One of the most noticeable differences between portraits taken outside using natural light as opposed to artificial light is the background. Images using artificial light tend to have darker backgrounds. This is crucial in catching the eye of the viewer and allows him or her to focus on the subject. This article is a guide in achieving this look using natural light only.
In most cases when shooting portraits with natural light only, the background comes out very bright. Technically speaking, when taking a photograph using natural light, the exposure is generally set for the subject’s skin tone, which is typically darker than the background. If achieving that dark background and having perfect lighting on the skin is important, the key is to underexpose the image. This will not only result in perfectly lit skin but it will also help retain the most detail. It is a lot easier to recover shadows than highlights. Contrary to popular belief, bringing out details from an underexposed RAW file does not mean creating noise when it’s done properly. In this day and age, any DSLR on the market can handle bringing out details from the shadows without creating noise. Using the following steps, it is guaranteed to walk away with phenomenal results.
Before I get to the steps, it is important to address a popular concern. Have in mind when looking closely at the final results; the subject continues to look underexposed. Parts of the skin were lightened to make it appear properly expose. This draws the viewer straight to the subject’s face, as it is the brightest part of the portrait.
Why Not Just Get the Exposure Right in Camera?
Technically, underexposing IS getting it right in camera. If the goal is to achieve that dark background that generally only comes with artificial lighting, it is less work in post-production to lighten the subject. There is no argument here; the skin makes up 10% of the image and the background is 90%. Lightening the skin is undoubtedly easier than darkening the background in post. Read on to learn why.
When shooting, it is important to shoot RAW. This file type contains all the extra information in the shadows. It’s possible to using Adobe Camera Raw or Lightroom, to brighten the shadows and make light pop. Personally, the main slider I use is the Shadows, Whites, Clarity and Luminosity ones under the HSL tab. Remember that underexposing the image and not properly lighting the subject are two completely different things. In order for this process to work, it is essential that the subject is properly lit. If the light hitting the skin is soft and evenly, brightening in post will be absolutely no trouble at all. When capturing the image, stay conscious of the light and the direction it is coming from. Once the subject is properly lit, underexpose the image SLIGHTLY.
Underexposing an image is no specific science. It varies from image to image, subject to subject and background to background. The best suggestion is to look at the images as they are taken and concentrate on the highlights. The goal is to avoid any blown highlights. If the highlights are blown, you can kiss the skin detail goodbye. Unless having overexposed Barbie skin is the objective, blown highlights should be avoided at all cost. In some cases, the background might have blown highlights like a sun flare or the sky. In instances such as those, overexposed pixels are fine.
An underexposed image makes dodging and burning three times easier. It’s a lot simpler to lighten the highlights on the skin than to darken the entire skin. When working with a darker complexion, shaping the skin and structure of the face is so much simpler too. Dodging and burning is vital if you want to have the perfect light in the final results.
I find the best setting for this method is to use Aperture Priority. I then override the camera’s auto settings by using the exposure compensation and underexposing with a few clicks. Every DSLR has this setting. I prefer to concentrate on the composition, light, pose and expression instead of wasting time and effort shooting in manual.
Using strobes is a fantastic method for lighting. I applaud all those who do it and do it well. However, I believe that when using strobes there are extra complications that can override a lot of the creative process. There is always a time and place for strobes. But when using natural light there is no need for an assistant, time is spent on composition, expression and communicating with the subject. As always, the methods used depend on a variety of factors. With this method of underexposing, using lights, reflectors and assistants is unnecessary to achieve amazing results. Natural light is quite powerful, one must take their time to master it and apply the correct methods for mind-blowing results.
Other before/after combos can be found on Dani Diamond Photography
LOL - ETTR is ETTR and the benefits are not in dispute (as far as I'm aware). The article I linked to is only one of a number of very good articles on ETTR, all of which demonstrate clearly and using proven scientific knowledge that ETTR is the *optimum* exposure strategy for digital sensors.
What exactly are the concrete 'benefits' of underexposing your files as this article here recommends? More noise and less detail in the shadows and middle tones? Less headroom in your RAW files, less ability to pull usable detail out of the shadows....? I'm waiting to be convinced :)
Its good to hear about "scientific knowledge", but I know something about science as is. In this, if you want to pretend on science with your article then publish this like a result of scientific research which was reviewed by the scientists and experts in this field.
Another thing I want to add here, that photography is not only about science but the art.
I can see good examples in Dani's article. I personnely know that it works if you'll underexpose slightly and correctly.
You've told me that this is "only one of a number of very good articles on ETTR"(c). Then why did you show me this link if you have another and more appropriate? As I said, this article is about men who shoot cats with his Fuji and even didnt adding photos of cats...
