rmalarz Loc: Tempe, Arizona

Selmslie, any photos I've posted to UHH over the last year, at least, perhaps longer have used ETTR/EBTR for the initial capture. I don't give a crap about blinkies because there are so many. Secondly, I hardly chimp because I know what my camera is going to provide in the capture. So, there is no reason to even look at the in-camera jpg. Most of the photos, if not all, as I can't recall every detail about them, were shot at ISO 400. Regardless if ISO, ETTR/EBTR techniques were employed in the process. So, take it upon yourself to review my posts. If you care to have some patience, future posts will be captured using the same techniques. It's not complicated, it's not overly technical, it just works.
--Bob

cactuspic Loc: Dallas, TX

All exposure to the right means is that there is additional headroom in some cameras between when the histogram shows blown highlights and when the highlights actually turn detailess white. For the most part, the idea of ETTR was most important with Canon shooters whose sensors registered more noise and had less dynamic range than the Sony and Nikon sensors. it became more important therefore to maximize the dynamic range of the sensor and minimize the noise with Canons. To do so, you give it as much exposure as possible without blowing out the whites. All expose to the right means is give it as much exposure as possible without clipping which often means giving it more than the histogram would otherwise indicate. With the dynamic range and noise capability of the better current cameras, there may be less need to expose to the right than with earlier sensors.

Bill_de Loc: US

The entire subject is blown way out of proportion. All ETTR means is expose until your highlights are slightly over exposed. Nothing more, nothing less. In some situations it works and in some it doesn't. Somewhere along the way a writer put a tag on it that was later reduced to an acronym.

That acronym became a rallying point for something that is neither new nor really insightful. But it beats talking politics.

--

amfoto1 Loc: San Jose, Calif. USA

Sure, it's great to be able to use low ISOs, take time to evaluate previews or test shots, set exposure fully manually and precisely for each and every shot. That would be ideal. But for many of us, it's just not possible a lot of the time.

ETTR can be very beneficial when shooting shoot sports, wildlife or other fast action situations where there's no time to watch for blinkies, let alone to fine-tune your exposures.... particularly when you need to use higher ISOs and variable lighting forces use of an auto exposure mode.

People should evaluate their own images and decide for themselves whether it may be helpful to them. If they tend to under-expose a lot, give it a try. It won't hurt lower ISO and and can help a lot with higher (but, again, results are likely to vary depending upon camera model and other user techniques).

rmalarz Loc: Tempe, Arizona

Uncouple yourself from connecting ISO and ETTR/EBTR. You are way too hung up on that.

ETTR/EBTR techniques are used to place the highlight values, as spot metered, in an appropriate Zone without going past a point of no return. That technique is independent of both ISO and dynamic range. It just simply works. The use if the technique has beneficial side effects, such as masking noise. However, that is not the primary reason for its use.
--Bob

rmalarz Loc: Tempe, Arizona

Slight correction, Bill. One does not slightly over expose. Over is never good. One passes the point where the jpg preview appears overexposed, but the RAW file is not overexposed.
--Bob

bkellyusa Loc: Nashville, TN

The orignal poster doesnt understand ETTR in the same way I do or I don't understand what he is saying. His use of ISO seems bacjkwards if I am reading this right.

catchlight.. Loc: Wisconsin USA- Halden Norway

Scotty is bringing up good information and there is much more to ETTR-ETBR...It is many times miss interpreted.

...."A common maxim in digital photography is that image quality is maximized by "exposing to the right" (ETTR) -- that is, raising the exposure as much as possible without clipping highlights. It is often stated that in doing so, one makes the best use of the "number of available levels" in the raw data. The thinking is that, because raw is a linear capture medium, each higher stop in exposure accesses the next higher bit in the digital data, and twice as many raw levels are used in encoding the raw capture. For instance, in a 12-bit file, the highest stop of exposure has 2048 levels, the next highest stop 1024 levels, the one below that 512 levels, and so on. Naively it would seem obvious that the highest quality image data would arise from concentrating the image histogram in the higher exposure zones, where the abundance of levels allows finer tonal transitions".....and

Read more on this: http://theory.uchicago.edu/~ejm/pix/20d/tests/noise/noise-p3.html

BebuLamar

Yup! If you use base ISO and use ETTR you reduce some noise but at base ISO most cameras can capture images with virtually invisible noise level so really you don't need. Besides, often at base ISO you don't have the luxury of having extra light to give extra exposure.

Bill_de Loc: US

More accurate than what I said.

--

selmslie Loc: Fernandina Beach, FL, USA

At ISO 400 you are probably not using ETTR to reduce noise. I think you mentioned that once before.

I also routinely use base ISO 100. I occasionally raise it to 200, 400 or 800 with the knowledge that I am reducing the camera's DR and increasing the chances that noise will become visible.

