Getting best out of high ISO is all about overexposure. huh? when does that rule begin to apply and is shooting +1/3 really over exposure? High iSo shooting is all about exposure period, just like any other iso. you might be thinking that underexposure is what kills the image. . . that I can deal with but neither your shooting data show me you over exposed . . .

Yes, it absolutely is.

When that rule begins to apply is a factor of:
Metering method, and which priority settings are in use,
The camera and its ISO capabilities / noise properties,
How far one pushes those capabilities,
Exposure differences between subject and background (and even different parts of the subject).

+1/3 can be over exposed depending on several things.
Dalmatians blow out -really- quick, while Westies give a bit more latitude because of the difference in fur textures.


For this particular shot, you must take into consideration:

1. Center weighted exposure at a very close distance. The Center weighted area is on dark fur so the exposure is already pretty high relative to other parts of the frame including the white on the dogs nose.

2. The white is important in this case. At a greater distance (out in the middle of the ring for example) I might even go +2/3 or even a whole stop for this dog because blowing out the white on the face wouldn't be as noticeable. However, when it is this large in the frame, and "in your face" the details need to be retained. As shown, there are parts on the snoot that are pushing 230 in two channels.

jim,what you are describing is proper exposure, not over exposure. . . the camera is a tool, the metering is based on a 18% gray. You make adjustments to your exposure based on the subject, light, and what you as the artist want to achieve with the image. Over exposure is, in my view, a term used to describe the condition of the exposure, not the way you set up the camera. .. "proper" exposure is what it is. For high ISO one must not underexpose but "shoot" for the proper exposure . . . I think it may just be semantics . . . ? If you over expose an image you really are talking about losing detail and pushing the image past it's "proper" exposure . . .

My own completely unscientific scale goes:

Correct exposure, Exposed to the right, Over exposed, Blown out.

The fact is that there are areas in many of my high ISO photos that ARE blown out, but it is a deliberate decision.

You also have to remember that you are seeing a photo AFTER the exposure has been brought down in post.

blown highlights might well be the "proper" exposure . . . by your definition, expose to the right is 1/3 ev not overexposure? I'm confused, but i do understand that youre making the point that exposure in particularly critical with hi iso settings. I dont know if you ever shot velvia, but shooting high iso is more like shooting velvia, you have about 1 or less stops to get it right. At high iso's if you under expose the entire image you will pay for it dearly with noise and "grain" when you try to push it or "open" it up in post. . .

Shoot the proper exposure no matter what the subject and i think i understand your point. for that dog, with that light you shot +1/3 which youre calling "over exposure" again it might be semantics, but then you start talking about the final image and what was done in post after it was taken . . .Huh? That changes things too . . .

In any event, the way to describe exposure is to relate it to something, in your example it would have made everything clear to readers if you had said, "i choose +1/3 over THE METER reading because i knew it needed some more light, so i choose a slightly longer shutter speed by adding 1/3 compensation" - which may or may not be over exposure and in your case it is not, it is the proper exposure.

I shot some Velvia in Australia, but had little to no clue what I was doing at the time.

I really don't like the whole "expose to the right" bit especially when it comes to this sort of work. It has too much of a "Price is Right" ring as in "closest without going over," when in fact shooting conditions often require going beyond the right side of the histogram.

If I get to it in the office today I'll post the SOOC version, but I'm prepping for a short trip this weekend followed by a trip to Chattanooga next.

Jim, Tony,
isn't it the same as saying that you expose for highlights knowing you can bring up the shadows in PP? When I shoot formals, that's pretty much what I do. White dogs get exposed so I can see the details in the fur knowing I can balance the darker parts of the image in PP. Black dogs get exposed so I don't blow out the details in people's faces but knowing if I've lighted them properly, there will still be plenty of detail in the dog.

I realize I don't shoot high ISO when I'm doing formals and at high ISO, you don't have the latitude of lots of stops of exposure but the concept is still the same. Which is the Velvia comparison: very little latitude in that film so exposure was always super-critical. But the issue ultimately is dynamic range and no film or digital camera sensor can capture every level of exposure from pure white to pure black. Something has to give and you, as the photographer, have to decide what it is: blown highlights or clogged up blacks. You simply can't get it all at any ISO.

Jim

Jim,

No, at least that's not how I do it.

This particular photo may be a bit closer to that than what I do for the actual runs, but in general unless the dog is white or it's face is mostly white, I shoot to get the most detail in the shadows and bring it down after.

Bringing up shadows, even a little bit is tough at these ISO settings so I prefer to bring things down instead.

Jim,
if the highlights are truly blown out i.e. 255-255-255, they cannot be recovered. Same goes for pure black 0-0-0. However, if you expose so that your highlights have some recoverable data, then you can bring them down while bringing up the shadows. Yes, you get noise in the shadows but you can deal with that. That's what I mean by exposing for the highlights. I'm not at all sure what you mean.

Jim

I mean that I'm perfectly happy to have 255 across the board in highlight areas to avoid noise in dark fur. Obviously this doesn't apply to a dalmatian or other white dogs or white faces.

I also mean, that it is a lot "harder" to get 255 in all three channels than most people realize, and that "blinkies" on a camera LCD do not equate to 255.