Histograms display the relative levels of the darker to brighter tones. As the histogram stands, it isn’t of much direct use to us, since the tonality of the scene that was captured will dictate what the histogram shows us .. without a direct indication of whether exposure is correct.
Some will say that a histogram should have an even bell-shaped curve, but this is too simplistic. A light toned subject against a white wall will show a much different histogram that a dark toned subject against a dark wall .. even though the exposure might be correct in both instances.
In both those cases, the actual histogram display might be interesting to look at, but of no real direct use to us. But, here’s how I use the histogram to determine correct exposure …
For all that the histogram shows us, there is only one thing that is of direct consequence to us .. where the brightest relevant tone lies on the histogram. And I have to stress the word ‘relevant’.
It is no use looking at the histogram to determine exposure if there are bright patches of sky or highly reflective surfaces .. for this will skew the histogram display in making it appear like we are over-exposing, when it fact, we might very well have correct exposure.
With weddings (and portraits), the brightest relevant tone is most often the bride’s dress or groom’s shirt cuffs. So what I do is point the camera to an area that only contains the white dress / shirt, and no other bright areas. Then the most right-hand point on the histogram will be the white area. And then we can place that white tone correctly on the histogram .. and all the other tones will fall into place, whether skin tones or clothes or surroundings.
There is another way to approach this, and that is to spot-meter off only the relevant white area, and place it around 1.3 stops over the zero mark on your camera’s meter display. You don’t want to zero the meter reading then, since we don’t want the white to appear as grey. We want the white to appear as white .. and that will be around 1.3 stops to 1.7 stops over the zero mark. You will have to figure out the specific value for your specific camera, since there are some differences between the camera makes.
But back to using the histogram …
Here is what the Canon’s histogram will look like.

In my experience I have found I will get the best exposure if the brightest relevant area has the edge of the histogram appear half-way through the middle of the 5th block on the display, or 1/3rd from the edge of that display. It would seem that this varies a little between the various Canon D-SLR models, so it might be necessary for anyone who wants to use this method of calculating correct exposure, to interpet and apply this idea to the specific camera being used.
If I start over-exposing, then that kind of spike will start to appear.
With Canon D-SLRs (that I have experience of), the blinking highlights display won’t blink yet, but the image will appear too bright.

.
.
The Nikon histogram looks slightly different:
In my experience, I get an optimally exposed image, if I have the edge of the histogram just barely not touching the corner of the histogram display … for the brightest relevant tone. (That term again. It’s an important distinction.)

.
Here is the same image, but 2/3rd stop over-exposed. You can see the spike on the right-hand side. It looks different than the spike on the Canon histogram.

.
.
From the above images, it should be obvious how I use the histogram to achieve correct exposure … I take a close-up view of the relevant brightest tone (some white area) .. and I place this at a very specific point on the histogram.
I lock this exposure value by using manual exposure mode, and all my images taken under the same lighting *will* be correct.
I’ve found this method to be consistent to the extent that I don’t use my flashmeter any more when using studio type strobes. (I use the Quantum flashguns.)

















































