ETTR (Page 3): Lynda.com has a great series entitled "Exploring Photography: Exposure and Dynamic Range with Ben Long". He covers ETTR in section 3 with some real world examples of the...

fredthegraycat

Lynda.com has a great series entitled "Exploring Photography: Exposure and Dynamic Range with Ben Long". He covers ETTR in section 3 with some real world examples of the effect.
If you don't have a subscription to Lynda.com, check your local library website. I'm using mine here in Orlando and the public library gives me access to a premium Lynda membership for simply having a library card. Lynda's selection of photography training videos is amazing.

imagemeister Loc: mid east Florida

selmslie wrote:

And you may never have to if you watch you blinkies and if your scene's DR is not wider than the camera's.

People who shoot only JPEG can also take advantage of in-camera adjustments (like Nikon's Active D Lighting) that perform a modest amount of highlight an shadow recovery. That may be all you need.

Especially if you are using an EVF ........

and other camera adjustments , like Clear Image Zoom, and sweep panorama .....and HDR ....but these are all "consumer" adjustments that no self respecting "enthusiast" would DARE use !

TheDman Loc: USA

Uuglypher wrote:

Oh....really?

http://youtu.be/t7a54CWqJGQ (Breitung)

http://youtu.be/0LojM0DPIJ0 (Dickman)

Yes, really:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=47RWtJkhJ-I

Breitung shoots exactly how everyone else does.

rehess Loc: South Bend, Indiana, USA

selmslie wrote:

And you may never have to if you watch you blinkies and if your scene's DR is not wider than the camera's.

People who shoot only JPEG can also take advantage of in-camera adjustments (like Nikon's Active D Lighting) that perform a modest amount of highlight an shadow recovery. That may be all you need.

Since I'm on your "Ignore" list, I haven't bothered to read any of the threads you've started - which is ironic since we seem to agree on this point.

My history is as a user of Kodachrome, which was known to have lower "latitude" than color negative film, so I have a long history of automatically making small changes in exposure depending on the main point of interest in my picture {for example, I'd tolerate deeper blue sky in order to avoid over-exposing a white church}; today, I use the same habits, and then adjust levels in PP {lighten the sky in my previous example}. All this ETTR stuff must be fine for those who have seriously wide DR in the original scene and time to work on it, but that isn't me.

Bill_de Loc: US

TheDman wrote:

# of photo forum geeks that use ETTR: thousands
# of top landscape pros that use ETTR: 0

This 'might' be more accurate;

# of photo forum geeks that talk about ETTR: thousands

--

selmslie Loc: Fernandina Beach, FL, USA

rehess wrote:

Since I'm on your "Ignore" list, I haven... (show quote)

You are herewith off my Ignore list. I can't recall how you got there so it is in the past.

As a previous fanatic of Kodachrome I can appreciate the parallel with the ETTR rationale. When we used it effectively we soon learned what highlights were worth keeping and which one we could allow to get blown without ruining a good image.

tdekany Loc: Oregon

http://schewephoto.com/ETTR/

http://digital-photography-school.com/exposing-to-the-right/

TheDman Loc: USA

Bill_de wrote:

This 'might' be more accurate;

# of photo forum geeks that talk about ETTR: thousands

--

I'll give you that!

imagemeister Loc: mid east Florida

TheDman wrote:

I'll give you that!

AND, there are a LOT of people who make MONEY $$$ by talking about ETTR .......

Bill_de Loc: US

imagemeister wrote:

AND, there are a LOT of people who make MONEY $$$ by talking about ETTR .......

I look at it this way, if the contrast range of the scene is less than the range of your sensor, shooting raw you can over expose a little. I guess that won't make me rich.

--

imagemeister Loc: mid east Florida

Bill_de wrote:

I look at it this way, if the contrast range of the scene is less than the range of your sensor, shooting raw you can over expose a little. I guess that won't make me rich.

--

jamesl Loc: Pennsylvania

jradose wrote:

I have an issue with ETTR, exposure to the right. On paper, it makes sense to me, slightly overexpose so you don't get a lot of noise in shadow or dark areas of the photograph. However, I have found, at least with me, it usually overexposes particular colors, especially reds. Even when my histogram shows that I haven't gone off the scale to the right, my reds are overexposed, and I lose some detail. What am I doing wrong? I am interested in hearing what other fellow hoggers feel about ETTR.

If you expose to the right and find you are blowing out the reds, check your shot with the RGB histogram so you will see if the red channel is blowing out. If you are just using the luminosity histogram you may mot see it. If the red channel is blowing out just dial back the exposure a little to pull the red channel back. If you do this and are also shooting in RAW you should be fine.

jamesl Loc: Pennsylvania

jradose wrote:

I have an issue with ETTR, exposure to the right. On paper, it makes sense to me, slightly overexpose so you don't get a lot of noise in shadow or dark areas of the photograph. However, I have found, at least with me, it usually overexposes particular colors, especially reds. Even when my histogram shows that I haven't gone off the scale to the right, my reds are overexposed, and I lose some detail. What am I doing wrong? I am interested in hearing what other fellow hoggers feel about ETTR.

I found a link to a video by Mike Wallace showing the red problem you were talking about and how to correct for it.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Soe5zIm5bCA

selmslie Loc: Fernandina Beach, FL, USA

tdekany wrote:

http://schewephoto.com/ETTR/

http://digital-photography-school.com/exposing-to-the-right/

Schewe's article is nearly seven years old. It does not identify the ISO used in the initial example. It is as disingenuous as other pro-ETTR articles we have been subjected to here. It's about as honest as a laundry detergent commercial.

It begins with an ISO setting high enough to cause a problem and then shows that increased exposure can reduce the appearance of noise. Duh! The scene is static. If he had used base ISO in the first place there probably would have not been any visible noise in the normal exposure.

The second article is even more out of date, regardless of when it was posted, since it is talking about cameras with a 12-bit raw file. It's basically a rehash of Reichmann's initial article.

It will probably take years to clear the air on ETTR.

Just follow this simple advice:

1. Use the lowest practical ISO.
2. Expose normally but don't blow the highlights.
3. When in doubt, bracket and delete the images that did not work (or combine them into an HDR).

Do your own tests. Believe what you see, not what you are told.

tdekany Loc: Oregon

selmslie wrote:

Schewe's article is nearly seven years old. It do... (show quote)

You have no idea how I shoot first of all. In fact I shoot pretty much like your example most of the time, but slightly overexposing sometimes is not going to make me a felon, will it? Second of all, my snaps are so bad, it wouldn't matter anyway. Why do you put so much energy into trying to disprove ETTR?
BTW, if Jay Dickman practices ETTR in 2017 who is a Pulitzer winner/National Geographic photographer I think there is more to it than your bias against it. And since you are not the be all/end all of photography, do you really think people care what YOU think? And lastly, don't tell me you are a good photographer, SHOW me that you are a good photographer.

On another note, personally, I would listen to Jay Dickman 100 times out 100 over what you have to say when it comes to photography.

It is however possible, that he just simply doesn't know and he is out to lunch. Maybe you should contact him and educate him a bit.

http://www.jaydickman.net/Information/Bio/1