Shoot under exposed or normal eposed
By oiixdaii
@oiixdaii (1059)
Philippines
September 18, 2008 6:54pm CST
Which is better, under exposed or normal exposed? I noticed that when I shoot in normal exposure some of the highlights like the sky are to bright but I could see the subject clearly. But when I shoot under exposed the sky is detailed but my subject is dark. I talked to one of the hobbyist and he told me that it is better to shoot under exposed.
2 responses
@migsmartinez (1293)
• Philippines
19 Sep 08
I think it depends on what effect you want to achieve. You could try under exposing the shot and then using a fill-in flash to illuminate your subject. That's what I do to get bot a clear subject and a clear background.
1 person likes this
@thebeing (657)
• Romania
19 Sep 08
and that's the best way to do it. but, REMEMBER TO EXPOSE FOR THE SKY (meaning, don't get a blown sky) - this is not equivalent to underexposing. do NOT underexpose anything, coz when you bring the detail later in post processing, you'll have tons of noise.
1 person likes this
@migsmartinez (1293)
• Philippines
19 Sep 08
There you go. That's a much better answer! Thanks!
1 person likes this
@oiixdaii (1059)
• Philippines
20 Sep 08
I think it is only possible to use flash to illuminate the subject if the subject is near. But what if the subject is very far? Like for example I am shooting a landscape and I want to show the details. If it is okay with you if you could give me an example setting when shooting landscape in a normal cloudy day. Thanks 
@trickiwoo (2702)
• United States
19 Sep 08
In situations like that where part of the photo is correctly exposed, but the other part isn't... I will adjust it in Photoshop using a layer mask. I either shoot two versions of the image: one with the sky correctly exposed and one with the subject correctly exposed, or I take one photo then compensate for the exposure in Photoshop.
1 person likes this
