Embarrassingly Basic Exposure Question

This is a pretty basic exposure question. I couldn't find a "learn to use your equipment" topic, and since I correct the problem in Photoshop I thought I'd ask about it here.

Okay, it's simply this. I find that with many of the photographs I take, I need to boost the mid-range to get a satisfying picture (using levels or curves).

The picture is correctly exposted in that the histogram looks good at the topand bottom ends - just tailing off to zero. So the image is neither over-exposed nor under-exposed.

Yet the mid range and the darker areas very often seem too dark, and I need to brighten them up in curves or levels to give the picture any "bite".

Am I doing something wrongly here, or is this one of the reasons why programs like Photoshop exist?

regards,
/alan

It just sounds life your pictures are under exposed a bit.

Try bracketing your exposures -1, 0 , +1 see what the results look like.

Don't for one second believe that Camera auto exposure always correct.

The histogram is a good guide for most things but if the subject of the image contains a lot of blacks or a lot of whites (or a lot of both) then the histogram wont be an accurate view of the exposure.

Could you post an example image that you feel looks off?

Unless there's already very high contrast in the original image due to lighting conditions, I think most RAW images benefit from adjustment using curves or other tools to selectively change the image contrast. There's not necessarily anything wrong with your shooting technique if you have to do this.

Alan, you don't say whether you're shooting RAW or jpeg, and it does make a difference as to how you approach exposure and post-processing.

If you're shooting jpeg, you sound like you are taking the right approach, but you might want to check out some picture style adjustments for contrast and saturation to get a more pleasing "out of camera" shot.

If you are shooting RAW, you need to do that in your software, starting with ACR if you are using Photoshop. RAW shooting is pretty effective if you get used to doing it, especially for scenes with challenging levels of exposure.

You might want to check our dedicated RAW Processing thread here:

https://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthre​ad.php?t=684360

Thank you for your replies.

I am shooting RAW. I was hoping to upload some pictures that show the problem, but flickr is misbehaving tonight and so I'll need to try again later.

I suspect that I am just suffering from a desire on Canon's part to make the pictures look "punchy", however that does mean that a lot of detail in the upper left-hand half of the histogram gets lost - I need to stretch the histogram a bit to bring that detail out...

Enjoying the RAW processing thread, however - might even be able to contribute to that one

regards,
/alan

alan_potter wrote in post #7857417
Thank you for your replies.

I am shooting RAW. I was hoping to upload some pictures that show the problem, but flickr is misbehaving tonight and so I'll need to try again later.

I suspect that I am just suffering from a desire on Canon's part to make the pictures look "punchy", however that does mean that a lot of detail in the upper left-hand half of the histogram gets lost - I need to stretch the histogram a bit to bring that detail out...

Yeah, you have to realize that RAW renditions right out of the camera tend to be "flat" unless you are using DPP and shooting with a "punchy" picture style. This isn't a problem as much as it's the nature of RAW and when you start shooting RAW you take on the task of applying Contrast, saturation, and white balance/color hue and sharpening in post-processing.

Enjoying the RAW processing thread, however - might even be able to contribute to that one

Great, Alan! Looking forward to seeing your stuff there!