Add 2/3 Exposure in LR

Status
Not open for further replies.
S

Souwalker

Active Member
Joined
Mar 12, 2009
Messages
294
Location
Sydney, Australia
This is a very newbie question.

I need to add about 2/3 of a stop for exposure in LR to some of my pictures according to some assitance I was after in another forum.

I was also told that a 2/3 stop in Lightroom is ".66". 1/3 stop is ".33" and 1 stop is "1.''".

My dumb question is since I already have some exposure adjustment done to all of my daughters Confirmation and 1st Holy Commusion pictures, do I just add the ''.66' to the number I already have in the Exposure slider?

I just don't know what to do or how to achieve an extra 2/3 increase to exposure..

I need to upload a whole bunch of pictures to a pro lab and I was concerned it's underexposed. I do not have a calibrated monitor at this stage and all calibration was done via the online visual method and via the dpreview patterns. I just got a new pc hence the calibration tool is in the pipeline. I usually don't print too much but my wife wants those pictures printed.


Many Thanks
Pat
 
Sort by date Sort by votes
Two thirds is closer to '.67, but the hundredth of a stop won't be noticeable.

The easy way is probably to select them all in Grid, and then in Quick Develop, press the Exposure single-arrow twice. Each press is 1/3 stop.

Or, in Develop, just select the text box next to the Exposure slider and enter '.67, and press Return.

Then sync or copy/paste that change to the others, or do it in Auto Sync mode.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
[quote author=Mark Sirota link=topic=7124.msg48439#msg48439 date=1246933477]

Or, in Develop, just select the text box next to the Exposure slider and enter '.67, and press Return.

[/quote]

Thanks Mark.
What do I do if I already have exposure adjustments made to pictures. Do I just add the ''.67' to the number already in the text box?
Rgds
Pat
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
Edit, oops, I've posted over Mark..... If you've already made Exposure tweaks, look at the QD method.

Patrick, yes, adding 2/3 of a stop in Lr is equivalent to adding .67 to the current exposure setting in the Develop Module.

If you have many pictures, here's a little info that may help.

In the Develop Module, changes are absolute, that is the position of the slider is the value of the setting. If you bump the slider up and down, with the +/- keys, the change seems incremental, that is, add or subtract a little from the current setting, but, it's stored as absolute. The problem comes when trying to adjust multiple photos in this mode, while the change on the 'most selected' active photo is sort of incremental, the change to the target selected photos is not. It's strictly arithmetical, and the settings are just set numerically equivalent to the active image. If you had previously done any 'auto' toning, this is fundamentally voided.

However, the changes in the Library Module Quick Develop, really are incremental. And more important to your needs, while the >> icon represents a full stop of exposure change, the > icon represents 1/3 of a stop. Just what the doctor ordered.

I would look at one of your images in Develop, note the Exposure setting. Probably zero if you've done no preset or auto toning. Then switch to Library, give Exposure two > bumps in QD, and return to Develop to see the settings. If that's suitable, try it with a couple/few images in Library / QD, they all should be adjusted incrementally relative to their current setting. If that seems to do the trick, then apply the same method to many/all of your images.

You may be familiar with some/most of this already, but if not, that's a lot of info/concepts in one go. If I've led you astray somewhere, ask for clarification.

It may all be a moot point, depending on the lab's procedure, they may be auto-tweaking the exposure, anyway. You may have to explicitly ask them not to.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
Thanks Brad.

I've never touched the QD in the Library Mode before so all this info is new to me inclusive of the absolute changes in Develop Module.

Yes, I've already done Exposure tweaks in Develop Module for all pictures. No auto tone is done. All manual adjustments via the Basic section.

The pro lab will print as is and will charge me if they need to tweak. My local lab may not charge me as I did asked them once to ensure it's not too dark and they made some tweaks.

Now I'm left with 2 options. Either I skip the Pro Lab and give pic to my local lab as is and tell them to tweak or spend some time tonight re-tweaking all the pictures (about 6'+) and then tell local lab not to tweak.

I will also satisfy my curiosity with the tweaks myself to see how this all pans out.

Your thoughts?
Interested to see those photos yourself? I can post the links.

