Exposing to the right (Page 5): I tried the link you posted, but I got the old "404" error code. Perhaps it is just a timing thing. I'll try it again.

foggypreacher Loc: Dickinson, Texas

I tried the link you posted, but I got the old "404" error code. Perhaps it is just a timing thing. I'll try it again.

TriX Loc: Raleigh, NC

selmslie wrote:

For properly lit night sports you should be seeing... (show quote)

Scotty, after years of shooting indoor HS sports, I can promise you that many HS gyms are darker than that regardless of whatever the table says. I typically shoot around f2.8, 1/500 sec and ISOs between 6400 and 12,800. ISO 3200 would be well lt!

RichardSM Loc: Back in Texas

Linda From Maine wrote:

That seems to be the key point to the whole exercise.

From https://digital-photography-school.com/exposing-to-the-right/:
The resulting file, when processed back to the correct exposure, will contain more tonal information and less noise in the shadow areas, maximising your image quality.

Hi Linda on the digital photography school. Com I get the 404 error page no longer exists?

selmslie Loc: Fernandina Beach, FL, USA

TriX wrote:

Scotty, after years of shooting indoor HS sports, I can promise you that many HS gyms are darker than that regardless of whatever the table says. I typically shoot around f2.8, 1/500 sec and ISOs between 6400 and 12,800. ISO 3200 would be well lt!

That would be an EV of 6 or 5 - only 3-4 stops below a properly lit arena.

Linda From Maine Loc: Yakima, Washington

foggypreacher wrote:

I tried the link you posted, but I got the old "404" error code. Perhaps it is just a timing thing. I'll try it again.

RichardSM wrote:

Hi Linda on the digital photography school. Com I get the 404 error page no longer exists?

Sorry, I included a colon that shouldn't be there. Just remove that from the end of the address.

Also, the correction is on page 2 of this topic along with another article markngolf posted, if you want to check out that one. Thanks!

Ched49 Loc: Pittsburgh, Pa.

GregWCIL wrote:

I think you are missing the advantage of ETTR. It is to capture the most photons so when you post process you get even deeper color depth and less noise. Its about maximizing the signal to noise ratio. One of the negative trade-offs is often a slower shutter speed or wider aperture which may limit what you can practically do.
Yes, I agree with you wanting to end up slightly darker after post-processing.

Yes I understand what you are saying, I don't post process unless I absolutely have to. I guess it's a matter of knowing the limits of your camera and doing your best to get the shot right the first time.

Bill Hancock Loc: Wausau, WI

Linda, I tried going to the website you recommended but got an error 404, web page has been moved or deleted. I was looking forward to reading the article. You always give good information, thought you might like to know it is not there anymore. Thanks.

Linda From Maine Loc: Yakima, Washington

Bill Hancock wrote:

Linda, I tried going to the website you recommended but got an error 404, web page has been moved or deleted. I was looking forward to reading the article. You always give good information, thought you might like to know it is not there anymore. Thanks.

LOL, you are the 4th person to mention and this is the 3rd time I've posted the correction information

I included a colon that shouldn't be there. Just remove that from the end of the address.

Also, the correction is on page 2 of this topic along with another article markngolf posted, if you want to check out that one.

I promise it will never happen again!

frankraney Loc: Clovis, Ca.

Linda From Maine wrote:

That seems to be the key point to the whole exercise.

From https://digital-photography-school.com/exposing-to-the-right/:
The resulting file, when processed back to the correct exposure, will contain more tonal information and less noise in the shadow areas, maximising your image quality.

Here is the link that works

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

Good article by the way.

I removed the colon on the end.

RichardSM Loc: Back in Texas

Linda From Maine wrote:

Sorry, I included a colon that shouldn't be there. Just remove that from the end of the address.

Also, the correction is on page 2 of this topic along with another article markngolf posted, if you want to check out that one. Thanks!

Thank you Linda for the quick response and correction. I enjoy and value your comments and input here on the UHH. You are a talented and wise lady.

tomcat

selmslie wrote:

For properly lit night sports you should be seeing... (show quote)

I'll send you a raw file if you wish. You can see first hand what I'm facing. Can I send it PM to you without having to reduce the original raw file size? NO way will you ever shoot an ISO of 800 at a shutter of 1/1250 in this place.

tdekany Loc: Oregon

Ched49 wrote:

Yes I understand what you are saying, I don't post process unless I absolutely have to. I guess it's a matter of knowing the limits of your camera and doing your best to get the shot right the first time.

I don’t think that you understand post processing. We all try to get the shot right in camera the first time. While I don’t know what you take pictures of, usually the camera can’t record all the dynamic range in camera. That is when post processing comes into the picture.

All the great ones post processed. And still do. There is a reason why. Not taking advantage of the technology doesn’t make you a better photographer, I hope you realize that.

TriX Loc: Raleigh, NC

selmslie wrote:

That would be an EV of 6 or 5 - only 3-4 stops below a properly lit arena.

Indeed, and 4 stops is the difference between ISO 800 and ISO 12,800.

frankraney Loc: Clovis, Ca.

Ched49 wrote:

Yes I understand what you are saying, I don't post process unless I absolutely have to. I guess it's a matter of knowing the limits of your camera and doing your best to get the shot right the first time.

Ansel Adams, one of the best, post processed, in the dark room.

Even the one you thought you got right in camera can be made better, if it had enough data in the file. The raw one that is. And to get the most data, you need to USE ETTR.

The folks here who are telling you this are trying to help you get better products in the end....listen, I did. I was not aware of ETTR and raw before coming here. IT WORKS.

what I tell people that are adamantly against raw, sell your camera and get a point and shoot. I probably should not say that because like me and others, they can and eventually might change their mind, and when they do, they say "wow, what a difference".

If you have a good comp but just didn't quite get it right in camera, you can correct it if you shoot raw. Even if you get it right in camera, it might be able to be made better, or have a little different look.

Ansel took photos that a lot of people might have thrown out, and turned them into masterpieces.

TriX Loc: Raleigh, NC

frankraney wrote:

Ansel Adams, one of the best, post processed, in t... (show quote)

👍👍