How to expose for a dark scene

I rely a lot on my histogram. I've learned from personal experience that I like to expose for highlights in a daytime landscape scene. I typically meter the brightest spot and put it just below highlight clipping range.

Now for dark scenes I would assume you do the opposite (meter the darkest spot you want visible and bring it just above shadow clipping range).

Some people have told me to just expose your subject right in the middle, but I feel like that makes a night scene seem more like a daytime scene.

Exact questions:

1) How do you expose for a dark scene (small concert, outdoor night scene, indoor low-light scene)?

2) What does a properly exposed dark scene histogram look like to you (peak to the left, peak in center, or somewhere else)?

1) Exposing a dark scene is no different than exposing a bright scene.
2) A properly exposed dark scene histogram looks the same as a properly exposed bright scene histogram.
3) Proper exposure is whatever creates the image you want to create. It's your picture, you get to decide what's correct.
4) As long as you don't clip any highlights that you want to preserve, then you can always make an image darker in post. It doesn't work going the other way.

I mostly agree with you, Curtis, but I'm going to have to disagree on Point 2. Of course, every image will have a different histogram.

In a night/dark scene, if the subject is properly exposed, the subject is probably lit in such a way that he is much brighter than the surroundings. So the histogram will probably be a hill on the left side - maybe even with a noticeable amount of black clipping in the unimportant details and background - with a small amount of data along the bottom of the middle/right of the histogram, and maybe a small spike here and there in the middle and right for the subject and other highlights.

In a day/bright scene, if the subject is properly exposed, he is probably not too much brighter or darker than the background scenery. So the histogram will be the "usual" hill-in-the-center that we're used to looking for in a "properly exposed" image.

In any case, I think "Expose in such a way as to not clip the important highlights" is usually my goal. If I want a dark background, the histogram is going to show it. For dark scenes, I often end up with a histogram that's U-shaped instead of hill-shaped.

For me ... Best exposures are with handheld Incident meter.
Every subject with its own unique lighting has a differ histogram.

just remember ... without light there is no photograph ... a bit extreme but true

dirtydan wrote in post #14864329
I rely a lot on my histogram. I've learned from personal experience that I like to expose for highlights in a daytime landscape scene. I typically meter the brightest spot and put it just below highlight clipping range.

So do I, using this: Need an exposure crutch?

That would work, if the highlights weren't important.
For these, the first ones were on my "crutch meter". The later ones were between that & 1 stop under to help reduce noise. Some adjustments to the black level were made in post. Countdown - Three days to the Cruise

It would. And consider how that works with a mostly white or black scene?

nathancarter wrote in post #14866819
I mostly agree with you, Curtis, but I'm going to have to disagree on Point 2. Of course, every image will have a different histogram.

In a night/dark scene, if the subject is properly exposed, the subject is probably lit in such a way that he is much brighter than the surroundings. So the histogram will probably be a hill on the left side - maybe even with a noticeable amount of black clipping in the unimportant details and background - with a small amount of data along the bottom of the middle/right of the histogram, and maybe a small spike here and there in the middle and right for the subject and other highlights.

In a day/bright scene, if the subject is properly exposed, he is probably not too much brighter or darker than the background scenery. So the histogram will be the "usual" hill-in-the-center that we're used to looking for in a "properly exposed" image.

In any case, I think "Expose in such a way as to not clip the important highlights" is usually my goal. If I want a dark background, the histogram is going to show it. For dark scenes, I often end up with a histogram that's U-shaped instead of hill-shaped.

Stop and think of this for a second...your target has black and midtone grey and white parts, and it fills the screen.

• If the above target is out in EV15 brightness light (sunlight)
  the histogram has peaks near the left, a bit to the left of middle, and near the right.
  
• If the above target is out in EV2 brightness light (very dim)
  the histogram has peaks near the left, a bit to the left of middle, and near the right.

I have found in my experience that Curtis is right...you will end up with a much better final result if you expose to the right for any scene, and then "darken" the image to you liking later in post processing. You end up with much cleaner looking pictures, in terms of noise.

Curtis N wrote in post #14864393
3) Proper exposure is whatever creates the image you want to create. It's your picture, you get to decide what's correct.

