Exposure Compensation Clarification

[stlscape]

I understand *what* exposure compensation is and why you'd use it, but need a little clarification between the positive and negative EC on my camera (350D).

Is this correct?:

If I want to let in MORE light, I use - compensation and move the indicator to my left.

If I want to let in LESS light, I use + compensation and move the indicator to my right.

[sblais]

Just the opposite:

+ gives you more light (overexposed image)
- gives you less light (underexposed image)

Try it out with your camera ;)

[Mark_Cohran]

Just the opposite:

+ gives you more light (overexposed image)
- gives you less light (underexposed image)

Try it out with your camera ;)

Absolutely.

Where you (the OP) may be getting confused it how/what to compensate for the subject. If you have a very light subject and you want to render the subject as you see it, you need to add + compensation. Why? Because often your camera's exposure meter will read the very bright/light scene and expose it for the "average scene" and therefore will want to let in less light. To get the image back to where it should be, you have to tell the camera to let in more light (+ EC). The reverse is true for darker/low key scenes.

Mark

[stlscape]

Got it now. :) Thanks for the responses.

[rowdyred94]

You have a digital camera. Photos are virtually free. Turn the dial and shoot some! :-)

[poloman]

Experiment with backlit subjects too. You need often need +EC in this case. (move to the right) For example, dark bird against bright hazy sky. The camera sees the bright sky and meters for it. Without exposure compensation you end up with a silhouette (sp?)

[stlscape]

shoot some!

I did! That's why I came here asking for clarification. :)

I shot some photos at an annual convention a year ago, and accidentally left a little negative compensation dialed in. Same convention, same place, same camera with 0 EC, many of the same speakers, and what appeared to be the same lighting this year. Last year's photos came out much better than this year's. This year's were all a little underexposed and needed tweaking.

[In2Photos]

I did! That's why I came here asking for clarification. :)

I shot some photos at an annual convention a year ago, and accidentally left a little negative compensation dialed in. Same convention, same place, same camera with 0 EC, many of the same speakers, and what appeared to be the same lighting this year. Last year's photos came out much better than this year's. This year's were all a little underexposed and needed tweaking.
Wait, wait , wait. You said this year's shots were underexposed with 0 EC but last year's shots were fine with -EC. That doesn't make sense if all other parameters are the same.

[stlscape]

I know! Crazy, isn't it? That's why I was confused. I'm sure that there must have been something different in the lighting (hotel ballroom), but it sure looked the same to me.