Going against the Histogram, who's right?

[Fabs Forns]

We were on the Hooptie Deux, early evening, the sun was well below the tree line, but we were doing the birds on the opposite side, with the last rays of light were, when this Great Blue flew behind us, in the shade of the lake, almost totally in the dark. I took the pictures just because he was moving and neglected to change my exposure.
When I saw the resulting images, of course, they were dark, but that's exactly what it looked like when I made the picture! So if I had pushed the histogram to the right, it would have looked like something else and not the existing conditions. What do you do in cases like this? Push the hist. to the right for an artificial "good light" condition or keep the real colors and let the chips fall where they may? Who is right, the histogram or the eye?

Date: 4/1/09
Time: 7:33:08 PM
Model: NIKON D300
Lens (mm): 300
ISO: 800
Aperture: 4
Shutter: 1/500

[Harold Davis]

i hate to be the first one to comment on something this different, BUT....i quite like it. i think it works because there is so much detail in the bird. it looks tack sharp to me and has a nice mood.

[Jay Gould]

Hi Fabs, there is no right answer!

The image you posted is what you saw and it is beautiful; if you pushed to the right it would not be what you saw at the time - it would be what you created at the time.

Just because we can change the environment either in the camera or PP doesn't mean we ALWAYS should.

Perhaps this truly is OOTB - without changes. :D

I like it!

[Dave Phillips]

it's not a matter of right or wrong IMO, but if 95%+ of an image is very dark,
the small % of highlight "will not" show in the right of the histo. But make a small
selection of it in photoshop and it is way far to the right.
That said.....in an unusual image like this, we should not expect to "see"
exposure to the right, even though it may in fact be there AND this does seem a bit
blocked on shadows.....more than normal

Just my thoughts.....nice image

[Steve Maxson]

An interesting image, Fabs and I don't have a good answer to your question. I like the look of the bird itself, but for me, the shadows look too black for what one's eye sees at twilight. :)

[Ramon M. Casares]

IMO there are no rights or wrongs in these cases, just a matter of taste and personal photographic search, if you were looking for the evening feel then the result should fit your expectations as photographer, to me it all goes down to what was the result you were looking for.
Now, IMHO, it feels a little bit underexposed, a tad more light I think would have still kept the evening feeling and yet it would've given you a bit more detail... just my thoughts, and as I said, it all comes down to what you were looking for.

[John Chardine]

I like it Fabs. In processing I try to bring out the essence of the original image including lighting. In the case of your heron it works very well.

[Mike Milicia]

Who is right, the histogram or the eye?

My short answer is "Both." Long answer follows ...

With digital capture, there are always two separate issues with regard to exposure.
The first is the "correct" exposure which will record the scene as it appears in nature
or as you would like it to appear from an aesthetic standpoint.
The second is the "optimal" exposure needed to maximize the signal-to-noise ratio in your capture.
The "optimal" exposure is always "expose as far to the to the right as possible without blowing any highlights"
and is always the best exposure to use during capture.
For some images, e.g. a Great Egret in the sun, the "optimal" and "correct" will likely be the same.
In other cases, e.g. a black crow against a dark background, or a night scene, they may be very different.
But it's my understanding that you will always get the best results by using the "optimal" exposure during
capture and then bringing it back down to the "correct" exposure as needed during RAW conversion to get
the desired result.

In practice, I would claim that at least for bird photography, it's fairly rare for the "optimal" and
"correct" exposures to be all that far apart as most scenes that we photograph contain something
approaching a bright highlight, be it on the subject or in the background.

A related issue here is that using the on camera histogram to gauge the optimal "expose to the right"
exposure can be a tricky proposition as the histogram comes from the embedded jpeg and may not be an
accurate reflection of the RAW data. This is also complicated by the fact that, in my experience, small areas
of highlight can sometimes be very difficult, if not impossible, to see on the camera histogram.

I'd be very interested in any thoughts/comments/corrections regarding any of the above.

As for the posted image, I agree with Ramon in that I think a tad lighter would be an improvement
if you could still keep the evening feeling that you want.

[David Thomasson]

There ain't no right. This is a happy accident. I love the ghostly, shadowy feel and would push it in post a little, but not enough to lose that feel. Not more than, say, this:

[David Hemmings]

Hi Fabs, There is no right or wrong as others have said. I very much agree with what Ramon has to say. That being said I do like the image as re posted just pushed a little.

[Desmond Chan]

What do you do in cases like this? Push the hist. to the right for an artificial "good light" condition or keep the real colors and let the chips fall where they may? Who is right, the histogram or the eye?

To me, the answer is simple. If I want to present what it was like at the time I took the picture, I would let it stay dark. Perhaps just brighten the final image a bit so the viewers' eyes don't have to work that hard ;-)

[Stu Bowie]

Fabs, we should be happy with what we captured, as those were the conditions when we captured the image. We all tend to enhance the image to present perfect detail, light and colours, and in this, you chose to leave as is, as thats how it was. David has posted what could be.

[David Thomasson]

Fabs, we should be happy with what we captured, as those were the conditions when we captured the image.

Assuming that the camera captures what exists at a particular place and time, it isn't clear to me why we should
be happy with what the camera captured. That surely needs an argument to support it (though this thread probably
isn't the place to open that discussion).

In some contexts -- such as photojournalism -- there's a clear case to be made for faithfully rendering a scene.
But as a general principle, crossing all contexts, we should be happy with what the camera captures? I don't think
so. I can't even imagine how that claim might be defended.

[Fabs Forns]

Thanks, guys, it has been interesting.
David, nice work, as usual :)

[Jay Gould]

Fabs, we should be happy with what we captured, as those were the conditions when we captured the image.

Stuart, I tend to agree with David; perhaps the point of contention revolves around the word "should".

Why should? Implies right and wrong!

There is nothing wrong with one person choosing to be happy with what they captured; there is nothing wrong with another person not being happy with what was captured.

If David's repost - beautiful! - were the original capture perhaps more would choose to be happy with the original capture; perhaps not.

I think "should" is out of place in this type of discussion whether it works or not; whether the histogram rules are "should do this" type rules, or whether the histogram rules are "guidelines only" because there is no "should".

Words are wonderful!

[Desmond Chan]

In some contexts -- such as photojournalism -- there's a clear case to be made for faithfully rendering a scene.

There is, but many photos that fall under photojournalism also involve a lot of cropping and even posted photos. At the end of the day, it is still all what the photographers want to show that dictates the final results.

When I saw the resulting images, of course, they were dark, but that's exactly what it looked like when I made the picture! So if I had pushed the histogram to the right, it would have looked like something else and not the existing conditions. What do you do in cases like this? Push the hist. to the right for an artificial "good light" condition or keep the real colors and let the chips fall where they may? Who is right, the histogram or the eye?

If I may answer the last question: both your eyes and the histogram are right. It was a dark scene, as you saw it, and so the resulting histogram, showing most of the pixels are on the dark side.

[Arthur Morris]

Had you had time to expose to the right you would have had either to have set a much higher ISO or used a much slower shutter speed....