I wish more people on photography forums had this attitude. People get so hung up on this concept of a "perfect exposure" that they forget that photography is a creative medium, a form of art, where you, as the photographer, have the opportunity to present the scene the way you want it to be. Unless you're a photo journalist for whom tonal fidelity is essential, there's simply no good reason to be a purist about exposure accuracy. Imagine how boring paintings would be if every painter strove to ensure that every brush stroke absolutely accurately reproduced the colours of his subject?

onona wrote in post #14868809
I wish more people on photography forums had this attitude. People get so hung up on this concept of a "perfect exposure" that they forget that photography is a creative medium, a form of art, where you, as the photographer, have the opportunity to present the scene the way you want it to be. Unless you're a photo journalist for whom tonal fidelity is essential, there's simply no good reason to be a purist about exposure accuracy. Imagine how boring paintings would be if every painter strove to ensure that every brush stroke absolutely accurately reproduced the colours of his subject?

The ability to capture a perfect exposure is a level that lends itself to creativity because a standard of control has been reached. What someone does beyond that is artistic control which is different than taking whatever the camera gives you because you can't nail a perfect exposure and then calling it an artistic choice.

But just because someone doesn't capture a "perfect exposure" doesn't mean they couldn't. Intentional under- or overexposure can be used to great creative effect. To use a painting analogy again, what you're saying is akin to someone saying that Leonardo Da Vinci, for example, painted the Mona Lisa the way he did because he couldn't paint a more realistic version. Honestly, just as I find photorealistic painting thoroughly dull and uninspiring, so too do I find a lot of perfectly exposed photos. I'm not saying there isn't a place for perfect exposure, but I'm saying it isn't always necessary, and frankly I think that when people get too obsessed with perfection, they miss a lot of creative opportunities. Then again, I'm an artist first and foremost, and stylisation has always been more compelling to me than realism.

I think you're both right, but I'll throw in this analogy:

Using the "expose to the right" technique is an attempt to capture as much color and luminance information as possible, before the creative part of image making truly begins. It's sort of like Leonardo showing up with all of his paints, not just half of them.

You may have an artistic vision, but that vision can evolve over time. So it's best not to limit yourself by leaving half your paints at home. Capture the scene in such a way as to give you the most options (this applies to composition, too). Then, let the creative process begin!

Lots of good tips. I did a shoot last night where the stage had a very dark curtain behind it. I metered the curtain, then set exposure on it to -2 stops. Then I forgot about it via the "set it and forget it" method. The histogram was heavy on the left, but hardly clipping.

So there you have it. Thanks everyone. Everyone had good advice, and it did indeed turn out to what seems to be an artistic preference.

Wilt wrote in post #14868747
It might be a 'perfect exposure' but the shot conveys nothing to the viewer about the very low level of light, which is where creative deviation comes into play.

Agree and agree.

In your exposure target example, you've got a proper exposure of your subject - but it's not a dark scene. It's just the subject, which wasn't the question in the original post.

If the scene is dark, the histogram will peak at the left, with other short little bumps and hills along the bottom of the middle and right.

We're all saying about the same thing, I think.

This one is exposed exactly as I intended, but if you looked at the histogram and not the image, you'd think I was inept.

IMAGE LINK: http://www.flickr.com …/nathancarter/7​701239610/

nathancarter wrote in post #14872410
Agree and agree.

In your exposure target example, you've got a proper exposure of your subject - but it's not a dark scene. It's just the subject, which wasn't the question in the original post.
If the scene is dark, the histogram will peak at the left, with other short little bumps and hills along the bottom of the middle and right.
We're all saying about the same thing, I think.
This one is exposed exactly as I intended, but if you looked at the histogram and not the image, you'd think I was inept.

IMAGE LINK: http://www.flickr.com …/nathancarter/7​701239610/
Industrial_Alliance_20​120801_0408.jpg by nathancarter, on Flickr

Yes, ETTR fails the address suitably the issue when the subject is dark (your 'dark scene') and has few areas with highlights).

Your photo shows your desired artistic interpretation of the scene. I loaded your photo into LR and it came up with a brighter interpretation, based upon a level which is about 2.5Ev brighter than what you chose, with only the flames peaking at the right edge of the histogram, a different artistic interpretation than what you like. Better?...Not. Different?...Yes. (BTW I do prefer your interpretation.)

HTTP response: 404 | MIME changed to 'image/gif' | Byte size: ZERO | PHOTOBUCKET ERROR IMAGE