Sorry, mate, but if "LOL" and "ETTR and the benefits are not in dispute" is all you can say, then I dont see any reasons to continue this awkward disscussion.
Andrew, if you don't understand, or are not convinced of the benefits of ETTR, then I suggest that you do some research of your own if you "know something about science" as you claim
And if the best you can manage is to attempt to disparage an article on LL because the guy uses an image of a cat as an example, then I have nothing more to say to you either....
Same here. Good bye, Stefano.
Shoot your own way.
The article should be titled "How To Salvage An Image When You Muck The Exposure."
While it's effective to use when in a jam, it's definitely not the most efficient use of your camera sensor's ability to record data even by today's high-tech standards, let alone a tip that will "have strobists selling their lights" (rolls eyes.)
There's been a lot of nit picking on this article, my two cents - I'm not selling my strobes, but your technique of slight underexposure makes sense. Film can overexpose and be great, digital on the other hand works better to slightly underexpose. That's the respective "advantage" of film and digital. I give your article a thumbs up!
Here's an image that was initially somewhat underexpose and I selectively brought up the exposure: www.gellerphotography.com
Aaron, generally speaking with digital it's better to overexpose (ETTR) as long as the highlights aren't clipped. However, very specific circumstances (such as your photo above) the lighting conditions may neccessitate underexposure to hold the highlights if you have no reflectror or fill flash available. However, it's not an optimum technique by any means. See this excellent article for a full explanation of why ETTR is the best option 99% of the time. http://www.luminous-landscape.com/tutorials/optimizing_exposure.shtml
I see your point and I glanced over parts of the article. Perhaps a better thing to say is that film has a better latitude for overexposure than digital.
Excellent article. I'd like to emphasize how important it is to START with GOOD light THEN slightly underexpose the face. With Nikons improved dynamic range I see way too many people poorly executing this technique because they believe detail can be brought back when it was never there..... Resulting in a grungey HDR effect that looks terrible for skin tones.
I'm going to respectfully disagree with the notion that lighting and shooting manually impedes the creative process. It's more challenging but yields greater opportunity and better control. Especially when it comes to portraiture, where there is a far less demanding schedule than say a wedding.
I'm going to wager that you've done a bit more to your sample images than a quick series of slider adjustment in LR, ACR or PS.
My point to all of this is that it's not quite as simple as this article suggests although there is a fundamentally sound technique for underexposing.
Jason, underexposing only makes sense in a few very limited scenarios where you absolutely have no other way of holding data in the highlights without clipping. See this excellent article for a full explanation of why ETTR is the best option 99% of the time. http://www.luminous-landscape.com/tutorials/optimizing_exposure.shtml
Same reply from you here again.
It looks like this is something personal for you...
I dislike it when personal preference for something which is very silly and patently BAD ADVICE is presented as "a great tip"... sorry! ;)
Dont be sorry. Polite dispute is always a good thing ;-)
Tell me please what kind of gear do you use?
Canon, Nikon, Sony, Pentax, Fuji, MF, other?
Why does it matter what camera I use? Bad advice is bad advice. Period. The more data you can get into the RAW file the more data you have to work with and the less noise and greater detail you will have in the shadows. I hope you're not disputing that? Just because the OP uses a D800 and *believes* that it makes him immune to the problems associated with underxposing a digital file does NOT mean that his technique is good advice for anybody, let alone the vast majority of DSLR (and for that matter, MF) users. What are the actual BENEFITS of underexposing any digital image? I have yet to see anybody answer that...
Its a very strange question...
Of course it doesnt matter what camera do you use... Canon 20D or Canon 5D mark II or Nikon D800 or Hasselblad... Of course, there are no differences in those sensors and in terms of DR and shadow recovery... :-)
Sarcasm noted. Yes, of course there are differences between cameras and that's particularly why I'm concerned to see this article unreservedly recommending *everybody* to underexpose their images to acheive the OP's 'effect'. While the OP may indeed be able to "get away with it" with his D800, the vast majority of people reading this article won't be shooting with a D800 and won't be able to, and that fact in itself makes it very bad advice.
Yes, sarcasm. Sorry, but you left me no choice :-)
You know, I'm totally agree with you. Maybe for the first time ;-)
As you can see, I've noted about possible differences with defferent cameras in my previous messages.
Each gear has their own limits.
I know that people must know the limits of their equipment.
But author had to focus on the fact that he is able to do this not least because of the possibilities of his camera (Nikon D800).
You're totally right. Maybe its worth to update this article adding some more info.
