Getting the exposure right...what exactly does it mean?

So, I had this thought going on in my head this morning. From what I have read and heard, people's explanation of "correct exposure" is this: "Expose the photo in such a way that it matches what your eyes are seeing or what you intend the photo to look like."

So, with that definition, let's say I'm taking a picture of my room and it's kinda dark in there. I want to take a picture that shows the darkness of the room. I then post it for others to view. Obviously, people will start saying that it's underexposed and all. So, how does one get a correct exposure that satisfies themselves and everyone else? Or is this impossible? If so, then, I guess just like an art, you have to explain your meaning behind it and the observers have to understand it?

Just something I was thinking....nothing important!

Exposure can be a technical measure of a scene as well as one that is aesthetic. You as the photographer have the ability to render the finished product in any many you choose. Granted some images will look more pleasing than others, and here is where experimentation and temperament often come into play.

It is impossible to satisfy everybody with your images, so the important thing is to satisfy yourself.

Your example of the "dark room" is a good point. If gloomy, oppressive foreboding is something that you want to convey in an artistic manner, then the lower illumination level of a mysterious room is something you want to exhibit. However, if you are using the same room and light level to photograph a bridal party and everybody looks dark with shadows under their eyes and detail is difficult to discern, then you have failed in producing an optimum image.

I guess if you have to explain why the photo is so dark (artistic choice vs. technical defect) then you missed the mark at least for that viewer. It happens.

If you like the photo as exposed then that is a start. If many people like it as exposed then you are on to something.

nepali wrote in post #12267285
So, with that definition, let's say I'm taking a picture of my room and it's kinda dark in there. I want to take a picture that shows the darkness of the room. I then post it for others to view.

My opinion:
For a shot like this, you'll need at least one point of interest in the room that's properly exposed (or over exposed!) to draw the viewer's attention. If it's dark everywhere, the viewer will be confused, and probably not perceive your intent unless you explain it.

A computer monitor, a reading lamp with a bare bulb that's throwing interesting shadows, the setting sun coming in through the window - all of these could lend visual interest to your shot, tell a story, or make it artistic, even though the light meter says you're way underexposed.

For example, I took a few portraits this weekend where the only illumination was a single candle flame. By the meter, it's sorely underexposed, but the candlelight and the way the light falls on the model are exactly what I was going for. I like the results quite a bit, and so does the model.

The classic interpretation is "If you have black, gray, and white color patches in a scene, the 'properly exposed' shot would render each of those color patches to be black, gray, and white respectively." A black cat is not 'gray', a white bridal gown is not 'gray'.

The digital interpretation is "Capture the white pixels of the white color patch in the scene as far to the right side of the histogram as you can get them, without them falling off the right edge."

^^^^
What he said. I submit that your room is possibly not a good choice for a low key shot because nobody else knows what your room looks like and it's not a classic subject that looks good underexposed. High key is another technique. For some a high key shot is overexposed. However, it can have impact.

very informative thread. thumbs up

nepali wrote in post #12267285
So, I had this thought going on in my head this morning. From what I have read and heard, people's explanation of "correct exposure" is this: "Expose the photo in such a way that it matches what your eyes are seeing or what you intend the photo to look like."

So, with that definition, let's say I'm taking a picture of my room and it's kinda dark in there. I want to take a picture that shows the darkness of the room. I then post it for others to view. Obviously, people will start saying that it's underexposed and all. So, how does one get a correct exposure that satisfies themselves and everyone else? Or is this impossible? If so, then, I guess just like an art, you have to explain your meaning behind it and the observers have to understand it?

Just something I was thinking....nothing important!

A related thought came to mind. I've seen a number of film motion pictures - particularly older Westerns - that have scenes represented to be dusk, dawn, or even night-time which were actually shot in daylight. By underexposing the film and thus darkening the overall scene, they get their idea across even though you can see bold shadows behind objects which give away the technique.

If the photo matches your interpretation of the scene, then it's properly exposed.

SkipD wrote in post #12272975
A related thought came to mind. I've seen a number of film motion pictures - particularly older Westerns - that have scenes represented to be dusk, dawn, or even night-time which were actually shot in daylight. By underexposing the film and thus darkening the overall scene, they get their idea across even though you can see bold shadows behind objects which give away the technique.

"Day for night" is the name for the technique. It's also the English-language title of a François Truffaut film about moviemaking.

"Capturing what the eye sees" can be tricky! But, it's part of the fun!

@ the OP
you asked "how does one get a correct exposure that satisfies themselves and everyone else?"
That is impossible
Just as it is with tone, saturation, contrast and a long list of other things.
The only thing that matters is that you and or your client likes the end result, even if every other person on the planet thinks it looks like crap.

Wilt wrote in post #12268149
The classic interpretation is "If you have black, gray, and white color patches in a scene, the 'properly exposed' shot would render each of those color patches to be black, gray, and white respectively." A black cat is not 'gray', a white bridal gown is not 'gray'.

The digital interpretation is "Capture the white pixels of the white color patch in the scene as far to the right side of the histogram as you can get them, without them falling off the right edge."

Stick with this as a basis. I'd only add: have your histogram set to RGB and be sure none of the channels fall off the right side.

windpig wrote in post #12282908
Stick with this as a basis. I'd only add: have your histogram set to RGB and be sure none of the channels fall off the right side.

^
...and keep in mind that many scenes have a range of brightnesses which exceeds what the digital sensor is capable of capturing. For example, I metered a scene last week with about 11.5EV difference from darkest area to brightest area...you must CHOOSE what PORTION of the dynamic range to sacrifice in that situation -- it might be simply bright reflections off chrome, or it might be some very dark shadow detail that you choose to sacrifice and not capture. So you need to look at the LCD image blinkies, not merely the histogram, to assess if you want to increase/decrease the amount of blinkie areas accordingly, to suit what YOU want to keep.

JeffreyG wrote in post #12267893
I guess if you have to explain why the photo is so dark (artistic choice vs. technical defect) then you missed the mark at least for that viewer. It happens.

This is, indeed, a point to grasp. There are plenty of effective dark photographs of dark scenes that are very effective. It's a matter of the viewer understanding why the picture is dark rather than being confused by the darkness. If you show a woman at a table in a room lighted by a single candle, the predominant darkness of the room is unconfusing.

This does not mean you must stick to such simplicities and live your entire artistic life walking between two white lines, but it does mean that if your intention is to communicate, you have to use memes common to you and to your intended audience.

Take a look at this man's work in portraiture:

http://photo.net …er-photos?user_id=4744580