Exposing to the right (Page 9): I just shot two images this afternoon in the rain, so they are low contrast. # 2613 was ETTL at ISO base 200 and 2613-1 was PP in LR, with +3 exposure.

tomcat

tomcat wrote:

Sorry, I knew that...I've just gone brain dead over this whole ETTR deal and I totally forget that this is accomplished at base ISO....So as we discussed earlier, I just don't have enough light to pull this off... But I have noticed that when I do bump up the ISO really high to around 52000, some of the girls looks like newborn speckled pups.

I just shot two images this afternoon in the rain, so they are low contrast. # 2613 was ETTL at ISO base 200 and 2613-1 was PP in LR, with +3 exposure. #2609 was ETTR at ISO 1600 and 2609-1 was PP processed in LR at -1 exposure. I can see the increased grain/noise in the image 2609 ETTR because it was shot at higher ISO. I could not adjust the shutter speed any lower than 1/125 and still hand hold so the only recourse I had to push the histogram to the right was to increase the ISO. I realize this may not be exactly the point, but I did this to show the potential increase in noise from the higher ISO, which everyone knows about anyway. Just something to do on a rainy afternoon.

2609-1 LR -1 exposure
2609-1 LR -1 exposure...

(Download)

Attached file:
(Download)

2613 LR +3 exposure
2613 LR +3 exposure...

(Download)

2613 original ETTL
Attached file:
(Download)

2609 original ETTR
Attached file:
(Download)

a6k Loc: Detroit & Sanibel

tdekany wrote:

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.

I don't understand this part: .."usually the camera can’t record all the dynamic range in camera. That is when post processing comes into the picture"".

The DR you have to work with is what is in the file. There is no post processor that can change that. PP can add or subtract contrast, do tricks that it calls HDR, etc. But what your sensor captured and hopefully saved in a raw file, well that's all you get. So in the end PP can match the DR of the raw data to the DR of the output and often make it look better. It can change the brightness of areas of the image and certainly make it look a lot different.

selmslie Loc: Fernandina Beach, FL, USA

TriX wrote:

Q br br Just to clarify the difference between ad... (show quote)

Apparently Canon does something peculiar between whole stop ISO increments - 100, 200, 400... That means that the in-between ISO settings (125, 160, 250, 320, etc.) are not really proportional. This seems to stop at some point with everything smoothing out. It makes for some jagged DR curves.

Nikon and Sony (maybe everyone else) do it more predictably.

jcboy3

gunflint wrote:

For my daytime exposures I have been attempting to always expose to the right and watching the histogram as to not clip any whites or blacks. It does seem to help with the dynamic range.

My question is (and I will do some tests myself) does this "rule" apply for night photography such as city lights after dark? Any tips from those with experience at this is appreciated!

Looking at the histogram means you are not doing ETTR correctly. You actually want to blow highlights as reflected by the histogram. The reason is that RAW files have more headroom than the converted JPG files. The purpose of ETTR is to take advantage of that, by increasing exposure to compensate. How much headroom is available depends on the camera and metering system. So you should take a series of exposures at different exposure compensation, and a series of different lighting situations, and determine how much headroom your camera actually has. Then you can use that information to increase exposure.

The JPG previews (and histogram) will show blown highlights, but when processing the RAW files those highlights can be recovered. This increased exposure leads to lower noise and increased dynamic range (because darks are not crushed).

selmslie Loc: Fernandina Beach, FL, USA

tomcat wrote:

I just shot two images this afternoon in the rain,... (show quote)

One was 1/125 @ ISO 1600 and the other 1/200 @ ISO 200. The first one should actually have less noise but you are changing two variables at once - not a good test.

I can't locate it at the moment but I posted an experiment where I varied only the ISO (used the same aperture and shutter speed) followed by a change in Exposure during post processing. I varied the ISO from 100 to 800 in one step increments and the PP exposure adjustment from +2 to -2. There was no visible difference in noise but eventually the highlights blew out at the highest ISO.

selmslie Loc: Fernandina Beach, FL, USA

jcboy3 wrote:

... The purpose of ETTR is to take advantage of that, by increasing exposure to compensate. How much headroom is available depends on the camera and metering system. ....

Not quite. With ETTR you don't encroach on the "headroom" level. You get close to blowing the JPEG highlights without actually going to far.

But you use the headroom with EBTR (expose beyond the right). The JPEG highlights will be blown but, if you don't go too far, the raw file will be OK.

And the width of the headroom is debatable. I have found it to be about one stop for my three cameras (A7 II, Df and D610) by testing with blinkies and RawDigger. You may find something different with a Canon or other brand but it will probably be close to what I found.

I deliberately avoid using all of the headroom just to be safe.