*I'm selling my lights*
nice post
for a long time I was happy with underexposing... and as I'm a 'student' I couldn't agree with my teacher to ETTR... so I was in doubt until today...and Stefano's comments made me think (thanks for that Stefano)
Your images are great Dani, and reading all the comments made me think, why don't you make a video about the full proces of developing 1 of those pictures so we can try ourselves your technique to the fullest
that's the last missing piece for me ... some info on your camera, lens, and how to develop A->Z
I realize I ask a lot, maybe it's a nice start for the topic?
btw, I like your other video's ... nice work Dani!
Eh.
Click-baity article title aside -- I think it should be called "How To Salvage An Image When You Muck The Exposure" -- I would be wary of any professional who used this as their main "portrait technique."
As someone else pointed out, the most efficient use of the signal-to-noise ratio is to expose "to the right," meaning to expose the image to the right side of your histogram.
While it's true that today's DSLRs are much better adapted to reducing noise in an image, even in the shadows at high ISOs (as a concert photographer I can attest to that), digital sensors are better BY DESIGN at reducing noise while retaining detail in the highlight spectrum.
*** If your subject is lit well enough, a better technique would be to expose to the right, bring exposure down in post, and mask out the face to bring the highlights back ***
I don't mean to disrespect the writer, but I agree with Justin that this article should be renamed to "How To Salvage An Image When You Muck The Exposure"
A lot of great comments here. "Thanks" first to D' Diamond for the write up. I think the title is a bit...ehh. As usual...and not really your fault....it just ignites sort of that whole "natural light" is better thing. Which. as one writer posted on last week I believe, is simply not the case. There are different ways to go about things. Some master "natural light" some master strobes and some...master both. And some.....just do their best to MASTER LIGHT.....whatever type it may be. And then again, some prefer to master their post processing technique. I think Stefano has very, very valid points. I agree that he could be a tad more.....polite but I get him. That said.......I this Dani's work speaks for itself and that's HIS look, his thing and his style. Works for him and he produces some great portraits. However he's getting there......that's his business and no one should really knock that. I think Stefano's main point is that the suggestion that underexposing is the RIGHT or BEST way to do things can be taken as bad advice on a whole. I also agree with Everett's title change. Or perhaps..."How to get great results in post when starting with an underexposed image!" This way, the suggestion of which is better, right or wrong is completely off the table. It's just an article on ONE PHOTOGRAPHER'S way of doing things with underexposed images. It can be applied and the advice can go out to everyone who under exposes on purpose or for those who have done it by accident and need to make some changes to save the image. Can't stand "dividing" language. It's usually the basis for misunderstanding and hating on one another.
I'm going to play devil's advocate here for a second but do note that I'm too lazy to ever give up my strobes for more time in photoshop.
BUT, could the problem here not be that so many photographers feel threatened that more and more info can be pulled out of a single RAW file now than ever and to them this seems threatening?
I might ruffle a lot of feathers saying this, but a lot of the commercial and advertising photography these days (which I personally hold as the cream of the crop bar in excellence) is more on the lines of painting and graphic design than it is "true" photography. The techniques and end results of what I consider some of the greatest photography ever produced has been bashed and criticized by many arm chair quarterback photographers in a way that is ironically similar to the criticisms film photographers gave when the digital revolution was starting.
I love using strobes and flashes in my own work. I personally like edgy images that doesn't necessarily mimic natural light but rather produces something much more modern and contemporary. My flash heads aren't going anywhere. But to read some of these cynical and outright angry comments posted here (and by some pretty big names else where online) leaves me scratching my head. Aren't we as professionals and Hobbyists supposed to tinker and test new approaches over tried and true methods? I'm not saying reinvent the wheel but I am saying all possibilities should be on the table.
The reality is digital cameras and digital technology is getting so good that using RAW files like Danni is doing in his work is actually becoming a practical way of producing solid images. Mark my words, there will be a day that comes where software will be able to emulate flash lighting just by manipulating a RAW file and modeling the effects of different modifiers straight onto your subject. I don't think it will completely replace strobes and flash but it might, just might, replace the need to even use strobe much like the digital camera has replaced the need to shoot test Polaroids.
I remember when Lee and I made the argument that HD video could soon replace the need for shooting stills, and each week I'm reading about and meeting more and more videographers who are being hired to replace photographers outright (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B2EB0PTAyME). In this last year I have attended no less than 3 major exhibits showcasing this trend by Canon, RED, and Black Magic. Change is happening people and if you keep this cynical attitude about it you are going to get left behind.