You are assuming that there is some benefit to be derived from ETTR but you have never looked to see if it is really true. You are using ETTR out of habit, not because you have ever looked critically at a with/without ETTR comparison. I have.

I looked very closely at the question and I cannot observe any difference in the tonal rendition of an image shot at ISO 100 and one taken at ISO 400 with two additional stops of ETTR since both images end up with the exactly the same exposure.

What happens with ETTR is that the camera applies a gain, in this case 4x which you immediately reverse in post processing by applying a -2 Ev adjustment (0.25 gain) to restore the image to "normal".

If there is any benefit to ETTR in this case it would be that all tonal gradations at each sensor site are recorded in the raw file with 4x as many potential values as they would be without ETTR.

That means that for the rendition of values within Zone V (that JPEG represents using less than 30 values), the normal exposure begins with 512 values and the ETTR version begins with 2048. But that is simply a difference that nobody will never be able to see.

You won't see it either at Zone III (128 vs. 512) and certainly not within Zone VII (2048 vs. 8192) and that's as high as the ETTR can record the values in a 14-bit file without blowing the highlights. The normal exposure still has two stops of latitude remaining.

I hope that you can now see why I am skeptical. I cannot see any difference no matter how closely I have looked. You have apparently never looked.

selmslie Loc: Fernandina Beach, FL, USA

No, you are reading it wrong. I clearly understand what ETTR is all about.

This thread is about whether there are any benefits that can be demonstrated. If it is obvious, it should be easy to show. So far, no takers.

amfoto1 Loc: San Jose, Calif. USA

This is true.



This is not true. In fact, at the time when ETTR was first proposed as a technique, Sony wasn't even in the business of DSLRs yet, while Nikon and everyone else other than Canon were using CCD sensors (mostly from Kodak) that were horribly noisy at high ISOs. In 2005 and 2006 I was shooting a lot of events with a friend. She used a pair of Nikon D200 and I used a pair of Canon 30D. I admired the build quality of her cameras, but she envied that I could make usable images one or two stops higher ISO than her. She never shot higher than ISO 800 and preferred to keep to 400... while I used 800 freely, 1600 when needed and even occasionally 3200 (tho only with lots of extra post-processing work). She traded her D200's for a pair of D300's immediately when they came available.

One of the earliest discussions of ETTR appeared on The Luminous Landscape website in 2003 (https://luminous-landscape.com/expose-right/). It wasn't until 2006 that Sony entered the DSLR business by purchasing Konica-Minolta. Nikon sort of experimented CMOS n their 2004 D2X model... but didn't make any other models with it or fully switch over to CMOS until 2007/2008 with their D3, D300, D700, D90 models.

It is true, though, that a lot of ETTR users were mostly Canon shooters, who were pushing the limits of the far less noisy CMOS sensors they were blessed with in all models beginning with the D30 (2000) and 1D (2001). I don't know if folks with CCD cameras used ETTR or not, if it was as beneficial to them as it was to those of us who were using Canon with CMOS.

Another factor, I've always felt Canon tended to calibrate their cameras slightly toward under-exposure... possibly a carryover from the days of slide film, a lot of which was particularly sensitive to accidental over-exposure and blown highlights. I think they have just treated digital the same because there's still some, though not as much concern about blown highlights. I haven't used more modern Nikon, Pentax, Oly, etc. enough to have a feel for any slight bias they might or might not give their metering systems (my newest Nikon, Pentax and Olympus all date to the 1980s and earlier).



This is true. The latest generations of cameras are able to produce image that are a lot more "forgiving" of post-processing corrections. Sony sensors, including those being used in Nikon cameras, set a new standard for dynamic range... with about one stop wider DR at native ISOs... approx. 14 stops versus 13 stops in Canon... at ISO 100. But the difference in DR drops and then disappears at higher ISOs. They are about the same at ISO 800 or 1600, and beyond that Canon have slightly wider DR.

Or, another way of looking at the same thing... There is potential for even better images, using ETTR.

Besides.... what does "wider dynamic range" actually mean, in real world applications? It just means that that images offer more latitude to fix your screw-ups in post-processing. ETTR is a simplistic way to try to offset any need to make those corrections at all.

selmslie Loc: Fernandina Beach, FL, USA

What should not be overlooked is that ETTR was developed about 14 years ago when 12-bit raw files were the norm and sensors were noisy.

That is no longer the case. Sensors are much less noisy, 14-bit raw files are the norm and a few cameras even use 16-bit raw.

selmslie Loc: Fernandina Beach, FL, USA

Michael Reichmann was a Canon user and his original article is talking about a 12-bit file. Necessity was the mother of invention.

Old ideas die hard.