Thank you for this Neil. Very useful explanation.
Comment by Andrea Lane — August 4, 2007 @ 7:53 am
Neil, I can see clearly from the Nikon histogram where you have an over exposure, but your pair of examples with the Canon histogram seems strongly affected by the change in position of the bouquet of flowers that reduce the amount in the white wedding dress. Since the less white portion dress is covered, the remaining whites form a spike, not from overexposure, but but from a reduction of white data. I would contend that you still have a properly exposed image on the Canon at 1/100 f5.0, especially if you are shooting in RAW instead of JPEG.
Comment by Mearle — August 7, 2007 @ 10:36 am
Comment by Neil — August 8, 2007 @ 3:54 pm
Dear Neil:
Congratulations for your blog. 10 over 10 !
With your familly name sure you are from NL or the north of BE.
Aren’t you ?
Smart people from those lovely countries have a very special quality teaching confuse things into untestardable ones. No matter which topic.
I am proud to tell you that I lived and work during 3 years in Antwerpen, (Berchem) 35 years ago working by Agfa-Gevaert in Mortsel.
Where my main photographic and electronic backgound comes from. Please keep in touch
Rodolfo, from Argentina
Comment by Rodolfo Rodriguez — October 6, 2007 @ 3:54 pm
Hi,
Thanks again, Neil.
I was doing similar things with manual metering mode or by adjusting exposure compensation with aperture priority mode, but your techniques gave me for the first time a clear and practical principle which saved me from my fuzzy method.
I am curious now. If I may describe your technique as a “high key” metering, do you use a “low key” metering technique, if there is, when you want black to appear as black as far as possible? How would you adjust by looking at the histogram or that’ll always require us to dial the exposure compensation as per experience?
Kafka
Comment by Kafka — January 7, 2008 @ 9:15 am
Hi Neil , I am also from SA , living in New Zealand now . I want to take control of exposure by going manual and this has been a very useful instruction for me .
Cheers , Desmond .
Comment by Desmond — January 10, 2008 @ 3:23 am
Hi Neil,
Great site, and I like this technique. I see how it can be very useful in controlled settings such as the studio. But, how do you manipulate this fast enough to keep up with the fast pace and ever changing lighting of weddings, especially outdoors? Is there a different technique you use for that? If so, please share.
Thank you,
George
Comment by George — January 16, 2008 @ 4:59 pm
Hi Neil,
Great tutorial, helps me a lot with achieving the correct exposure. However I too would be interested in how you use this technique in Candid shots when you are moving around frequently.
Ross
Comment by Ross — February 19, 2008 @ 10:03 am
Comment by Neil — May 15, 2008 @ 11:04 pm
[...] I used the histogram to make sure I don’t lose detail in the highlights, and then I added flash at -0.7 EV [...]
Pingback by planet neil - tangents » into hard sunlight — June 13, 2008 @ 11:37 pm
Hi Neil
Just returned to SLR photography after a 20+ break!! My wife bought me a Nikon D40 and after buying a bounce head flash I realised how much things have progressed in that time (apart from myself of course….). I was do relieved to find that your site contained superb advice that was easy to understand and put into practice – from a feeling of unease at all of the technology at my fingertips I suddenly feel like “I can really do this!!” – many thanks!
Comment by David Whitehouse — October 10, 2008 @ 6:33 pm
WOW!! I keep saying it from your posts in Canon Digital Photography FOrums and now that I have had a chance to read more detailed print from you… I am even more in awe! THANKS for the time you have spent explaining so in-depth and yet UNDERSTANDABLE examples and instruction!!!!
You have given me HOPE! THAT is priceless! Thank you!!!!
Comment by Georgia Anne Hozey — November 18, 2008 @ 11:20 pm
[...] not the ‘correct exposure’, – read up on the Zone System and adapt it for yourself, – understand the histogram and how to interpret it, – use the blinking highlights feature and when to interpret [...]
Pingback by planet neil - tangents » things you need to know — December 14, 2008 @ 2:44 am
Neil
I tried your technique. I set my camera to 1/1000 F3.5 ISO 200.
But, as soon as I switch on my SB800 to add some fill-flash, the shutter speed goes down to 1/250. I would assume that this is because of the max synch flash.
In this case what do you do usually. Shoot anyway or make adjustments?
Thanks
Martian
Comment by Martian — July 9, 2009 @ 4:40 am
Comment by Neil — July 11, 2009 @ 6:17 pm
Hi Neil,
Firstly, let me offer a huge thank-you for the most informative site I have yet to find on the net. Your level of generosity and professionalism is beyond measure, not to mention your considerable skill and eye for photography.
With regard to outdoor photography *in* harsh sun (where there is no option for shade) I often find that I blow out parts of the hair and face (if facing slightly side on to the sun) while maintaining good exposure on clothing etc.
If I compensate down for this (by adjusting my aperture) then use direct fill flash (Nikon gear) on the subject my background will be very dark and my subjects have an obvious flash look.
I find that if I reduce my flash output down 1.3-1.7 (in this circumstance only) that I cannot get a decent exposure on the dark side of the face (where the sun isn’t) as I have set my aperture to accommodate the harsh sun on the bright side of the face and hair.
Is this just a matter of living with the blown out hair or the “flashed” look if there are no options for shade?
Thanks again for all of your help. BTW, when can I get your book?
Comment by Allan — July 17, 2009 @ 9:21 pm
Comment by Neil — July 19, 2009 @ 2:28 pm
Neil,
It’s been mentioned on various internet discussion groups that the in-camera histogram represents the JPEG histogram rather than the actual histogram of the RAW. Several methods have been discussed about how to make the in-camera histogram match closer with the RAW dynamic color range. Some involve changing the Nikon Picture Control settings so that contrast and saturation are dialed to their minimums. Another solution involved loading a custom color curve into the camera.