The one thing I've learned from this industry is that those who get locked into the ways of the past or fail to expand and test new waters will be the first ones to get lost and replaced by the new crop of photographers coming. Those who constantly stay ahead of the curve are those who approach routine tasks with a fresh pair of eyes and keep an open mind about the possibilities technology presents will be the individuals who find success. It's easy to spit off some rebuttal from your own computer but a whole lot harder to embrace what is coming and focus on making your own work even better than your previous work.
All that being said, Danni I'm still using my strobes :)
I half agree with you, just because you can pull the info out doesn't mean you shouldn't strive for a good exposure. I've looked at raw's and finals from Mario Testino and Peter Lindburgh and they nail the exposure perfectly, the highlights are just shy of burning out and they have all the info they need to insure any number of post production options. Shooting a bad exposure to then use software to improve is just crappy photography. Its been over 5 years since Steven Klein has been pulling advertising stills from his Red footage and again he usually has perfect exposures.
Without hitting upon things other commenters have already said, one thing worth pointing out is that if you are going to demonstrate an editing technique, you should limit the edits to only that technique so it's clear what has changed.
For example in the one of the photos the model's blemishes are cleared. This implies that other edits have taken place aside from exposure correction. I find this very misleading, similar to "before and after" photos often found on advertising. Then again, with the deliberatly inflamitory title, such misreprsentations are not a surprise.
Needless to say, this technique isn't new, but this is a useful reminder about its existance. Always good to have a useful tool.
So you're not selling your strobes like your title suggests?
I'm pretty certain the idea that we would sell our strobes was a joke.
Dani, you know I love your work. I don't think people reacted badly to your technique, I think the reaction was more about the title of this article, and I don't believe it was because people shooting with flash felt "threatened", I think it was more a reaction to "Oh no...another petapixel like post"
Hi Dani!
I know this article is old but I'm new in this world and I'm just read it
I fail to understand how underexposed, if not necessary in the situation, is doing any improvement in your file.
I understand that cameras now can recover shadows without making too much noise, but just the fact that you can do it doesn't mean that is the best way.
Bringing the histogram to the right without clipping the highlights and in the RAW processor just bring down the exposure to the point you want, and you have the exact same photo but with more information. Perhaps you don't need all the information, certainly not if you are going to use the photo for the web only, but perhaps you need it. And always is better to have the information and don't need it than to need it and don't have it.
Bringing down the exposure is not a lot of work and you have a better file. That is the reason to not use it, in my point of view.
Anyway thanks for the time you spend sharing your techniques and knowledge
I sincerely hope that I am wrong, but I think I see something that looks like catchlights in some images e.g. brunette with white shawl, redhead with green scarf.
You know, catchlights can and do occur with any lighting technique. They can even be, ahem, added afterwards.
or you know, you could try that whole: getting it right in camera thing.
I'm really glad debate and discussion are welcome here, it adds so much to the article.
so... under-exposing is fine and while i agree, from a data point perspective its better to expose right, results are what matters... and he gets great results.
the one issue i have is that in the examples, it looks to me like shaping the light didnt occur in camera at all... especially the last two examples. there are no highlights or gradients to the face and they are entirely created in post. and while the result is excellent and what matters most as i said, thats not photography... thats retouching.
why not actually get the lighting right (moving the subject, using various tools like strobes, speedlights, or reflectors) and not use exposure brushes in post?
also, i would note that when using my canon, i do tend to underexpose by a tad, while nikon i expose right. my canon's red channel clips very easily, and the D3 i use loses details in shadow pretty damn quickly.
I don't comment often but I don't see what the fuss is about, what I see is with this technique Dani manages to produce some remarkable result and with all technique, it can either be done correctly or horribly, I guess I don't have to remind people how often HDR technique is abused just to get more "dynamic range".
Now regarding recovering, these days I find the notion of recovering from shadows is generally better then highlights, though I understand recovering too much from shadows will result in noise or lost of detail. To be fair, looking at Dani underexposed images, it's not THAT underexposed and softwares like C1 will be able to recover it easily.
And again, different tool for different job, I can see this technique to be particularly useful when you're travelling light and when there's no assistants to help you light the subject.
The big downside for this technique is you'll likely spend more time on the computer to shape the light, which depends on what kind of photographer you are to begin with, those who spends time in Photoshop for their photos will likely be okay with this technique whereas those who prefers to use their computer just to store images will likely be better of with what they're used to.
Also eventhough as some posted that ETTR is better, one need to also remember that advancement in a digital sensor DR mostly falls in the shadows, (you can check DxO for this data), so it's not as bad as before to recover from shadows.
