rmalarz Loc: Tempe, Arizona

That is impressive.
--Bob

selmslie Loc: Fernandina Beach, FL, USA

I am not suggesting that.

I was speaking about the need to use it, which is not always the same. A wide DR and a low contrast subject (like an overcast, foggy day at low ISO) is a different challenge from a narrow DR and a high contrast subject (like a nighttime street scene at high ISO). In the first case you may not need ETTR. In the second case it might need it but it could be very difficult to use because of the artificial lighting. Either way, you have to engage your little gray cells and decide whether it will help.


I don't always eat everything on in the buffet. Maximum is not always better.


I was referring the opportunity to apply different creative techniques to different challenges. I would not use the same methods when capturing a sporting event or a portrait as I would for a landscape or a macro image. I don't even use digital exclusively since I also like medium and large format.

If the scene is rapidly changing, ETTR might be very difficult to apply. Restricting your subjects to only those that will benefit from a particular technique that you like to use, you may indeed be missing some photo opportunities.

You have to consider whether the benefit of ETTR will be visible in the resulting image. It's a great tool when you need it but when you don't it can slow you down.

JohnSwanda Loc: San Francisco

Most adjustments in PS can be done on layers which don't change the underlying image, can be changed later or the amount of the effect changed by changing the opacity of the layer. The layer can be the entire image or on a selection which becomes a mask.

selmslie Loc: Fernandina Beach, FL, USA

An open mind can let in a lot of light.

I know I have given you a hard time in the past because some of the examples you have used to demonstrate the benefits of ETTR/EBTR have been a bit extreme, but that has always been my point. A demonstration that is more reasonably staged will make a stronger case.

I'm convinced that it works. I'm just not excited enough about it to use it all of the time - just when I think I might see the difference (and care).

Uuglypher Loc: South Dakota (East River)

Correct, and when layers are unquestionably the best path, I'm the first one into PS. As I've become more familiar with each new iteration of ACR, however, I've found that with the "correctly adjusted" adjustment brush there have been many trips to PS that have happily been avoided...out of concern for nothing but convenience. the major sin I see committed in PS is the tendency of many "old PS hands" to do tonal and hue adjustments there instead of staying in ACR after basic normalization.That's when the resultant histograms become sadly ornamented with those tell-tale gaps and spikes of destroyed data.

Make no mistake; I'd not recommend getting rid of PS, but I am continually impressed with how many images are taken to completion without having had to take a side-trip into PS!

Best regards,
Dave

redhogbill Loc: antelope, calif

:thumbup:

brucewells Loc: Central Kentucky

Sometimes, my mind thinks one thing and my fingers type something else. In this case, -1=-.3 and -2=-.6, the first two options on the EC dial.

:-/

davidrb Loc: Half way there on the 45th Parallel

Under exposing leaves incomplete data that can never be replaced. Neither gives a proper rendition of your exposure, why use either? What is the point you are trying to bring out? Why would you purposely use an incorrect exposure?As divided as Canon vs Nikon? You're just looking to start something needless?

BooIsMyCat Loc: Somewhere

Really?
Did you even read ANY of the replies here?
NO! You didn't so don't reply you did.

IF you had, you would see that MANY do exactly what I asked about.
AND... it "should" have made you realize the answer to that question IS as divided as Canon vs Nikon.

IF it was something needless... YOU answered... way after the fact.. but, you answered.

Maybe YOU wanted to start something. Could have just scrolled on by.

Gene51 Loc: Yonkers, NY, now in LSD (LowerSlowerDelaware)

expose correctly and you won't have to read 13 pages of utter nonsense with a few exceptions. Correct exposure is simply getting all the information you need to make a picture.

This is Ansel Adams iconic image before he post processed it:

http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_OEwP0EHQqMk/S00gvbxx1LI/AAAAAAAAA0c/yZjsxogD8-0/s400/Moonrise_contact_print.jpg

And this is one of the many later iterations once he applied his skills:

http://castlegallery.cnr.edu/wp-content/uploads/2013/09/Moonrise.jpg

And here they are side by side with Adams himself:

http://www.alindergallery.com/Ansel&Moonrise%20web.jpg

One image, one negative, one take, correct exposure, considerable post processing to make the image the way he wanted us to see it.

ETTR, EBTR, ETTL, gray card, incident meter - all nonsense. Use your sense to shoot it right get it right, address image inadequacies in post. Done.

If you don't have that "sense" that I make reference to then you need to stop talking/writing, get off this forum and shoot more pictures.

BooIsMyCat Loc: Somewhere

Expose correctly.... yep! That IS the issue, isn't it?

So, I would gather that you are saying - outside of a few exceptions, we have 13 pages of users who don't know how?

I think most know WHAT it is, so basically, you simply added to that nonsense.

rmalarz Loc: Tempe, Arizona

I would take umbrage at that statement. You, yourself contradicted what you just wrote.
--Bob

Gene51 Loc: Yonkers, NY, now in LSD (LowerSlowerDelaware)

And both you and Boo took the bait :)

Seriously, 13 pages on how to arrive at correct exposure? It's not that hard - it's either correct or it isn't. The OP's question - do you over expose or underexpose - is silly - you expose correctly, or you don't. Over and under exposure is either a mistake, or deliberate for artistic effect. Take umbrage if it makes you feel better. SMH. . .

winterrose Loc: Kyneton, Victoria, Australia

There is a movement which espouses to deliberately overexpose an image in order to reach into otherwise inaccessible camera sensor dynamic range, which is also silly........

Or rather, entirely misleading.

rmalarz Loc: Tempe, Arizona

Misleading is more the term. Overexposure is just that, over and blown. The idea is that exposing to the upper limits the camera allows is the approach. This will more than likely result in the preview image on the back of the camera to appear to be over exposed, but in reality the RAW image is not. Thus, one has captured the maximum amount of data of which the camera is capable of capturing.

ETTR is exposing to the limits of the jpg, thus no blinkies. EBTR will display blinkies in the preview, but in reality will not have exceeded the sensor's capability of capturing details.
--Bob