From your blog posts, I believe that you are not bothering with any of those solutions. If that is the case, is your Nikon Picture Control set to Standard (SD), which is the default setting? I notice that if I set the Picture to Vivid (VI), the in-camera histogram shifts, which throws me off when using the histogram technique.
Thanks.
Comment by Stephen — July 23, 2009 @ 8:43 am
Comment by Neil — July 25, 2009 @ 4:36 am
Neil,
Thank you for an incredibly helpful blog.
Do you have a preference for shooting in 12 bit or 14 bit RAW?. I know that theoretically 14bit will give give a much greater tonal range but in practice do you find this necessary?. I am wondering if the benefit outweighs the bigger file size.
very best regards
Neil Marks
Comment by Neil Marks — July 26, 2009 @ 10:06 am
Comment by Neil — July 26, 2009 @ 11:16 am
I can understand how you “take a close-up view of the relevant brightest tone (some white area).” But I don’t understand how you “place this at a very specific point on the histogram.”
How can you “place” something on your histogram?
Comment by Dwayne Zimmerman — July 26, 2009 @ 12:01 pm
Hi Dwayne,
Here’s what I believe Neil means by…
“… I take a close-up view of the relevant brightest tone (some white area) .. and I place this at a very specific point on the histogram.”
1) Follow his framing technique for checking exposure and take a shot. Review the histogram.
2) If the right side (the highlights) are too far left or right of where he likes them to fall, he adjusts his shutter speed, or aperture, or exposure compensation to “place them” further left or right to just where he wants them.
Regards,
Les
Comment by Les — July 27, 2009 @ 8:56 am
Comment by Neil — July 30, 2009 @ 5:49 pm
Neil,
thanks, this is so helpful. I can’t wait for your next SF Bay area workshop, I’ll be the first to sign up when you announce a date! I have a question about this process of metering. About how far are you from your subject when you are metering? Are you at the distance from which you plan to take the shot? Or do you move in closer to meter? That is the one thing that still stumps me… how far away to meter from. Thanks!
Comment by Dana Titus — August 15, 2009 @ 3:32 pm
Comment by Neil — August 15, 2009 @ 5:48 pm
Hello
I sommer smaak your book and site ek se!I am a Rhodie/Zimbo.
I have a Canon 20d. I am using Vivitar 283/5 flashes.
Is it possible to use the on camera flash to fire a slave? I have tried but find the camera’s brain adjusts the exposure.
My days in Africa have made me tight-fisted(or cheap). Are Vivitar and Sunpak dedicated flashes any good? They certainly put out a lot of light for the money.
Cheers
Ant Brooks
Comment by Ant Brooks — August 28, 2009 @ 9:30 pm
Comment by Neil — August 29, 2009 @ 3:36 am
Hi Neil.
I’m not sure if I understand your way of doing it – english is not my native language – but I understand it this way :
You set your camera on M and choose Spot-metering. Take some photos where you meter the white dress, and place your histogram by changing the aperture/shutter/iso. Is this how you do it ?
If you then want to add some flash, how do you control the flash from adding too much light to the subject ?
Kim – Denmark. D70s+SB-900
Comment by Kim — August 30, 2009 @ 3:03 pm
2 questions
Does your book cover the use on non-dedicated auto exposure flashes (vivitar 283 etc)?
Do your methods require a TTL dedicated flash?
Comment by Ant Brooks — August 31, 2009 @ 8:40 pm
Hi Neil,
I’ve been playing around with using spot metering and the zone system for getting the exposure correct for white clothing. I had a white shirt hanging up in direct sunlight and metered onto it’s brightest part, I then added 2 stops (in Manual) and took some test shots; no flashing highlights. I played with other exposures to see how far I could push the D3 until it started to blow out the highlights (I could get to +3 stops but the image was over exposed in my opinion).
Anyway, I brought these images into the PC and view them with BreezeBrowser, the histogram was the same as displayed by the camera, all good. But when I imported the same RAW files into Lightroom the histogram was different and images that showed no blowing out in the camera or breezebrowser were suddenly having problems. A simple bit of recovery adjustment cleaned this up but I wonder if you have experienced this yourself? This happens in any of the camera calibration settings.
Your opinion would be appreciated.
Thanks
Steve
Comment by Steve Crouch — September 1, 2009 @ 7:30 am
Hi Neil, I found that the histogram on my camera is slightly differtent than in Lightroom. I shoot everything in RAW but I was told that the histogram on any camera is always showing a JPEG histogram because the camera can’t show the RAW file as a preview. So the picture and the histogram on the camera are always a little bit differtent from the RAW file. What’s your opinion about this?
Thanks, Alwin
Comment by Alwin Koops — September 2, 2009 @ 7:52 am
Comment by Neil — September 2, 2009 @ 4:36 pm
nice run up on techniques and ideas for strobes. Always good to read other photogs ideas and attack behind the cameras
Comment by winston — September 16, 2009 @ 9:28 pm
Neil
“There is another way to approach this, and that is to spot-meter off only the relevant white area, and place it around 1.3 stops over the zero mark on your camera’s meter display. You don’t want to zero the meter reading then, since we don’t want the white to appear as grey. We want the white to appear as white .. and that will be around 1.3 stops to 1.7 stops over the zero mark.”
Please tell me how many CLICKS over the 0 mark is 1.3 / 1.7 stops – I’m on 1/3 increments.
Many thanks
Comment by Lydia — November 4, 2009 @ 5:17 am
Comment by Neil — November 4, 2009 @ 12:09 pm
Neil
Thanks, but when you refer to 1.7 stops – how many clicks is that?
Comment by Lydia — November 4, 2009 @ 2:33 pm
Lydia,
I believe that would be 5 clicks, total.
The meter center is 0. each full stop is generally represented by a vertical line, as such: | and each 1/3rd stop by a dot. so..
- < |..|..0..|..|> +
your 5th click over would then be 1.7 (or 1 2/3rd) stops.
Anybody is welcome to correct me if i forgot something.
Comment by Lance — November 4, 2009 @ 4:07 pm
Lance, yes – it makes sense that 5 clicks = 1 2/3 stops, but how does that amount to 1.7 stops? Thanks for explaining nevertheless.
Comment by Lydia — November 4, 2009 @ 4:40 pm
[1.7] IS [1 2/3] stops. same thing, different notation.
1/3 = 0.3
2/3 = 0.7
3/3 [1] = 1
Clear? :)
Comment by Lance — November 4, 2009 @ 4:59 pm