ETTR Claims May Be Misleading (Page 2): Give the rest of the members a little credit for common sense. I think that most of them can figure this out, especially since I am the only one...

selmslie Loc: Fernandina Beach, FL, USA

rmalarz wrote:

Quit misleading the rest of the members here, Scotty. There is no fallacy. It's you who are failing to see the scientific basis of ETTR.
--Bob

Give the rest of the members a little credit for common sense. I think that most of them can figure this out, especially since I am the only one willing to show them how to look at the question using their own camera.

Prove me wrong. If you can't then there is a fallacy.

rmalarz Loc: Tempe, Arizona

Scotty, it's you that are lacking common sense. A good deal of the rest of the members are smart enough to understand. It's the newbies that you may be negatively influencing and causes me some concern. Additionally, there may be some long-term members who are just gullible enough to believe your claptrap.

The simple logic behind ETTR is that one matches the exposure capabilities of their particular camera with the dynamic range of the scene and preserve detail within the brighter regions of the scene. It is a simple process.
--Bob

selmslie wrote:

Give the rest of the members a little credit for common sense. I think that most of them can figure this out, especially since I am the only one willing to show them how to look at the question using their own camera.

Prove me wrong. If you can't then there is a fallacy.

selmslie Loc: Fernandina Beach, FL, USA

rmalarz wrote:

Scotty, it's you that are lacking common sense. ... It is a simple process.
--Bob

So now you are frustrated and you suggest I'm not smart? Sorry but insulting me will not win your argument.

If it's such a simple process then it should be easy for you to demonstrate its benefits. Why can't you do that?

I can offer two suggestions: there are no demonstrable benefits; you can't figure out how to demonstrate them.

Give it some thought before you respond.

rmalarz Loc: Tempe, Arizona

Your sense of logic is flawed. If that's the conclusions you can draw. See my reply to your other post in the other thread regarding your erroneous conclusions regarding my exposure.
--Bob

selmslie wrote:

So now you are frustrated and you suggest I'm not smart? Sorry but insulting me will not win your argument.

If it's such a simple process then it should be easy for you to demonstrate its benefits. Why can't you do that?

I can offer two suggestions: there are no demonstrable benefits; you can't figure out how to demonstrate them.

Give it some thought before you respond.

selmslie Loc: Fernandina Beach, FL, USA

rmalarz wrote:

Your sense of logic is flawed. If that's the conclusions you can draw. See my reply to your other post in the other thread regarding your erroneous conclusions regarding my exposure.
--Bob

We are not talking about a specific image. It is the theory of ETTR that you need to address. Can't you do that?

jethro779 Loc: Tucson, AZ

selmslie wrote:

We are not talking about a specific image. It is the theory of ETTR that you need to address. Can't you do that?

You remind me of the story of the dog in the manger. GET OVER IT!!!!!!!!!

selmslie Loc: Fernandina Beach, FL, USA

jethro779 wrote:

You remind me of the story of the dog in the manger. GET OVER IT!!!!!!!!!

Maybe you can help Bob out here. Can you prove that ETTR provides any benefit?

jethro779 Loc: Tucson, AZ

selmslie wrote:

Maybe you can help Bob out here. Can you prove that ETTR provides any benefit?

I don't really give a d***. I am just tired of you telling everybody how smart you are. OK????

selmslie Loc: Fernandina Beach, FL, USA

jethro779 wrote:

I don't really give a d***. I am just tired of you telling everybody how smart you are. OK????

When did I do that?

Bill_de Loc: US

selmslie wrote:

ETTR is only additional exposure if the highlights are not initially beyond the capacity of the sensor.

Correct. And although I don't think in terms of ETTR, even I know it is not something one would use on every shot. But in those cases where it makes sense, it reduces noise.

Like everything else in photography, there are more variables than you can shake a stick at. If you don't like ETTR, don't use it. I don't like BBF, so I don't use it. I could spend time pointing out when it doesn't make sense. But there are many times when for many people it does work.

No need to try to convince the world you are right, even if once in a while you are.

--

selmslie Loc: Fernandina Beach, FL, USA

Bill_de wrote:

... No need to try to convince the world you are right, even if once in a while you are.

My sentiments match Bob's. We both feel that we are correct and the other is mistaken:

rmalarz wrote:

... A good deal of the rest of the members are smart enough to understand. It's the newbies that you may be negatively influencing and causes me some concern. Additionally, there may be some long-term members who are just gullible enough to believe your claptrap. ...

The difference between us is that I have made my point with objective and scientific experiments that I have documented and executed publicly so that anyone can replicate my steps and prove it to themselves or tell me if I am mistaken. And I don't think that UHH members are gullible or stupid or lack common sense.

In response I have heard no objective comment on my experimental procedure and evidence. No alternative proof has been presented, in fact, no pertinent evidence of any kind. The claim that "I used it and it worked for me" is anecdotal, not objective evidence.

My suggestions are simple: use the lowest practical ISO to minimize noise and don't blow the highlights. Most of us already know to do that. The only challenging scenario will be a scene where its DR is almost as wide as the camera's. In all other cases ETTR is more trouble than it's worth.

So feel free to believe as you wish.

Festus Loc: North Dakota

selmslie wrote:

I apparently understand it better than you or Uuglypher. I can see the fallacy. You can't (or won't).

All I can see is you are really starting to get very arrogant! Get off your high horse an go waste someone else's time!

selmslie Loc: Fernandina Beach, FL, USA

Festus wrote:

All I can see is you are really starting to get very arrogant! Get off your high horse an go waste someone else's time!

I am anxious to see whatever you or anyone else might have to offer in support of the benefits of ETTR. Do you have something constructive to say?

Or did you just waste your own time responding to keep this thread alive.

Jer Loc: Mesa, Arizona

https://m.dpreview.com/articles/6641165460/ettr-exposed

BebuLamar

ETTR is only useful when you have plenty of light to spare that is you can shoot with base ISO and your aperture is small enough and shutter speed is fast enough.