rmalarz Loc: Tempe, Arizona

Just an example of ETTR and final photo. Experimentation to determine f-stop per Zone pays off.
--Bob

(Download)


(Download)

UTMike Loc: South Jordan, UT

Beautiful result, Bob! I say that I am going to try it, but I always panic and am afraid that I will blow out the shot.

PixelStan77 Loc: Vermont/Chicago

Bob, As a master photographer, you understand what's what and know what to do.

Kozan Loc: Trenton Tennessee

OK, I don't get what you did. Can you explain?

TriX Loc: Raleigh, NC

Great example of ETTR Bob - and the zone system is alive and well. Testing and knowing the exact limits of your camera is the key to extracting all the DR it is capable of delivering.

Cheers

joehel2 Loc: Cherry Hill, NJ

Beautifully done, Bob. Thanks for sharing the technique.

rmalarz Loc: Tempe, Arizona

Thanks, Mike. This process does take careful testing. Each camera reacts differently.
--Bob

rmalarz Loc: Tempe, Arizona

Kozan, what I did was based on a couple of principles. Light meters render an exposure that places whatever they measured in Zone V, middle of the Black to white scale.

So, if I'm shooting digital, I spot meter the brightest part of the scene, I can then increase the exposure an appropriate amount to place that metered part of the scene in a "brighter" and more appropriate Zone, based on my desire on how I want to represent that part of the scene in the final "print". Knowing how much additional exposure is required is arrived at through careful testing. Determining the portion of the scene to spot meter requires careful examination of the scene.

Incidentally, this is the opposite of shooting black and white film. In that case, I'd measure the darkest part of the scene and decide in which Zone to place that part of the scene. I'd then decrease exposure the appropriate amount. Like digital, the processing of the original will render the various brightnesses in the appropriate zones.

So, in this case, I spot metered a reflection off the water and increased exposure to place that in the appropriate Zone. This increased the exposure of the entire scene. In processing, I compensated for the additional exposure and, as you can see, the rest of the scene "fell" into place.
--Bob

jaymatt Loc: Alexandria, Indiana

Interesting.

camerapapi Loc: Miami, Fl.

Bob, I am in total agreement with you. Metering in digital photography requires metering from an important bright area to retain details. I agree that cameras are not all similar and testing is required to know how much to compensate a reading from a bright area. It seems as if 2 stops of extra exposure to the meter reading usually renders good results.

The classic exposure to the right covers most of the dark areas. The histogram of your image is all biased toward the right side of the histogram and shadows areas are absent. It is obvious that I do not know your post processing of that image but I could not work very much with the overexposure to render an acceptable image. With my photographic style I could have done what you did and I seldom go more than 2.3 stops of light compensation when I meter from a bright subject. I then check my color histogram to make sure I exposed correctly. My results have been different to the example you have presented here but to my entire satisfaction. Your original image is way overexposed.

I am not saying that what you are doing is wrong, if it works for you that is fine. I tend to expose to the right more when I am dealing with noise. With my Olympus cameras I have modified the histogram to clip bright areas at 245 while shadows do at 10. I have noticed that following that I seldom clip highlights and my shadows are full of details. With my dSLR cameras I always meter from the brightest, most important part of the scene where I want details or from a middle tonality. I use like you spot metering more often than not because I know how it behaves and I know the readings are accurate. As Mr. Perry has pointed out, matrix readings are influenced by the focus bracket selected and many times the exposure is not accurate.

I guess that because all of us are different we have different ways to handle the exposure.

Kozan Loc: Trenton Tennessee

Thanks, Bob. I got it now. It all boils down to knowing what zone you are metering.
I appreciate the explanation.

Kozan

frankraney Loc: Clovis, Ca.

Great example Bob. I usually go to he right, but not this much. Now I've gotta try more right. Thanks for sharing this.

rmalarz Loc: Tempe, Arizona

William, thanks for this contribution to the thread. I'd like to make one small correction. You stated, "Your original is way overexposed." That is incorrect. All of the scene's information was recorded. If it were over exposed, I'd have nothing to show in the final processed image. The original is additional exposure, not overexposure.
--Bob

Mark Sturtevant Loc: Grand Blanc, MI

A master example! I have not dared to go that far, but I should try. Nothing to lose, since digital 'film' is infinite!

rmalarz Loc: Tempe, Arizona

Thanks, John. I appreciate the visit.
--Bob