ygelman Loc: new -- North of Poughkeepsie!

We agree; that's why I called it a hum-drum mantra, and I like your style . . . but I'd still like to see an expert comparison.

Rich1939 Loc: Pike County Penna.

Precisely and when we're not sure we bracket
ETTL/ETTM/ETTR

mallen1330 Loc: Chicago western suburbs

I agree... When I was taking slides back in the 70's I got the best results by underexposing and over developing. For my real estate photos today I bracket. For scenes with bright windows and dark rooms, I find that the underexposed (-2) shot is easier to bring out the shadow detail without blowing out the windows.

sendero72 Loc: Candler, North Carolina

I find it easier to shoot Raw + jpeg and bracket. That seems to cover the bases.

mallen1330 Loc: Chicago western suburbs

In many cases, I find that ETTL is easier to fix up - especially using LightZone. Here's my attempt...

After Lightzone PP

rmalarz Loc: Tempe, Arizona

Wow, if you don't mind my saying, that looks like crap. That is, unless that was your intended plan on how the scene should look.
--Bob

burkphoto Loc: High Point, NC

Much of the portrait photography world rated Kodak's ISO 160 Professional Color Negative Films at speeds ranging from 80 to 125 as a matter of course, just to have that extra highlight detail to work with, along with more detail in the shadows. Many pro labs even developed them to a lower-than-normal gamma, to preserve the upper mid-tones and highlights.

That changed a little with the advent of Portra films, which were optimized for scanning, but a one stop "overexposure" of Portra certainly wasn't a bad idea!

Uuglypher Loc: South Dakota (East River)

EXPOSE TO THE MIDDLE ?

Sure..Those shooting JPEGs with a camera posessing sufficient DR to encompass the scene's DR.

Dave

burkphoto Loc: High Point, NC

Agreed. I think this is something each of us should do for our own reference purposes. Take a scene with a lot of range, add a 21-step gray scale and a ColorChecker chart, and perhaps a several races of live human models, and record both raw and large, finest JPEGs at 1/3 stop intervals over a +/- five stop range. Then mess with the raw images in post to see what works FOR YOUR PERSONAL STYLES. Evaluate the JPEGs, too, if you like, to compare the available range.

I haven't done this in a few years, and no longer have the files (they belonged to my former employer), but I did such tests a decade ago, when testing new cameras. It's a great exercise.

In general terms, what I learned was that ETTL works well if you use JPEGs... A 1/3 stop underexposure, as measured with an incident meter, is about right. ETTR works well if you use raw files. About one stop, ±1/3 stop, of overexposure greatly enhances shadows and still includes recoverable highlights in most average daylight scenes.

Raw files have so much data (which translates to latitude) that you can generally go a stop under to a stop over with few worries and subtle differences. Get very far outside that range, and you're either producing a special mood or effect, or you are getting sub-optimal results, depending upon your interpretation!

JPEGs generally require a dead-on accurate exposure at the camera to look their best. I've always said the exposure latitude at the camera is that of slide film — about +1/3, -1/2 stop. Outside that range, you blow the highlights or lose noticeable shadow details.

Again, do what works for your interpretation of a subject.

Uuglypher Loc: South Dakota (East River)

Hey,
Nothing wrong with ETTLif one's purposes are to avoid all risk of blown highlights, capture all shadow detail possible with no concern for capture of maximal noisel (capture of lowest.possible signal-to-noise ratio )., and thus capturing the lowest possible qualityimage data while purposefully leaving some off the cameras DR unused.

If those are your aims, by all means, ETTL !

Dave

Uuglypher Loc: South Dakota (East River)

Hey,
Nothing wrong with ETTLif one's purposes are to avoid all risk of blown highlights, capture all shadow detail possible with no concern for capture of maximal noisel (capture of lowest.possible signal-to-noise ratio )., and thus capturing the lowest possible qualityimage data while purposefully leaving some of the cameras DR unused.

If those are your aims, by all means, ETTL !

Dave

mallen1330 Loc: Chicago western suburbs

Actually, no. I was not intending to make it look like crap :shock:

Not having the actual raw file to work with -- only the small underexposed JPEG thumbnail that was posted, I did my best with LightZone to try to show that detail CAN be pulled from the shadows without blowing out the highlights. -- Not trying to make the image better looking.

Rich1939 Loc: Pike County Penna.

If we were to accept what is proclaimed the way to properly use our equipment instead of (as you said) testing what we have to get the results we want, then we will continually be doomed to mediocrity. Were we to learn our equipment to the extent that we know how it performs under various conditions, to know when to over or under expose for example, then we might stand a chance to stand a little taller.

burkphoto Loc: High Point, NC

:thumbup:

rmalarz Loc: Tempe, Arizona

Exactly. Rather than being doomed to mediocrity, testing and knowing your equipment is essential. The testing should be planned and organized to obtain the best results.

Just what are the cameras limits? Once known, use those limits to obtain optimum exposures. Eliminating the guessing and need to do multiple exposures of the same scene hoping to get something correct.
--Bob