Exposure setting confusion

FUDGEY · #1 (**permalink**) 14-11-2010, 07:17 PM

Hi all, I am no expert when it comes to the technical side of things in photography, but I know the basics and get good pics most of the time. I use a Nkon D80 and over the last few months I have had to set the exposure from 0 to -0.7 for normal subjects if you know what I mean. For example when photographing swans a few months ago Id be set at -0.7 to get the whites properly exposed. Yesterday I had to put it to -1.3 to get it right. The pictures are coming out fine, but I cant understand why I need to go so far when I didnt have to when I first bought the camera. Hope someone can help. Thanks

slimrbp · #2 (**permalink**) 14-11-2010, 07:48 PM

What metering mode do you use?

If you are using evaluative metering (that's the Canon name for their type,I think it's matrix metering on a Nikon) a lot will depend on the overall tones in the scene.
For example if the background is pretty much midtoned then you would likely need less exposure compensation than you would if the background was darker.
I find that you can have a general setting that works in most circumstances (like your -.7) but ultimately because every scene is different you need to check each time (as you are doing).
Hope that makes sense.

momji1971 · #3 (**permalink**) 14-11-2010, 09:43 PM

Good description by slim. Your camera will always look at whats in front of it and try to make it a mid tone.

So if your swan is large in the frame the meter will see mostly white and compensate for the bright image.

If the swan is small in the frame and is surrounded by lots of dark water the opposite will happen as the image is mostly dark.

This is if you use matrix metering. Nothing wrong with your camera or you if you are hitting the mark re compensation!

regards.
Stu.

Geoff F · #4 (**permalink**) 15-11-2010, 08:10 PM

This tutorial may prove useful Understanding White Balance and there are several others on that site which might be worth a look.

momji1971 · #5 (**permalink**) 15-11-2010, 11:54 PM

Hi Geoff,

Good tutorial and although white balance can affect the exposure don't think it's the same thing the OP was questioning.

regards.
Stu.

Sparklebug · #6 (**permalink**) 15-11-2010, 11:58 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Geoff F

This tutorial may prove useful Understanding White Balance and there are several others on that site which might be worth a look.

That is really useful Geoff, I just looked at it, as my camera over compensates for WB and often pics looked washed out and bluish. I have a better understanding now. Thanks

bob.phillips · #7 (**permalink**) 15-12-2010, 10:57 PM

Hi Fudgey,

With regards to your question, it is both simple and complicated. Basically, if you photograph against a light background then your subject is likely to be underexposed - so you need to set your exposure to more than your camera suggests. If your subject is against a dark background, then it is likely to be over exposed - so you need to set the exposure less than your camera suggests.

Some of the responses to your question are about white balance, which is an entirely different issue and somewhat more complicated.

I will not discuss that here but if that is the problem ie, whites are not white enough then let us know.

As with another of your threads, where you ask a question and there are a number of responses, you are complelely silent.

So, can you please respond so that we know if you are making any progress against your original question!!!!

Regards,

Bob P.

Stephen Raff · #8 (**permalink**) 16-12-2010, 11:23 PM

There are some good answers here already. I typically set anywhere between -2 and -0.3 when shooting in Av mode depending on the composed scene to retain highlight detail. I'm not sure why you would required more exposure compensation over time and would hazard a guess that its more down to a trend in the type of photographs your are taking.

Stephen

FUDGEY · #9 (**permalink**) 17-12-2010, 05:33 AM

Sorry Bob, I get involved in that many subjects on so many different forums i lose myself sometimes. I apologise for not responding and I can se why you pointed it out as it is something that annoys me when others do. I see i missed another thread to so Ill respond to that one as well. I always am very grateful for any help I receive and always show it in my posts.
Any way thanks everyone for all the replies, but I am not really any further forward to be honest. I still continue to shoot two stops up from what I should, for example exposure is at -0.7 when there really is no ned for it to be at this. Here is a pic that I have taken recently with exposure set to -0.7. It came out alright, but when I first got the camera 12 months ago in these conditions I would be set at 0 but if I had taken this pic at this setting now it would have been really over exposed. Any way I think I will just have to live with it, but once again thanks to everyone.

slimrbp · #10 (**permalink**) 17-12-2010, 06:37 AM

I am going to have a go at this one although I may be talking out of my hat as I often do

It's hard to assess a scene by eye as the human eye has it's own very effective HDR and exposure compensation software.

My thought would be the nature of the light, as the camera is reading the light reflected from the subject.
A few months ago the sun was higher in sky and if I remember my physics this will alter the angle of reflection. Now the winter sun is lower perhaps the intensity of the reflected light from areas in the frame has changed altering the way the scene is 'read' by the camera?

Just a theory though!