Rgds
Pat
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
Pat, I would tweak them using the Quick Develop method but then get a test/sample print done where you decide to print to check how they will come out. As your monitor is not calibrated and others have told you they need altering, either you may be right or the advice may have been right or neither compared to how the lab produces them. The lab is the real test!!
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
So all can see what I am referring to, the following 2 links are from my original gallery which I was told to increase 2/3 stop because they look dark.
[color=#''''ff]http://www.patrickdesouza.com/galler...814'6226_Xg8ne

[/][/color][color=#''''ff]http://www.patrickdesouza.com/galler...82331386_ciJ7X
[/][/color]


The following test link are same pics but increased 2/3 stop in LR. Obviously they'll look over exposed to an uncalibrated monitor like mine but how do they look via calibrated monitors?
http://desouza.smugmug.com/gallery/8...84441857_qjepB

I know some WB are off becasue of the mix lighting but I am more concerned whether it too dark or not

Thanks
Pat
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
Exposure of the last link looks pretty good here Patrick
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
Me too.... plus one.

Patrick, have a look at the histogram in Develop module, for one of the 'underexposed' images compared with one of the '+2/3s' images. Can you see much of a difference at the upper/right (white point) end?
When you have the prints in hand, and are able to compare to your display, you may be able to use the histogram white point as a guide to exposure, in the absence of hardware calibration.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
Thanks for all of your help. I'd be lost without all of you.

Why are hardware calibration tools so expensive? Especially here in Australia. I don't do much printing to justify one but am looking at the cheapest one which is the Spyder Express. I've heard good and bad things about this version but mostly from users who do alot of printing and require more flexibility. I wonder, for my needs, the Express is sufficient? This version is reasonably priced.

Rgds
Pat
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
[quote author=Brad Snyder link=topic=7124.msg485'6#msg485'6 date=124698'''4]
Me too.... plus one.

Patrick, have a look at the histogram in Develop module, for one of the 'underexposed' images compared with one of the '+2/3s' images. Can you see much of a difference at the upper/right (white point) end?
When you have the prints in hand, and are able to compare to your display, you may be able to use the histogram white point as a guide to exposure, in the absence of hardware calibration.
[/quote]
Thanks Brad.
Good tip.
Rgds
Pat
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
[quote author=Souwalker link=topic=7124.msg48473#msg48473 date=1246969586]

The following test link are same pics but increased 2/3 stop in LR. Obviously they'll look over exposed to an uncalibrated monitor like mine but how do they look via calibrated monitors?
http://desouza.smugmug.com/gallery/8...84441857_qjepB

I know some WB are off becasue of the mix lighting but I am more concerned whether it too dark or not

Thanks
Pat
[/quote]

I printed the above photos via a print lab and they were good in terms of correct exposure. Thanks for all the help and respsonses I got.

Since I don't have a clibrated monitor yet, my main concern are images looking great on my monitor but under -exposed if printed or viewed by claibrated monitors so I wonder if this will work as a temporary solution. I would be much appreciated if I receive further help from helpful members of this forum. I hope I won't be imposing but pls let me know if I am.

Would this work? Any member with calibrated monitors, pls view the link above to view the pics which were increased 2/3 in exposure. Would you be able to tell me which picture looks good so I can then adjust the brightness on my monitor based on those images to ensure it's not over/under exposed. I made some online calibration and adjusted the contrast/brightness and it's much better but I still see some overexposure as I've increased by 2/3.

Will this work or would it be a total waste of time? Yesterday I looked at the adjusted images (+2/3) on my already-lowered brightness monitor and I know it needs more adjsutment to my monitor.

Your thoughts.

Many Thanks
Patrick
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
You now have prints, from the place you're likely to print things? Temporary measure then, would be to match your screen brightness to those prints brightness.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
[quote author=Victoria Bampton link=topic=7124.msg49'19#msg49'19 date=1247476125]
You now have prints, from the place you're likely to print things? Temporary measure then, would be to match your screen brightness to those prints brightness.
[/quote]

Hi Victoria
Not exactly. The place I printed those Confirmation/Communion pictures was a temporary lab as my wife wanted 'pronto'!! I'd prefer to send the files to another printer online.
Rgds
Pat
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
Do you have files that you've sent to that online printer before - that you'd have prints of?
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
[quote author=Victoria Bampton link=topic=7124.msg49'61#msg49'61 date=1247526971]
Do you have files that you've sent to that online printer before - that you'd have prints of?
[/quote]

I do. This was about 3-4 years ago but I feel with those prints, although they were great quality and colour, it was abit underexposed too as my monitor was not calibrated so I can't use them. They were pictures of my friend's 4 wheel drive doing it's thing off road.

