Exposure Is an Interpretive Choice

The very first thing to remember about exposure is that it's an interpretive choice. It's true that it's partially a technical problem to measure the light and arrive at the value you want and apply it, but the "correct" exposure also depends on your aesthetic goals for the picture. Perhaps, but not necessarily, part of the further changes you plan to make in post-processing.

Second, often there's no such thing as one correct exposure. There is a range of choices, any of which will "work" but that contribute to different effects. The meter reading, no matter how you apply it, is only advisory. In fact, the exposure that is ideal for your interpretation of your scene might be quite far away from the meter reading.

The next thing to remember about exposure is that despite the broader range of corrections and manipulations that are available to photographers today in image-editing programs such as Lightroom et al., getting the ideal exposure from the start, in-camera, will contribute to a final result of the highest quality.

And the fourth important thing to remember is that there's no magic in how you arrive at a given exposure**. It's just a value. You get no points for having used this or that method of arriving at it—all that's just for your own convenience, and to suit your perceptions of what's going on and how things work. We all work based on the way we're comfortable with, and that best fits our conception of what's going on, and that we have the most experience with, and that suits the camera's capabilities. But there's no magic to how you get to the end result if the end result is the same. You're free to pick the method that you think works best for you and that you're most comfortable with.

As I said a couple of days ago, though, you don't have to master every method of metering. Just one or two of the ones that gets you to an exposure that works for you.

Mike

*I once photographed for six months with a totally manual camera and no light meter at all, which I documented in an article for Ed Buziak's Darkroom User magazine (U.K.) called "Train Your Brain...To Guess Exposure." It was a fun experience, and taught me a lot about metering and exposure.

I was learning the Zone System at around the same time, and I wrote the article after I noticed that some Zone System photographers actually were quite poor at exposing their large-format sheet film. Although they had the mechanics of the system down pat, they weren't using very good judgement. Poor visualization, one might call that.

**I'll give an example of this last. Let's say you're shooting at ISO 800 and the ideal exposure based on the scene and the interpretation you want to make of it is ƒ/8 at 1/250th. (We'll ignore post-processing remedies here, for the purpose of illustration.) Here are a few of the ways you might use your camera:

• You could spot meter a middle value in the scene and use auto-exposure lock, recompose, and shoot, resulting in exposing at ƒ/8 at 1/250th.
• You could use Manual mode and adjust the dials based on the metering scale in the viewfinder until the camera is set on ƒ/4 at 1/1000th. Since you want more depth of field, you change the aperture to ƒ/8 but stay on the same EV, giving a shutter speed of 1/250th.
• You could use Aperture-priority automatic mode but, based on your knowledge of how the camera meter usually works, add an extra stop of exposure using the exposure compensation (EC) dial, which ends up as, we'll say, ƒ/8 at 1/250th.
• You could use the exposure you've been using consistently for the entire last hour of heavy shooting, that you originally based on a number of careful incident readings with a hand-held meter. That exposure is, you guessed it, ƒ/8 at 1/250th.
• You could use the histogram to "expose to the right" and then move it a little more to the left based on experience, arriving at ƒ/8 at 1/250th.
• You could bracket three exposures with the camera on "P." Later, at your computer, you'll choose the best-looking of the three exposures, which happens to be (you didn't actually notice) ƒ/8 at 1/250th.
• You could be using 100% Kentucky windage—guessing exposure settings based on experience*, totally ignoring any aspect of what the camera's light meter is telling you. The sun is unobstructed but low in the sky so you use your standard daylight exposure plus two stops, which results in, yes, ƒ/8 at 1/250th.

The question: Which of these methods arrived at the best exposure? (It should be obvious that the final exposure is identical in each of our examples, which should make the answer to this question obvious.)

And the follow-up question: which metering method was superior for this particular shot? The answer has to be, none of them. They were, in this case, just different ways of getting to the same end-point. One or another might be preferred by different photographers, who will argue over the superiority of their own preference, saying that it leads to error less often, or is faster, or most reliable, or works well enough, or they've been doing it that way for 30 years, or they just trust the camera and the hell with it, or whatever. But it doesn't really matter which method you chose. In this example.

Original contents copyright 2014 by Michael C. Johnston and/or the bylined author. All Rights Reserved. Links in this post may be to our affiliates; sales through affiliate links may benefit this site.

TOP's links!

(To see all the comments, click on the "Comments" link below.)
Featured Comments from:

Mark L: "The only problems with exposure for me started when I began using digital and film. My black-and-white film I can pretty well guess dead on, and if I'm not sure I err on the side of overexposure, but digital needs to be exposed like slide film to protect the highlights, as these days cameras are good enough to be able to lift the shadows without producing much extra noise. So I have to go out with the mindset for either film or digital and I cannot use both on the same day or my head implodes—easily done these days!"

