Forums
New posts
Search forums
What's new
New posts
New media
New media comments
New profile posts
Latest activity
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Members
Current visitors
New profile posts
Search profile posts
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
New posts
Search forums
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Forums
Learning
Photography Q&A
EV Compensation -- I should know... but
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="nickt" data-source="post: 503368" data-attributes="member: 4923"><p>I'm getting confused here, just on the wording of the tip. I do understand how the compensation works. I've never really heard it put like that, but let me see if I follow the logic... This tip works out if the scene is generally bright AND the subject will get 'lost in the sauce'. That is, because of the generally bright scene, the main subject will get darkened up by the meter, possibly too much. So for bright scene, go + works. Or maybe a snow scene. Snow will certainly look gray, so + would whiten it up. That fits the tip too.</p><p></p><p>But I always thought of exposure compensation this way:</p><p>Positive compensation gives more exposure than the meter suggests. Negative compensation gives less exposure than the meter suggests. With that in mind, how will <strong>my main subject </strong>meter? Will he end up too dark because of bright surroundings fooling my meter? If so + compensation added. The tip is confusing because we have bright scene, but dark main subject. Example would be a bird in the sky or kids on the beach with sun behind them. Bright sky - dark bird, therefore + compensation.</p><p>Example 2 is a white cat cat sitting in a shady tree. White cat will get blown out when the meter balances the scene and brightens up the tree. So minus compensation added in for the bright cat. </p><p></p><p>In the two examples above, the 'important' things could reverse by personal choice. Maybe we want the clouds exposed, not the bird flying by. Maybe we want the tree leaves shown at their best, not the white cat.</p><p></p><p>Then there is another possibility that doesn't fit the tip... Do we simply want to lighten or darken the whole scene? For an extreme instance do we want to make a day scene look darker or a night scene look brighter? Simply add compensation for a dark scene to make it brighter or subtract exposure from a bright scene to make it look darker.</p><p></p><p>The bottom line question for my brain is "do I want the area of the scene that I am most interested in to have more exposure or less exposure?" Then I will just add or subtract compensation accordingly. The tip just doesn't work for me, but sometimes my brain is stubborn to follow the conventional path even though I end up in the right place. I'm more good with saying dark <strong>subject</strong> then add compensation. Bright/blown <strong>subject</strong>, remove compensation.</p><p></p><p>I hope I didn't confuse more.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="nickt, post: 503368, member: 4923"] I'm getting confused here, just on the wording of the tip. I do understand how the compensation works. I've never really heard it put like that, but let me see if I follow the logic... This tip works out if the scene is generally bright AND the subject will get 'lost in the sauce'. That is, because of the generally bright scene, the main subject will get darkened up by the meter, possibly too much. So for bright scene, go + works. Or maybe a snow scene. Snow will certainly look gray, so + would whiten it up. That fits the tip too. But I always thought of exposure compensation this way: Positive compensation gives more exposure than the meter suggests. Negative compensation gives less exposure than the meter suggests. With that in mind, how will [B]my main subject [/B]meter? Will he end up too dark because of bright surroundings fooling my meter? If so + compensation added. The tip is confusing because we have bright scene, but dark main subject. Example would be a bird in the sky or kids on the beach with sun behind them. Bright sky - dark bird, therefore + compensation. Example 2 is a white cat cat sitting in a shady tree. White cat will get blown out when the meter balances the scene and brightens up the tree. So minus compensation added in for the bright cat. In the two examples above, the 'important' things could reverse by personal choice. Maybe we want the clouds exposed, not the bird flying by. Maybe we want the tree leaves shown at their best, not the white cat. Then there is another possibility that doesn't fit the tip... Do we simply want to lighten or darken the whole scene? For an extreme instance do we want to make a day scene look darker or a night scene look brighter? Simply add compensation for a dark scene to make it brighter or subtract exposure from a bright scene to make it look darker. The bottom line question for my brain is "do I want the area of the scene that I am most interested in to have more exposure or less exposure?" Then I will just add or subtract compensation accordingly. The tip just doesn't work for me, but sometimes my brain is stubborn to follow the conventional path even though I end up in the right place. I'm more good with saying dark [B]subject[/B] then add compensation. Bright/blown [B]subject[/B], remove compensation. I hope I didn't confuse more. [/QUOTE]
Verification
Post reply
Forums
Learning
Photography Q&A
EV Compensation -- I should know... but
Top