My own EBTR "experiment" (Page 2): Hi, gplawhorn, You've demonstrated very well the essence of EBTR, that being to purposefully take advantage of the extra raw-accessible dynamic range...

Uuglypher Loc: South Dakota (East River)

gplawhorn wrote:

I've read a lot about ETTR and EBTR, and I *think*... (show quote)

Hi, gplawhorn,
You've demonstrated very well the essence of EBTR, that being to purposefully take advantage of the extra raw-accessible dynamic range beyond the ETTR point of blowing highlight detail using the "guidance" of the JPEG-adjusted histogram frame.
Regardless of the rantings of the compulsive Anti-EBTR Nay-Sayer ("Selmslie") you actually captured significantly higher quality image data than you otherwise would have, and now have an image file of far greater creative latitude in pp than you otherwise would have!

Nice job.

Dave

Uuglypher Loc: South Dakota (East River)

cthahn wrote:

It is not a perfect shot if it is under or over exposed. Don't rely on software to fix a picture. The fix should be done before the photo is taken.

You are correct that exposure should be appropriate before the shutter is released.
It should be recognized that the proper exposure for raw image data capture is to produce the brightest possible image that comes as close as possible to clipping highlight detail without actually doing so. The thumbnail of such a capture will be washed out and devoid of highlight detail, indeed, "overexposed" if it had been a JPEG exposure, but spot-on for a raw capture (with which tonal normalization is accomplished with the first leftward slide of the "Exposure" slider in the raw converter). In summary, EBTR most definitely does NOT involve "overexposure", just understanding that one is correctly exposing for raw image data capture!

Of course, to do so requires that you do due diligence in determining how much extra raw-accessible dynamic range your camera offers "beyond the right"....beyond the point of JPEG highlight clipping!

Dave

catchlight.. Loc: Wisconsin USA- Halden Norway

Looks can be deceiving and what seems overexposed...

That's why a histogram is used in post possessing and useful in camera.

Metering for the highlight in reality is proper exposure. An averaged metered scene would be under exposed.

Metering the shadows could be called a method of ETTR if you consider the direction of exposure.

Seems more a mater of not having control of what took place and being surprised by an accidental correct outcome. You most likely would have underexposed and recovered the shadows from your description of events...but new dlsr's do that well and show us how ETTR is becoming less important than years past.

selmslie Loc: Fernandina Beach, FL, USA

Uuglypher wrote:

... the proper exposure for raw image data capture is to produce the brightest possible image that comes as close as possible to clipping highlight detail without actually doing so. The thumbnail of such a capture will be washed out and devoid of highlight detail, indeed, "overexposed" if it had been a JPEG exposure, but spot-on for a raw capture ...

After looking at the RawDigger histograms for the OP's image can't you see that the raw file in his example was overexposed? By one or two stops! Do you see the spikes at the right end? The JPEG should have been darker.

I'm all for learning new ideas and trying them out but your view of ETTR/EBTR is based on a fundamental misunderstanding of the subject - that the use of ETTR means light or washed out JPEGs.

In fact, any JPEG image for a wide DR scene where ETTR has been properly employed will actually look dark. Only a scene with a very narrow DR might look light or washed out. A normal scene might look just like the default JPEG exposure.

If really you want to make ETTR easy, just spot meter the highlights (where you want detail) and place them on Zone VII.

Or you can just watch for blinkies and decide if you need to change the exposure.

I don't have anything against using ETTR. But of all people, you do not seem to have a clear grasp of of the subject. I suggest you get yourself a copy of RawDigger and do some serious investigation of your own raw files. You are probably going to find that you have been blowing your highlights by relying too much on your camera's histogram.

rmalarz Loc: Tempe, Arizona

Works nicely, doesn't it. Though, the leaning towards the use of "recovery" is a bit of a misnomer. The data was there, post processing rendered it.

My preference after post is the middle image.
--Bob

gplawhorn wrote:

I've read a lot about ETTR and EBTR, and I *think*... (show quote)

rmalarz Loc: Tempe, Arizona

Nothing was rescued. The data was there. Nice post processing is a more appropriate phrase.
--Bob

tradio wrote:

Nice rescue!

selmslie Loc: Fernandina Beach, FL, USA

rmalarz wrote:

Nothing was rescued. The data was there. Nice post processing is a more appropriate phrase.
--Bob

How do you explain the RawDigger histogram where the right end is cut off?

Rongnongno Loc: FL

rmalarz wrote:

Nothing was rescued. The data was there. Nice post processing is a more appropriate phrase.
--Bob

Bob, I made a really weird test with the D500. It does correct. I shot through a green filter to check what would happen and.... Nothing. It corrected it when using this capture as a WB. Worse, I used a inverted green as a WB and it corrected again!!!

This is just crazy.

I think the Nikon just reduces everything to a generic grey reflective value. We may have to kiss the UniWB goodbye if this is the case. One way to get rid of the pesky demands for a raw histogram...

I will do a couple more weird tests now that it sunny and I will post them, if you are interested. (using a red filter by example)

rmalarz Loc: Tempe, Arizona

Well, in this case, your looking at the data from a jpg image. Raw Digger is designed to look at the actual RAW file, which was not posted.
--Bob

selmslie wrote:

How do you explain the RawDigger histogram where the right end is cut off?

selmslie Loc: Fernandina Beach, FL, USA

rmalarz wrote:

Well, in this case, your looking at the data from a jpg image. Raw Digger is designed to look at the actual RAW file, which was not posted.
--Bob

The RawDigger display is for the raw file, not the JPEG. You can't open a JPEG in RawDigger.

rmalarz Loc: Tempe, Arizona

Rong...., that is crazy. That would seem to take some of the creativity the photographer might want to explore in camera and disable the ability to do so.
--Bob

Rongnongno wrote:

Bob, I made a really weird test with the D500. It does correct. I shot through a green filter to check what would happen and.... Nothing. It corrected it when using this capture as a WB. Worse, I used a inverted green as a WB and it corrected again!!!

This is just crazy.

rmalarz Loc: Tempe, Arizona

I'm aware of that. I use RawDigger on a regular basis. Your statement led me to believe you used it on the SOOC image that was posted. If you managed to get the RAW file from the OP, then that's a different story.
--Bob

selmslie wrote:

The RawDigger display is for the raw file, not the JPEG. You can't open a JPEG in RawDigger.

catchlight.. Loc: Wisconsin USA- Halden Norway

rmalarz wrote:

Nothing was rescued. The data was there. Nice post processing is a more appropriate phrase.
--Bob

Some say it best...It may be more appropriate to explore known test data rather than mistakes, surprise and debatable results.

selmslie Loc: Fernandina Beach, FL, USA

rmalarz wrote:

I'm aware of that. I use RawDigger on a regular basis. Your statement led me to believe you used it on the SOOC image that was posted. If you managed to get the RAW file from the OP, then that's a different story.
--Bob

I didn't get the raw file. He downloaded RawDigger an posted it himself.

Uuglypher Loc: South Dakota (East River)

selmslie wrote:

How do you explain the RawDigger histogram where the right end is cut off?

Always consider the scene, Scottie.
There's lotsa snow.
Notice those fine little narrow slender spikes? ...at the right end? Those are speculars. They are normal and expected in any properly exposed raw image data capture of a sunlit snow scene.

Get some experience with snow, Laddie, and report back....oh, that's right...you're in Florida...oh well...