Rich1939 Loc: Pike County Penna.

In many situations exposing to the right is the correct exposure for the conditions and requires less manipulation in post than bracketing or HDR. ETTR is not an only tool but another tool.

selmslie Loc: Fernandina Beach, FL, USA

It's almost guaranteed to blow out your highlights if you are not careful.

Forget the histogram. Turn on your highlight warning (blinkies) and if they show up where you don't want them, reduce your exposure or ISO.

That's a lot easier than the convoluted methods described by the "experts".

Bill_de Loc: US

Expose to the left wasn't bad advice shooting Kodachrome, usually a half stop. It may still be good advice using JPG where it can be difficult or impossible to recover detail in blown out highlights. Raw files retain more data than JPG. The image we see on the back of the camera is a JPG and although the highlights appear blown out, they may be just fine when the Raw image is processed.

I am usually satisfied with my JPG files, but shoot both. When necessary I use the Raw version. That works for me and might not work for anyone else. But that's my story and I'm sticking to it.

--

foathog Loc: Greensboro, NC

For example. when shooting a white swan on a lake if you expose for the white feathers the meter won't be influenced by the darkness of the lake and therefore overexpose and wash out the white feathers. Meter on the white feathers and go from there.

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

I would look at the scene and decide if the amount of background overexposure and glare would contribute or detract from the scene. Regardless, I would set exposure maybe a 1/3 stop lower than I would normally expose for the faces, with the intent of making a slight adjustment for the faces and possibly mitigating the amount of over exposure in the background. There is nothing wrong with having a blown or nearly blown background as long as it does not dominate the image.

This page shows several examples of fill flash.

https://neilvn.com/tangents/flash-photography-techniques/on-camera-flash-outdoors/

I do not care for the unmodified fill. Shadows are distracting and unflattering, especially on the model's clavicle and chin line. Overall the lighting is a bit harsher than I like to see.

The ambient only and the off camera flash with soft box are far more interesting. So no, I would not immediately resort to fill flash but use it as a last resort, and I would avoid the harsh light of a camera mounted flash if at all possible.

The third shot in this next series of three is similar to the situation you described, and very close to how I would probably handle it:

https://www.adorama.com/alc/0011844/article/Is-the-background-brighter-than-the-foreground

By slightly underexposing the face you allow the background to be less overexposed. If you shoot raw, you will have more control over tonality and color in the darker areas, and still be able to recover the very bright background. Another technique I sometimes use is to desaturate the overexposed areas, giving them less "weight" or importance in the shot. Also careful cropping can help.

rmalarz Loc: Tempe, Arizona

You are partially correct and totally wrong. ETTR/EBTR techniques, when used correctly, prevent blowing highlights. Where you are incorrect is that it requires very intimate knowledge of how the meter works and the capabilities of the camera one is using. It's not a "bolt on" accessory. It requires the photographer to do some very careful testing. Then it requires one to carefully assess the scene, measure the brightest part of the scene, and know what to do with those measurements. Once these techniques are in place, it's a very simple, straightforward process.
--Bob

imagemeister Loc: mid east Florida

First, you MUST be shooting RAW to gain any advantage - which is giving max exposure to the shadows to avoid noise. It will vary somewhat by your particular exact sensor response.

BobHartung Loc: Bettendorf, IA

As an over simplification it is supposed to give more useful data in the darker toned areas of the image. However, every sensor is different and will tolerate a different amount of ETTR before you blow out the highlights.

big-guy Loc: Peterborough Ontario Canada

Lots of good answers here and the obligatory tunnel vision responses. Exposing to the right (ETTR) is a tool and like any tool has its uses and non uses. I mean you wouldn't use a hammer to screw in a tiny screw in your watch would you? ETTR is meant for high dynamic range scenes only. Unfortunately, a lot of photogs, here and in the real world, do not know what a high dynamic range scene is so they just keep hammering away regardless whether it is a tiny screw or a railroad spike. Seriously, just have a peak at the HDR section here to see a lot of low dynamic range scenes crammed through the HDR process with goofy results and then have the other unwashed bestow praise and adulation on the image.

