I photograph insects at a blacklighting sheet almost every night, but a couple of nights ago I was out shooting a high school football game (in terrible light) and I forgot to reset my aperture before shooting bugs. Everything I shot was extremely overexposed, as you can see here with this alfalfa looper. The thing is though that I always shoot in RAW and do my own post-processing, so I was able to rescue it. That’s the tip; if your camera will shoot in RAW format, consider doing that at least to have as a backup in case of events like this. You can recover from bad camera settings far better with RAW files than you can with jpegs!
6 Likes
This used to be more difficult because of the storage implications (RAW files are very large), but these days a 512 GB camera card is cheap, so file size isn’t as much of an issue anymore.
1 Like
I’ve had truly insane rescues of badly exposed photos before thanks to my friend, uh, teaching me how to use lightroom.
I’m currently not in a living situation conducive to doing mothing (apartment with no private outdoor space), but a while back I was looking at buying a OM TG-7 or Ricoh GS900II (vs continuing to just use my iPhone for macro), and while the Ricoh has LEDs around the lens that would be perfect for this application, I don’t want to buy it simply because it does not have RAW output.
4 Likes
For what it’s worth, re: OM vs Ricoh, the OM has a ring flash diffuser accessory that’s fantastic. I tried an aftermarket ring that was something like a ring of LEDs, and it didn’t work at all. But the OM diffuser has been a huge upgrade. And I can definitely recommend the TG-7. I want to avoid getting too invested in photographic excellence, I want a relatively cheap, easy way to get useful-quality macros. And the TG-7 has been fantastic for that purpose.
I’ve avoided shooting RAW because I just don’t have the time to devote to anything beyond maybe adjusting exposure in GIMP. But it looks like GIMP can handle raw, so maybe I should give it a try…
5 Likes
Another thing is to aim for underexposing rather than overexposing (“expose to the left”). Shooting in RAW gives you much more room as the example shows, but once an area is truly blown out to white, it’s unrecoverable. The histogram display will show you if you have blown-out areas. I have the flash exposure set to -2/3 stop for shooting; often I end up boosting it by about the same amount in post, but I’ve also found that even so it gives a more pleasant light than with the default exposure setting.
Also the Olympus TG cameras have an LED near the lens as well (not a ring though), though it’s fairly weak and only useful for extreme closeups, too close for the flash. There is a diffuser ring for the LED but it dims the light so much that it’s useless IMO. I do like the flash diffuser for it though.
6 Likes
Using RAW files can be a bit daunting at first if you’ve never used it. But, you do get more details in files. You just have to coax them out.
I use the free app RawTherapee (Portable version) to process my RAW files off my Panasonic camera. There are a lot of YouTube videos to help learn it. Andy Astby has some good ones where you can get a handle on all the available features in the app. I really like that you can set up preset processing profiles for different situations that can be immediately applied to files. I then tweak things a bit as needed.
1 Like
Definitely nice how the editing software nowadays can save many photos! I don’t normally shoot in RAW, but that’s because my camera can’t keep up with focus stacks then.
1 Like
My understanding is the opposite. By pushing your histogram to the left, i.e. underexposing, you are limiting the amount of light reaching your sensor and creating more noise as your sensor tries to compensate. By exposing to the right, ETTR, you are giving your sensor more light and reducing noise. It is vital, though, in either situation to make sure your entire histogram stays within the limits of dark and light. By pushing too far in either direction you end up with blown out whites or solid blacks, neither of which will allow any detail to be recovered.
3 Likes
I think this depends greatly on your camera and situation. Different cameras have different dynamic ranges (how bright & dark it can capture in a single image), which itself changes over different ISOs. They also process the data differently, with some clipping more in the JPEG than others. On my Canon 5D Mark II, I think I tend to have just .5 to 1 stop of extra highlights in the raw compared to the JPEG. Your images look a bit more than that, at least 2 stops, maybe 3 I would say.
Also, newer cameras and perhaps older ones made by Nikon tend to have much less noise in the shadows. In this case, it doesn’t matter as much if something is underexposed.
4 Likes
I occasionally check settings and results to prevent such things like blurry or underexposed or overexposed photos. Shoot and if photo is not good, adjust shutter speed and shoot again 
That would be good if you’re not take many photos! Photo adjustment takes some time, even in batch editing 
1 Like
I only shoot RAW, and when I use my flash and diffuser for macro, I tend to underexpose. It reduces the amount of specular highlights when you’re photographing a wet or shiny subject, and preserves the highlights. Bringing up shadows, if you’re shooting at very low ISOs, results in almost no noise for me.
4 Likes
True. I recently upgraded to the R5 mkii
Newer cameras now have the option of shooting in compressed raw (cRaw for Canon cameras) which reduces file size by about 50% and results in very little data loss over traditional raw files. I don’t know if other makes have different names for it but I think almost all have that option now. FWIW, I look at field photography as data collection more than anything else. It doesn’t have to look perfect on the back of the camera as long as you get the clarity and color preserved. Use the method that gives you the most data to work with post-processing
2 Likes
This topic was automatically closed 60 days after the last reply. New replies are no longer allowed.