Shoot for What You See, Not the 'Correct' Exposure

There are times when achieving a balanced exposure across your entire image is ideal, ensuring that you don't lose the details in your shadows and highlights. But, some of the most interesting images do not follow that rule whatsoever, and you should try shooting that way too.

This article is aimed primarily at beginners and early intermediates to photography. There can be a lot of conflicting information when you start any discipline and I don't want to add to that, but rather suggest openmindedness. Many of your camera's modes will affect the exposure of your image, and the camera's intentions may not align with your own vision for the photograph. This dissonance can be easily overcome, but many beginners will not have the confidence to purposely underexpose their image, for example. In this article, we'll discuss why it has its place and when you might opt to overrule the robots.

With the advent of digital photography and built-in light meters, it's difficult to accidentally underexpose or overexpose your image. If the automatic settings don't do the heavy lifting for you, you've got the histogram, highlight and shadow clipping, and the ultimate failsafe, taking the shot again with new settings at no extra cost. However, it is these automatic settings — by which I don't merely mean auto mode, but more or less every mode that isn't manual — that can sap a lot of character out of your shots.

Let's start with one of my strongest examples. While in Devon, England, I was trekking along the coastal cliffs with a friend at sunset, enjoying the summer weather and looking for a great vantage point. We found ourselves overlooking a secluded cove with not a single person around and took some nice, albeit fairly ordinary landscapes. As the sun dipped out of sight and blue hour set in, I looked at the only route into the cove — a treacherous, dilapidated set of stairs scaling about 50 feet of the cliff edge — and I wanted to capture the moment. The whole scene had that lovely blue, tranquil hue to it, it was nearing dark, and I wanted to preserve the mood and keep the exposure accurate to the time of day.

Below is the image in two different versions. The left-hand version is with everything on auto, making use of the tripod, gathering enough light for the "correct" exposure, and fixing the white balance. The right is shot manually and exactly how I saw it, and to me, it's a significantly better image. It perfectly captures the light, the mood, and the colors that I saw that evening, but it is objectively underexposed.

This debate is, of course, subjective to a degree. There will undoubtedly be people who prefer the first image to the second, but what isn't subjective is wanting to capture a scene as I saw it. To do that, you will often have to go against the "correct" and balanced exposure that auto modes would strive for.

Shooting what your eyes saw is not the only reason I would opt to underexpose or even occasionally overexpose an image. For me, there are stylistic considerations too. The below image is an editorial created for a watch brand that makes a nautical-themed model called the Trafalgar. I took this shot in the middle of the day, in the shade, by the ocean, and it's a long exposure to get the movement in the water. I could have easily doubled or tripled the exposure length, got smoother water (which I didn't want, in all honesty), and had the entire scene better exposed. But, that would sacrifice the moody scene — I wanted a darker image with no highlights, as that was truer to the brand and watch model.

Although it's rarer, I will also overexpose my scene, though this is less of a niche example. That is, underexposing a whole scene isn't as common as correctly exposing a subject and blowing out the background. The below image is a portrait where I was aiming for the high-key look, but with relatively flat, natural lighting. To correctly expose most of the skin with a shallow depth of field, I had to blow the background out, also sacrificing a lot of contrast. There were plenty of ways around this problem, but the result is what I was aiming for. Now, objectively speaking, part of the model's face and hair have blown highlights and have lost detail, but it does not detract from the image in any way. A more balanced exposure would give the image a completely different feel — that isn't necessarily wrong, but it wasn't "correct" for my intentions.

So, how is this actionable to a beginner? Well, the first consideration is how you would like the resulting image to look. A perfectly balanced image — exposure-wise — can be the right choice, but there are times when it's unimportant if you lose details in your shadows or highlights, perhaps even desirable. Similarly, with color, the "right" white balance may not be reflective of the scene and therefore not the best choice.

The most effective route with all photography is to have an idea of what you want to create and then work backward. If you want to achieve a moody feel to your shot — something I often strive for — then letting your camera pick your exposure (and to a lesser degree, your white balance) can lead to undesired results. This can be adjusted to an extent in post, of course, but I always aim to get an image as close to the final goal in-camera. If you look at my article, "10 of the Best Moody and Dark Street Photographers on Instagram," you will see myriad examples of technically underexposed shots that achieve everything they aim to.

How do you approach exposure in your photography? Do find yourself manually lurking north and south of that "correct" exposure? Do you prefer to do it all in post? Share your experiences in the comment section below.

Lead image of Ryan Beatty, shot by me for FAULT Magazine