ETTR is very similar to HDR but only uses a single shot to avoid ghosting and other problems when using 3 or more shots combined with the HDR process. It also will eliminate the need for pseudo HDR which uses a single exposure with varying exposure levels in post. With a high dynamic range scene and utilizing ETTR it allows one to not over expose any highlights and allow the shadow and mid range to be recovered in post. (yes, 2 or 3% could be blown out with out serious repercussion to the entire image, I mean what's a tiny pin point of over brightness in the grand scheme of things) Why you ask? Well most of you have tried to recover blown out highlights in an image whether JPG or RAW and were blessed with gray posterized results because once the detail is lost in the highlights you can't recover it. Shadows on the other hand will always have some detail that can be recovered in almost all cases. Of course this increases the noise factor so as with all tools there is a trade off.

So basic rule of thumb would state that if the scene is static (not moving) then use the HDR method and take 3 or more shots at varying exposure levels and combine with an HDR program. If the scene has movement then choose the ETTR approach. Using the right tool in the right situation will always achieve the best results. Of course thoroughly understanding the scene characteristics will allow the user to choose the best tool.

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

Spot metering for the highlights, and checking the histogram and highlight warning is exactly what I use.

Oh, and it's spelled "guaranteed"

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

It's appropriate to all digital photography, just as ETTL was to shooting B&W negatives back in the day. There is nothing wrong with determining your exposure by allowing the highest amount of exposure possible without blowing highlights. As long as you don't end up hiking up the ISO or use shutter speeds that are too long.

Maybe I'm missing something. Perhaps you can elaborate on why, from a purely exposure point of view, there are situations where some other method is preferable.

I also don't see any similarity between HDR and ETTR. Or why you regard ETTR to be a "hammer".ETTR leverages the now excellent dynamic range in recent and current cameras, and HDR was intended to make up for lack of dynamic range in older cameras.

I've used the zone system and a spot meter for nearly 50 yrs to determine exposure and ETTR for digital is pretty much foolproof and easy.

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

Best answer yet!

PGHphoto Loc: Pittsburgh, PA

I am in the minority but still follow the film standard of exposing to the left since most dark exposures can be PP'd to reveal detail more easily than blown highlights can be recovered. My 'logic' goes like this - a frame that appears almost black can be PP'ed and detail pulled out of it (things will be grainy but you can get an image) . A frame that is almost white usually cannot be PP'ed to any usable image.

In my general experience, I rarely can bring anything out of over exposed skies but can always get detail out of what appears to be black.

Just my observations - actual results may vary ...

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

Really good reason to shoot raw, btw.

htbrown Loc: San Francisco Bay Area

ETTR presupposes you will be post-processing. If you want your pictures 'perfect' out of the camera, it's not for you. It also presupposes you are not shooting film.

It the film days, it was, "Expose for the shadows and develop for the highlights." That is, bias toward the minimum exposure that will capture shadow detail.

If you're shooting digital, the opposite is true. You want the maximum exposure that won't blow out the highlights. It's called ETTR because the highlights are on the right of the histogram.

The reason has to do with how files are saved. Using JPEG as an example, there are eight bits available per color channel, which means that each color is a number from 0 (total black) to 255 (total white).

At the dark end, small differences are quantized more than at the high end. A subtle difference in the shadows makes a difference in the low end number of, say, from 4 to 5. That's a 25% difference. If there's actually 10% difference, it won't show up at all.

At the high end, that one bit might be might be 250 to 251, a 1/4% difference. The high end is capable of capturing more subtle differences.

If you've ever tried to salvage a woefully underexposed image, it comes up grainy with blocks of weird colors. This is because the low end is not capable of recording the subtleties present in the original scene.

By slightly overexposing the image (but not so much you block the highlights), you retain as many of those subtleties as possible, which give you more latitude in post.