day. ISO can be changed or leave it on auto. That is likely to show why people do what they tend to do rather quickly if worked from raw. JPG's aren't so simple due to the camera settings that can even be on at some level even if turned off, varying detail levels will show what can happen in that case. I just tried a Canon SX50 HS. Some shots great but a little bit odd, others nvg at all in fact hopeless would be a better description. Exposures - bordering on pathetic on highlights. That's jpg. Time to find this out, maybe a couple of hours playing around including looking at raw. I do this sort of thing when ever i buy another camera what ever it is. Reviews aren't much use really. I need to know what the camera will do when I take a shot with it. What ever levels some one is at I feel there is a need to do that. I sent it back because no way would it do what I wanted it to do easily augmented by the worst viewfinder I have ever used.

Then there is the web. Good place to get overloaded with ideas that are often just peoples opinions. Courses can be much the same. Photography itself involves the same basic skills what ever is in front of the camera. They are not rocket science. Cameras vary so changes are always likely to require a learning curve even between models from the same manufacturer. My attitude is that what ever it is people need to go out and take shots. There aren't any fool proof solutions and during the actual learning process subjects hardly matter. Great fun on film can't imagine how people did it. No idea until the end of the processing. Digital in that respect is far easier and there is even the exif to remind people what settings they changed. This could lead to info overload as well but the basics apart from exposure are simple. If in doubt push things further than your opinion suggests for a while and use the lowest possible ISO. On the other had do find out what can be done with high settings. Exposure is more difficult. Take m 4/3 for instance, highlight clipping can easily be avoided probably on any mirrorless camera but there is still extra space in raw. An insignificant amount it seems on my latest one. In this case the important aspect becomes how much can be recovered at the dark end, just another problem however much of raw is used or if a jpg exposure is set.. The problem with exposure is that there are people about who have become proficient using all sorts of alternatives. This doesn't mean if some one adopts it all will be ok if they just do this and that even though various methods will often come complete reasons and even examples. Metering behaviour varies from make to make, model to model as well making any suggestions less simple than they may appear to be. The answer really is go use it and people will make mistakes at times who ever they are and what ever method they use unless they take an awful lot of shots. Truth is evaluation style these days is surprisingly usable with a few gotchas. Perhaps it's more important to realise when raw head room is really needed and a concious effort is needed rather than assuming that the metering will only making an acceptable use of it all on it's own. On some cameras it will tend to do that if it can.

Hope this isn't distorted in places, out of the house 2 twice, dinner and other long interruptions since I started it and need to disapear again. It's also too long and rambly.

John
-

[pnodrog]

I tend to use exposure compensation with aperture priority when overall factors will influence exposure such as a predominance of snow or black sand etc. If the compensation requirement is not consistent from shot to shot I revert to manual exposure control.

Need to be careful as Canon and Nikon use any exposure compensation set differently in manual. I understand Canon ignores it but Nikon sets the target exposure in the viewfinder with the compensation applied.

[NorthernFocus]

..Need to be careful as Canon and Nikon use any exposure compensation set differently in manual. I understand Canon ignores it but Nikon sets the target exposure in the viewfinder with the compensation applied.

Good cautionary note. Luckily it never occured to me to use compensation in manual mode. I simply alter settings until the indicator in the viewfinder shows the desired exposure. Sometimes being simple minded is a benefit

[William W]

. . .Need to be careful as Canon and Nikon use any exposure compensation set differently in manual. I understand Canon ignores it [Exposure Compensation] but Nikon sets the target exposure in the viewfinder with the compensation applied.

. . . Luckily it never occured to me to use compensation in manual mode. I simply alter settings until the indicator in the viewfinder shows the desired exposure.

Canon cannot do it because the EOS Cameras don't have a dial available to use for EC when the Camera is in Manual Mode.

It is most annoying as therefore one cannot use EC whilst using Auto ISO and with the Camera in Manual Mode - a useful combination that one can do with (some) Nikon.

This is noted this previously in a couple of threads here at CiC and also I've been one of a few who have "complained" to Canon via CPS.

No developments in that regard.

WW

[mrinmoyvk]

I simply alter settings until the indicator in the viewfinder shows the desired exposure.

And I keep it a bit on -ve side as increasing is easy than decreasing in post production.

[xpatUSA]

And I keep [the exposure] a bit on -ve side as increasing is easy than decreasing in post production.

Which is a form of exposure compensation, I suppose. Do you do that for all of your shots? Out of interest, how many stops is "a bit"?

[ajohnw]

Which is a form of exposure compensation, I suppose. Do you do that for all of your shots? Out of interest, how many stops is "a bit"?

I do that sometimes too Ted. 2 reasons - more saturation out of the box which ever way that can be easily adjusted up, flower colour adjustment and maybe things like white swans. Also if I am definitely going to work on a jpg to help get round it's camera curve easily if needed. Generally 1/2 a stop or so. I experiment with that from time to time. On jpg's I aught to see what benefit changing the camera curve has.

John
-