TriX Loc: Raleigh, NC

selmslie wrote:

Not quite. With ETTR you don't encroach on the "headroom" level. You get close to blowing the JPEG highlights without actually going to far.

But you use the headroom with EBTR (expose beyond the right). The JPEG highlights will be blown but, if you don't go too far, the raw file will be OK...

That’s a good point that I was just thinking of as well. If you insist on shooting JPEG (and the generated histogram is accurate), then ETTR does not seem to be an applicable strategy.

jcboy3

TriX wrote:

That’s a good point that I was just thinking of as well. If you insist on shooting JPEG (and the generated histogram is accurate), then ETTR does not seem to be an applicable strategy.

The generated histogram is rarely accurate. Most cameras do not account for the red channel in the histogram, so you can blow out red without noticing. Easy to test; shoot a red target and see what the histogram does.

a6k Loc: Detroit & Sanibel

a6k wrote:

I don't understand this part: I .."usually t... (show quote)

Oops, I omitted consideration of the few high-end cameras that have recently come to market which take multiple exposures with "shift" and then let you PP to merge them. And the HDR multiple exposures can do something similar but also need PP. Is that what you meant?

selmslie Loc: Fernandina Beach, FL, USA

selmslie wrote:

... I posted an experiment where I varied only the ISO (used the same aperture and shutter speed) followed by a change in Exposure during post processing.

I found the threads where I posted my experiments here and in What is the Camera's Dynamic Range? - Part 2. What they show is that there is very little visible difference between applying the gain in the camera (by changing the ISO) and changing the gain later during post processing by moving the Exposure slider.

It does not show that they are identical. They should not be.

The camera's ISO affects the conversion from the sensor's signal to the binary raw file values - it multiplies the analog signal by a constant and creates a binary integer value.

The Exposure slider takes the binary integer values recorded in the raw file and multiplies them by a constant in addition to multiplying them by some factor that will convert the arithmetic progression recorded in the raw file into a logarithmic value to be stored in the JPEG or TIFF. There must be a difference in what it does with noise. But the bottom line is, can we see it?

In the higher tones, we probably cannot tell the difference because the numeric values are in the thousands. It's in the lower (darker) values that we should be able to see a difference because the raw binary integer values are very small. But even then, we have to pixel peep a scene with a wide DR before we can see the difference.

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

selmslie wrote:

I have found that the blinkies are the simplest way to predict where the raw file is going to blow out. I have only tested from ISO 100 through 800 because I hardly ever go above that level.

Better yet, on my A7 II, I can see the blinkies (Zebra highlight warnings) before I trip the shutter. That beats the trial and error method I have to use with my Df and D610.

I'm not doing any more testing for my own benefit. It's just to illustrate the principles to others.

Low contrast with average dynamic range - dark furry animal under a bush. Even the camera will try to do ETTR without you doing anything. It certainly won't expose the scene at Zones 2-5.

The point of ETTR is to recognize at what point you will overdo it. You are arguing semantics at this point - we do the same thing.

The cure was simply to illustrate how to fix a problem if you have one. It goes without saying that getting the correct exposure is better than trying to fix a bad one. But before sending the file to the recycle bin, it may make sense to try and fix it if it is a one-of-a-kind image.

As far as adjusting the exposure slider - it is not exactly linear in Lightroom, and I have found that it behaves somewhat similarly in Capture One and DXO - it is even more pronounced if you have introduced other tone adjustments, btw. Here is an explanation:

https://lightroomkillertips.com/lightroom-exposure-vs-brightness/

I use blinkies and histogram, but rely on the zebra in my Sony. Like I said - we are doing the same thing - just using different terms to do the same thing.

frankraney Loc: Clovis, Ca.

anotherview wrote:

Thanks for compliment and critique. Yes, maybe I ... (show quote)

frankraney Loc: Clovis, Ca.

anotherview wrote:

ETTR works to enrich the file content of a photogr... (show quote)

re-read my post. I do use ETTR. This post was in response to try to get him to use it.

anotherview Loc: California

I downloaded the image and tweaked it in ACR, except for noise reduction. In PS CC, I detected a tad bit of noise in blue sky, easily correctable, although not really necessary.

The clouds were not blown out at all.

The photographer may've used ETTR or something close to it for the exposure.

Delderby wrote:

I see no blown clouds

AndyH Loc: Massachusetts and New Hampshire

Gene51 wrote:

I use blinkies and histogram, but rely on the zebra in my Sony. Like I said - we are doing the same thing - just using different terms to do the same thing.

I use blinkies and generally back off one full stop, at least when I'm in a hurry. When I have time and the subject isn't moving, I'll look at the histogram and adjust accordingly. Thank you for pointing me in this direction.

Andy