Dani is also not the first photographer to take advantage of modern day sensor shadow DR. I've read an article before (not sure if it was in FStoppers), where a landscape photographer exposed to retain the highlights and later used software to pull back the shadows, this is because sometimes you just end up with a beautiful scenery and you dont have a ND Grad filter. Though one will need to take care on how dark the shadows will be cause too dark and they'll be too much noise, shooting experience will give you a better judgement on how much underexpose your camera can take, cameras like A7r and D800 do very well in shadow recovery.
Well I guess I wrote too long, but I hope people can come an agreement that there's always different tools for different artists. No one is forcing you to use the tool you're not comfortable with.
Merry Christmas, Happy Holidays and Happy New Year!
Great article. I've been doing this for a while without realizing what or why I wad doing it. I just knew the images turned out nicer. Great to see it laid out like this.
Great advice, but don't try it on a Canon. I am a natural light photographer also, but when the sun is powerful and you're shooting against it, there's no way to recover the shadows just like a new Nikon full frame (D750 / D800 / D810).. For rezising the image it's ok, but one on one, the DR is simply not there
OMG so many Comments! :D I think this method is not wrong as in Film days every Picture was dodge'd and burned to lighten and darken certain Parts of an image but i'm asking myself if you would save some time AND more data if you use a reflector. I mean, yes you wouldn't get the same effect without retouching but i think you would get a better starting point.
Yes, the final result is what counts but shouldn't we all try to get it "as best as we can" in Camera? Of course, there are pictures or projects where "in Camera" is not going to work. But then it's called "Digital Art" and not "Photography" You can be a Photog and do both, no problemo, but have you ever looked at a Picture thinking "how the hell did he do that?" just to find out it was all made in PS? It's still impressive but not as much anymore.
I was very disappointed by a lot of Photogs just because i found out they faked every single image they took, even the easiest ones. A f-ing flat horrible Raw file and just retouched the sh!t out of it.
This may be a stupid question, but if you wanted darker backgrounds, why did you go back and lighten the background in every single shot? Why not shoot at the proper exposure and use a reflector to bounce the light in on the face and/or body?
It's all well and good to screw around for half an hour on a single image in photoshop, but what about when you have 30 images? (or 300?) ...and they need to be done on a deadline. Would you still advocate spending 15 hours on post processing when you could shoot it properly exposed with a reflector and save 14 hours?
I think the discussion on this thread is great. It's what I turn to FS for when looking to advance my own understanding of digital photography. That said, I find it disappointing that Dani's article could be approved for posting without any explanation as to why he would choose to go against the well documented and established approach of ETTR. Is there not some sort of peer review going on prior to publishing?
I think a simple paragraph where Dani acknowledged ETTR, but then briefly explained why he had chosen to go against it would have gone a great distance at handling a lot of the arguments here. As it reads right now, it's almost as if he was not aware of this industry standard. Perhaps this is what was at the heart of Stefanos original issue with the post.
Regarding ETTR, I found this article http://schewephoto.com/ETTR to be easier to follow than the LL article that Stefano shared. Seeing the image examples along with the accompanying historgrams really leaves no argument that ETTR is a better approach because it gives you the most flexibility with your digital images.
This article about Canon 1ds III. Nice camera, but Nikon's modern sensors is another story with DR and shadows.
Nice try at turning this into a Canon/Nikon debate Andrew... ;)
No, you're wrong.
I dont like all that Nikon/Canon holywars...
Both of them are great performers with their own pros and cons.
You just choose the one that fits you better.
The images were shot on a Canon, but it's clearly not a discussion about the camera, sensor, etc.
Overall it is good article but I will disagree a little here. To say your under exposing is a little off. With digital I have always said, "Expose for the Highlights process for the shadows". And yes I come from using the zone system. I would say what you are really doing is finding a compromise in exposure.
Personally I prefer shooting manually in circumstances you mention because for me it faster and more consistent than aperture priority.
Also for the top photo and the dock photo I would use an incident meter. In fact for most images and conditions an incident meter and shooting manually would be faster and give you more time with your subject than using the camera's reflective meter and aperture priority.
I come from the old film days with manual cameras, so I apologize for my antiquated ways.
Last point I think title is miss leading "A Natural Light Tip That Will Have Strobists Selling Their Lights" because even the article itself states this is just one more option.
Dani im sorry, i wont sell my strobist equipment just for this.
I mean, maybe this tip is useful but what i can see from your sample pictures, the postproduction you put on them just doesnt convinced me. Too obvious.
Using fill lights always work better if you know what you're doing.
Good tip but I could spend 5 hours processing one of your RAW files and not get anywhere close to the "after" picture. It would be really interesting to see a tutorial on the post process for one of these.
I mostly do this all the time when I was shooting with flashes and strobes for Supersync/HSS.