Mike replies: I have that same problem.

Gary Nylander: "I'm surprised to read that some zone system photographers were quite poor at exposing their large-format sheet film. [Not all, by any means. Just some. And at Photo Techniques, the unofficial house magazine of the Zone System, I believe I saw them all. —Ed.]

"I would say for myself having used the zone system with a large format camera for the past 25 years, using a Pentax 1° spot meter that my exposures are far more consistent and reliable in comparison to the days when I was using a ordinary hand held meter with my view camera, especially shooting landscapes.

"I believe photographers like Edward Weston and many of his contemporaries were known for making exposures with out a light meter, he did some beautiful work just by eyeing the exposure. A few months ago a friend gave me a interesting little booklet called Photographic Exposure Computer, dated 1942. The booklet, about 8x12 cm in size, has a detailed latitude zone map, then a table of light index numbers that correspond to the particular latitude that indicate the proper exposure wherever one might be. I have used it and for most standard lighting situations it works amazingly well—and it fits in my pocket and needs no batteries!"

Joel Bartlett: "And for a follow-on article, may I suggest 'White Balance is an Interpretive Choice.' When I shoot interiors, I have exterior scenes through windows, direct sun, shadow, reflected sun, at least two colors of florescent light, halogen, incandescent, and my strobes. No one spot in the frame is correct; the client just wants me to do the right thing."

Comments

[darr]

Or you could practice the Sunny 16 and Looney 11 rules. :)

[Herman Krieger]

That's a nice exposure of the subject. I used to judge exposure by eye, but after having
cataract surgery, I began underexposing the photos.

[Dave Levingston]

Many years ago I went to a Kodak seminar presented by a guy who had done a beautiful book of photos of homes in the Caribbean. He talked at great length about the careful spot metering he had done to get the correct exposure for his slide film. He had an elaborate system for figuring the exposure based on many, many spot meter readings of the scenes, which had extreme contrast from the bright sunlight. After going on about all that for much too long, he then said that after determining that perfect exposure he would then shoot an 8-stop bracket. "Burn lots of film," he kept saying. No wonder Kodak sponsored him. There was a guy at the back of the room listening to a ball game on a transistor radio (remember those?). I decided that was a better use of my time too.

[Dennis Huteson]

Just read the Tiger's exposure guide and it took me back to my early days of Halina 35x and Zorki 4. In those days of yore I was a reciprocal ASA user. Setting the shutter-speed the same as the ASA...so for FP4, 125 ASA = 1/125th of a second. The aperture would be f16 for bright sunlight...f11 weak sunlight...f8 bright cloud...f5.6 really dull cloudy...etc.
Even nowadays I use it just to impress the hell out of youngsters who are wholely reliant on various auto exposure systems.

[Jimmy Reina]

My first camera didn't have a light meter, and the meter in the Nikkormat FTN I used for the next 35 years was so finicky, I seldom had a battery in it. When I did have a battery, I used it so little, that it would die, and I never knew it.

I learned to judge the light from the printout on the inside of the Kodak film box, and make aperture and shutter speed adjustments according to the situation.

It was too simple, and now that everything is so smart, I find myself getting confused.

[kirk]

We used to cut out the little pictograms that came on the paper Kodak put in every box of Tri-x. The pictograms depicted various routine exterior lighting situations. They gave one the proper exposures to try. On the other side of the paper were various recommended development times for the film.

I would tape the pictogram + exposure settings onto the bottom plate of my Leica with Scotch tape and refer to it when in need. The month I spent in Paris with my paper guide gave me more and better correct exposures that a series of expensive cameras with meters did in future visits.

Sometimes an objective starting point rocks.

[Robert Harshman]

Every aspect of making a photo verses taking one is subjective. Base on your vision, if you have one, and skill set with the camera you are using.

I personally live in the world of making commercial photo's. 360's for the most part to be exact.

Setting an exposure is typically guided by the brightest part of a 360 degree image. This tells me how much highlight detail I want to remain in the final image. It's a decision that has lots of impact on post.

Once you learn to expose for what you see and the best options for post, you can produce a quality image.

[David Bennett]

Being from the Sceptered Isle, what is sun?

[Lynn]

I was out shooting yesterday with a borrowed M4 and C Sonnar 50/1.7 - my first experience of shooting a Leica M. A beautiful, bright sunny autumn day in Sydney. I noticed some toddlers sitting outdoors in open shade discussing something very intently - it was the perfect photo opportunity. I'd forgotten the hand held light meter and guessed the exposure at 1/250 f8 on ISO400 bw film. To avoid disturbing them I guessed the distance and scale pre-focused and then snapped two quick exposures.