Could you pls point me to which picture looks good to you so I can adjust brightness/contrast further? I'm thinking of getting the Spyder 2 Express which I think is sufficient for my needs and will do the job but reading some of the users review, I'm abit hesitant to pull the trigger. I can only get it in about 1 month or 2 away so I need a temporary solution till then.

Many Thanks
Patrick
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
Patrick, I had a look, but SmugMug seemed very, very slow, I had a heck of time navigating the images, lots of them came up '?'. But I have to say all the ones I could see looked fine on two different calibrated Win machines, in color managed Safari 4. The only one that stood out was the back of the bald guy with the camera, the foreground was overexposured, naturally, but the subject group looked fine.

But as I say, I couldn't look too hard, because the site was so slow.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
[quote author=Brad Snyder link=topic=7124.msg49'67#msg49'67 date=1247535171]
Patrick, I had a look, but SmugMug seemed very, very slow, I had a heck of time navigating the images, lots of them came up '?'. But I have to say all the ones I could see looked fine on two different calibrated Win machines, in color managed Safari 4. The only one that stood out was the back of the bald guy with the camera, the foreground was overexposured, naturally, but the subject group looked fine.

But as I say, I couldn't look too hard, because the site was so slow.
[/quote]

Thanks Brad.
Smugmug must be having a bad day. I just hopped in and the speed is good now.
So it's safe to say that I can use any of those images and adjust my contract/brightness until they don't look over exposed?
Rgds
pat
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
Yes, SM's working better for me now too, as well.

Try IMG_1919 for your experiment.


(BTW, notice the quirk of light reflected on the knife tip, making the knife seem transparent?)
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
[quote author=Brad Snyder link=topic=7124.msg49'72#msg49'72 date=1247538691]
Yes, SM's working better for me now too, as well.

Try IMG_1919 for your experiment.


(BTW, notice the quirk of light reflected on the knife tip, making the knife seem transparent?)
[/quote]

Thanks Brad

Yeah, that's quirky :-)

Brad, just so I understand what I should be doing. Use IMG_1919 on smugmug to adjust contract/brightness on monitor or use IMG_1919 in LR (RAW) to adjust the Contrast/Brightness on my monitor?

Sorry for my long-windedness :-)

Best Rgds
Pat
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
Yes, I think so, that image has a wide range of tone from black to white, and skin tones. If you have the print in your hands, try to get the screen, in Lr's Develop module, to match the print. I don't think contrast will have much effect, but brightness surely will. Don't be surprised if you have to turn brightness down a lot. (Currently I'm running brightness at 6'% on two of my monitors, and 14% !!, on my newest. )

Then, close the loop and have a couple of prints made by your preferred method, and check again.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
Thanks Brad.
Use the print instead? I thought I should use the actual image (IMG_1919) to display in LR Develop Module, then adjust brihgtness on monitor so it looks good because the subject image would look over-exposed on my monitor?

If I use the print, I should not worry at all about the colour correct? Just adjust monitor until the image on my monitor is as close as possible to the print in terms of the brightness (exposure)?
Rgds
Pat
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
Yes, if you're happy with the print from your standard source, then while viewing the actual image, adjust the monitor so the image looks like the print. Then you should be able to adjust images on the screen to obtain good prints. That's what the goal was, right? (Or have I lost track?)
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
[quote author=Brad Snyder link=topic=7124.msg49178#msg49178 date=1247621264]
Yes, if you're happy with the print from your standard source, then while viewing the actual image, adjust the monitor so the image looks like the print. Then you should be able to adjust images on the screen to obtain good prints. That's what the goal was, right? (Or have I lost track?)
[/quote]

Correct, that was the goal Brad :-)

Best Rgds
Patrick
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top