Why ETTR (Page 2): Once we get past the mechanics of posting your photos, your post concerns a topic that has been explored extensively under the headings of both ETTR and ISO...

TriX Loc: Raleigh, NC

Once we get past the mechanics of posting your photos, your post concerns a topic that has been explored extensively under the headings of both ETTR and ISO invariance - you might want to search on those topics to gain some additional information. The concept of ETTR is to use the entire dynamic range (DR) of your imagery recording system to the maximum. You can certainly underexpose (either accidentally or intentionally) and bring up the brightness in post, but there is a price to be paid - less with an “ISO invariant” camera, and more with a non-ISO invariant body, but either way, you lose some of the dynamic range (typically observed as increased noise or as altered tonal graduation resolution) of your camera. There is zero advantages of underexposure unless you can’t correctly expose without blowing highlights, which is a matter of correct metering and experience. You may wish to add a stop of “headroom” (much as audio recording engineers do) if you’re unsure of your metering technique, but you’ll lose some of the DR you paid for by doing so.

rmalarz Loc: Tempe, Arizona

Hmmm, did I hit a nerve?
--Bob

pentaxion wrote:

Yeah, but! I have not seen that your weird white balance or your relearning of basic photo basics makes you in any instance a better photographer than anyone else. The point is that a pedant's insistence on some technical perfection in picture taking ruins the whole enterprise. Pictures are just pictures regardless.

rehess Loc: South Bend, Indiana, USA

CHG_CANON wrote:

If you want any serious comments, you have to attach your processed example so the details can be examined. Otherwise, your post is just a joke.

You need to click on the "(store original)" box for us to get anything other than a thumbnail.

TonyP Loc: New Zealand

All the photos appear full size on my screen. In fact very large.

traderjohn Loc: New York City

CHG_CANON wrote:

If you want any serious comments, you have to attach your processed example so the details can be examined. Otherwise, your post is just a joke.

Really???

jerryc41 Loc: Catskill Mts of NY

pentaxion wrote:

Continuing on the post of the black cat and pushing exposure, here are 2 photos in raw, posted as jpeg. The first SOOC, the second pushed 4.5 stops only, no other PP. When there is so much information available in the supposedly underexposed part of the exposure, why risk blown highlights with ETTR?

I should have made clear, this is one photo, only processed through LR.

This is a good example of why people shoot raw.

lamiaceae Loc: San Luis Obispo County, CA

pentaxion wrote:

Yeah, but! I have not seen that your weird white balance or your relearning of basic photo basics makes you in any instance a better photographer than anyone else. The point is that a pedant's insistence on some technical perfection in picture taking ruins the whole enterprise. Pictures are just pictures regardless.

Though some of us do try to create ART. That being said, I don't find my Pentax cameras creating much shadow noise at ISO 100-400 where I shoot 95% of the time. And I do tend to underexpose 1/2 to 1 stop (EC) often (me, not some problem or design with the camera). I really did not understand how to tell via a posting on ISO invariance, but could my K-3 and K-5 be invariant? Certainly not my K-20D and K-100D.

lamiaceae Loc: San Luis Obispo County, CA

pentaxion wrote:

Continuing on the post of the black cat and pushing exposure, here are 2 photos in raw, posted as jpeg. The first SOOC, the second pushed 4.5 stops only, no other PP. When there is so much information available in the supposedly underexposed part of the exposure, why risk blown highlights with ETTR?

I should have made clear, this is one photo, only processed through LR.

Since there is a problem with getting a Downloadable file for the second image. I DL'd the OP first image the dark one and opened it with ACR and played with it a bit. I increased the Exposure by 4.5x, that seemed to give an image similar to his second image. The problem now here is that it is impossible to judge shadow noise or noise in general as the image pixelates on zoom long before we can see any noise. The file is too small, only 270BK. The last time I posted an image of my own on the UHH it was 7.97 MB in size!

whatdat Loc: Del Valle, Tx.

ETTR??

Gitchigumi Loc: Wake Forest, NC

rehess wrote:

You need to click on the "(store original)" box for us to get anything other than a thumbnail.

Seems like I've had this issue before... If you preview your post after clicking "store original", the box will be unchecked. So, all that gets posted is the thumbnail. So, go through your steps, add the "store original", then send. Do not preview before sending.

TriX Loc: Raleigh, NC

whatdat wrote:

ETTR??

Expose To The Right. It refers to exposing so the highlights are at the right side of the histogram, thus utilizing most of the camera"s dynamic range. The camera's histogram is derived from the internally generated JPEG and typically does not show the entire dynamic range available from the camera, so, especially when exposing raw, many experienced photographers expose so the highlights are actually 1-2 stops beyond the right edge of the histogram. If done correctly, this allows you to utilize the entire dynamic range of your camera without blowing the highlights. This is sometimes referred to as EBTR (exposing beyond the right).

anotherview Loc: California

Agree: "Secondly, knowledgeably, exposing to the right will not risk blown highlights." Consulting the Histogram for a shot will guide exposure for pushing it to the right (short of blown highlights).

rmalarz wrote:

First, pushing that photo, as you did, will allow more noise to be visible in the darker areas of the scene.

Secondly, knowledgeably, exposing to the right will not risk blown highlights.
--Bob

zzzynick Loc: Colorado

What a bunch of jerks [not all of you]
The person was doing his best to post, had a question.
And some a#$holes bashed him.
Stop it.

TriX Loc: Raleigh, NC

zzzynick wrote:

What a bunch of jerks [not all of you]
The person was doing his best to post, had a question.
And some a#$holes bashed him.
Stop it.

Actually, I thought the OP’s response to rmarlarz was pretty combative, especially considering the quality of Bob’s work.

Linda From Maine Loc: Yakima, Washington

zzzynick wrote:

What a bunch of jerks [not all of you] The person was doing his best to post, had a question.And some a#$holes bashed him. Stop it.

It can be instructive to view a person's history. Our OP posted two topics solely to complain about the repetitive subjects of photos on UHH - apparently we're only here for his amusement. And he's posted a photo of "chemtrails" in order to talk about government conspiracies. Nuff said?