Shortly afterwards my friend checked the shade exposure with his camera's meter and I was very pleased to see I'd guessed correctly. Feeling happy, I suggested a portrait of some friends who happened to chance by. Advanced the film and took the picture. Something seemed amiss. Then it dawned that the rewind knob hadn't turned as I advanced the film… I stood there, stupidly turning that knob around and around, feeling no resistance...

[MarkB]

Quoth D. Huteson: "Even nowadays I use it (reciprocal of ASA) just to impress the hell out of youngsters who are wholely reliant on various auto exposure systems."

As one of those (not-quite-so) youngsters wholly reliant on AE, I gotta say I spend an inordinate amount of time learning how my camera's meter sees the scene, and how the sensor responds (in terms of output) to the variables I control. It's been different for every camera body (huh - kinda like film?) and iI like to think of it as a "break in period" for the camera and the brain behind the eyeball.

6 months ago I went from a Pentax K-5 (huge, clean dynamic range in the shadows, 77 segment monochrome metering) to a K-3 (far more headroom in the highlights, 86,000 pixel RGB metering) and I'm just getting a handle on how the AE sees what I see. YMMV

[edwin]

According to the Tiger's exposure guide, Mike would have overexposed in his example at ISO800 as he described.

[Mark L]

The only problems with exposure for me started when I began using digital and film. My black and white film I can pretty well guess dead on, and if I'm not sure I err on the side of overexposure, but digital needs to be exposed like slide film to protect the highlights, as these days cameras are good enough to be able to lift the shadows without producing much extra noise.
So I have to go out with the mindset for either film or digital and I cannot use both on the same day or my head implodes - easy done these days!

[Jock Elliott]

I use the Sargeant Schultz method (I know NOTHING!): put it in Professional (P) mode and diddle the exposure compensation wheel to taste. Unless, of course, I am "serious;" then I take a great deal of care and screw it up manually.

[Michel Hardy-Vallée]

Another important interpretive aspect of exposure is that by stopping up or down a given scene, you are changing the look of shadows, mid tones, and highlights (in B&W).

On a very bright day, shooting at contre-jour, you can decide you want to have full shadow details and loose the sky (it's going to be barely visible depending with the framing you choose). You can also decide to go for a full silhouette, and have only the brightest highlights show up, so that you have a kind of American Night effect.

Good Zonies tend to have the ability to see through more subtle situations: for e.g. if you open up, you'll clear the shadows, but then you will apply a bit of magic powder in your developer to depress the mid tones without affecting too much the shadows, so that you will have a tonal harmony of exactly two zones between the tree and the rock, instead of two close-looking greys. You can also do the same thing with a custom curves in Photoshop.

Exposure and aesthetics are deeply interrelated, and the concept of "normal" exposure is perhaps the most damaging one to a creative photographer. Guess you figured that right with the Flickr comments to Bill Brandt's photos: http://theonlinephotographer.blogspot.ca/2006/06/great-photographers-on-internet.html

[Sven W]

My approach to getting the desired exposure requires three steps. Firstly, there's the "technical" exposure which is based on ETTR (I shoot digital). Secondly, there's the interpretative step of what to do with the highlights / very bright parts of the image i.e retain or discard them.

The third step is during post, where I adjust the shadows / midtones / bright areas to finalise the exposure.

Oh yeah, the fourth step is dodging and burning but that's another topic!

[Petar Chichev]

I would say, setting exposure like you do with cameraphone, that is auto + moving expo correction slider and watching the result on screen, is the best way to find the proper highlights/shadows balanse.

[David Dyer-Bennet]

Yes! I've been ranting against the concept of "correct" exposure for decades now. Any exposure that allows you to produce a good print was "adequate". Some are preferable to others either in that they make the process of producing that good print less annoying, or that they actually allow a better print ("good" comes in levels after all). The only "wrong" exposure is one which does NOT allow you to produce a good print.

(I use "print" broadly, to mean "version of the image ready for public presentation".)

(The other use I make of it is "I screwed up, even though I found a way to make lemonade from the result", as in "I got the exposure all wrong, but this high-key look is kind of neat.")

[NancyP]

I am trying to get the hang of the zone system for sheet film, in particular, the bit about how one can manipulate development for purpose of fitting in the full range of detailed exposure in the scene. This is new for me, in my 135 film days the choice was "do I need to push for speed, or not" when shooting action.

As for digital, I use the center-weighted matrix average as my 18% and then in manual mode dial in whatever changes I want by guesstimate. Backlit dark brown bird in flight against bright sky? Dig up another 2 to 2.5 stops from somewhere. Same bird, frontlit? Find it 0.5 to 1 stop. I would guess this falls under "experience and common sense".