|
Forum: Photographic Technique
12-31-2016, 10:42 AM
|
| |
Try as I might, I can't suppress my inclination to look at the technical aspects, even though I know that the aesthetics matter most... I guess that's the old software developer in me :p
|
|
Forum: Photographic Technique
12-31-2016, 09:46 AM
|
| |
Why? Only because doing so gives you greater flexibility in post-processing. If you expose to capture as much shadow and/or highlight detail as possible (depending on which elements of the scene you're most interested in), you have the ability to bring those details out by recovering shadow and highlight levels accordingly. Sometimes, that's necessary for the captured image to match what we saw, as the camera's sensor does not react to light the same way as our eyes and brain do.
Better still, if the situation allows it, would be to take three or more bracketed exposure shots and merge into an HDR image.
If maximising flexibility in post-processing, balancing optimum shadow & highlight detail and minimising noise in recovered shadows aren't beneficial to a particular shot, there's no reason to consider such approaches. 95% of the time, I just expose normally for the mid-tones in a scene, but there are occasions where exposing for either the shadows or highlights (or bracketing exposures) can make all the difference...
|
|
Forum: Photographic Technique
12-31-2016, 07:28 AM
|
| |
I don't know for sure, but... I'd have thought accurate exposure is equally important regardless of lighting conditions in order to ensure as many shadow and highlight details are captured as possible. If the scene contains few highlights, ETTR could be appropriate to capture more in the way of shadow detail (though the trade-off may be a higher ISO, and more noise). Otherwise, exposing as normal would be the way to go, in my view. Yes, both will result in artificially-bright images in the described circumstances, but bringing down the exposure in post processing resolves that.
|
