anotherview Loc: California

Agree: "However, with modern cameras it's safer to underexpose a little than to overexpose and risk blowing the highlights. If you don't know what you are doing, ETTR is not a safe practice."

CHG_CANON Loc: the Windy City

As has been said so many many times that it starts to get tiring to say it again: if you (a) shoot in raw and (b) experiment with your specific camera and your PP skills, you can learn where the limit exists for exposing to the right for an image verses the camera meter and still retain relevant highlights that can be recovered in post. That limit can be anywhere from +1 to +3 over the meter's 0-mark, depending on the camera and the situation. A white ibis in sun may be -1, depending on your metering mode. The exact value does depend in the situation and not just a global +1 expectation. The result of ETTR is you have more details in the digital file for both shadows and highlights without losing all details in the highlights. You're going to edit your RAW file regardless, so seek to maximize the data / details available.

via the lens Loc: Northern California, near Yosemite NP

Ansel did not meter for highlights, whites, he metered for shadows because that is what worked for film, not digital.

via the lens Loc: Northern California, near Yosemite NP

ETTR is not about overexposing, it is about exposing correctly for digital images taken in RAW. When shooting JPEG one would need to be very cautious with the highlights.

jeep_daddy Loc: Prescott AZ

In many cases I do expose to the right using EC about +2/3 of a stop. But when I do sunsets or sunrises I go -2/3 to -1 stop. It brings out the colors. I also use a minus EC or EV whatever you want to call it when I do colorful scenes with a lot of flowers etc.

via the lens Loc: Northern California, near Yosemite NP

And, "another view" on the subject. I have noticed, or so it seems, that often when my image has been taken more toward the "dark side," that the image lacks the very bright tone that some of my other images have that are taken more on the "light side." It seems to me that jpg images also have this darker tone. The darker tone is fine with some images but not for those images when I want to say "bright," and "happy," and give it a lighter feeling. I don't think I can get the bright tone from an image that is shot underexposed. But, then again, I could, of course, be wrong.

gessman Loc: Colorado

...we seem to have some opposing sides going on here. If that's the case it would seem to raise a question which would be, roughly, what is the amount of exposure adjustment latitude available in a Raw file to allow pulling up the desired detail in both the highlights and shadows, 1, 2, 3 stops or more or less? I've never had a reason to check that out.

In other words is there really "dead on" exposure and is it a necessity to nail it just to avoid having to move a couple of sliders a notch or two in adjusting a Raw file? I get the desire for assurance inherent in treating each exposure individually but is it even possible to pull everything together in post, and I ask that well aware that I may be committing heresay. If not then why bother with post and Raw? Could the guy possibly get away with what i got from what he said he's doing by just getting "close enough" to stay within the Raw latitude of adjustment margins? I know there's some eyes rollin' about right now and I apologize for taking up so much time here.

There's a lot of talk about starting off with a "dumbed down" or unadjusted Raw file that MUST be adjusted in post but then some are saying that exposure must be "right in the camera" in order to have the desired detail in the final adjusted image. That sounds like a contradiction to this old uneducated farm boy from Arkansas. I'm convinced it's just a matter of me not understanding the finer points and I'm sure somebody will bail me out here on this and I'd like to thank 'em in advance.

...and Bipod, please don't pull your hair out. I'll eventually shut up and go away.

RRS Loc: Not sure

After reading all of the posts it has really made me think, thanks! I do understand ETTR/ETTL and how it's supposed to work. I see many photographers setting everything up, shooting in manual, controlling the shutter speed to freeze action, aperture for depth of field, metering off the brightest spot they want to retain detail in and only to end with "I'm shooting auto ISO". To me this would be like mixing all the ingredients to bake a cake and then forgetting to put it in the oven. I would think that a constant ETTR or ETTL could be used if your meter was found to be off by diligent testing and some cameras do have an adjustment to fix that. All of my light meters also have an adjustment to set the meter. Back to why a photographer is hired, it's not the camera but his/her knowledge of how to use it.

selmslie Loc: Fernandina Beach, FL, USA

I looked at it using RawDigger.

Most cameras and meters place middle gray (Zone V) between a 14-bit raw value of 1000 and 2000. That puts Zone VI at 2000-4000, Zone VII at 4000-8000 (where the histogram reaches the end of the display for JPEG) and Zone XIII between 8000 and 16000 (the upper limit for the raw file).

These values are not precise but close enough for most cameras. There is no Zone IX for digital raw.

If you have an older 12-bit raw camera, the upper limit for raw and JPEG are at a value of about 4000. You cannot recover highlights because with 12-bit raw there is no Zone VIII. Zone VII is the limit.

Notorious T.O.D. Loc: Harrisburg, North Carolina

I have had some images that were mistakenly shot 2-3 stops underexposed and I was able to pp them to get reasonable images. Certainly not as good as could have been achieved with a properly exposed RAW file. I don't think I would generally try to underexpose on purpose. Sometimes conditions can force one to do it though. It can come down to getting a shot or nothing at all.

I thought that jpeg was 8 bit and if you have a 12 or 14 bit camera you should have more data than a jpeg file if I understand what is being said. I believe that shooting ETTR is only really of best value if you are shooting at or close to base ISO, which for my camera is ISO 100.

CHG_CANON Loc: the Windy City

Gessman, do you mean "right" as in directionally right on the histogram / right of the 0-mark on the meter? Or, do you mean "right" as in "correct" with minimal adjustments in post beyond the RAW to JPEG conversion and application of many of the same defaults as the camera would have applied?

I'm not big on analogies, but imagine a flawless block of white marble the great masters would seek for use for their sculptures of Venus, Apollo and the group. The potential of the final result resides in that rock, but also in the sculpting tools and in the imagination of their mind. A skilled artist / craftsman should be able to harvest a great result out of any marble suitable for the purpose, but some inputs will be better for the purpose than others. The ETTR approach is intended to generate maximum data into a RAW file for that similar crafting process during post.

Everyone has different tastes for the end result as well as the effort needed to achieve their own definition of the correct result. An internet message board is not the most practical method to show an example of the end-result differences from an image at "normal" exposure vs the processed results of an ETTR RAW image, particularly given the differences in software tools, individual editing skill, and the capabilities of all the different camera models. Many newer high-end Nikon models seem to have invalidated the limitations of upping the brightness in post, a detrimental approach that still applies to older Nikon models as well as most other camera brands.

Your "pro" that started this discussion has found an approach that maximizes their unique combination of camera, software and skill. They may have misstated the universal aspects of their approach or you may have misheard / misunderstood. Guessing what they meant from our remote position is even more problematic, although many of us subscribe to the general ETTR idea.

cameraf4 Loc: Delaware

True, but Ansel was the author of the Zone System that tells us how certain tones should photograph. Remember, he was working with negatives. On a neg, blacks are the clear areas that can lose detail completely if one is not careful.

rcarol

From the days of film and the zone system, the rule was to expose for the shadows and develop for the highlights. With digital photography, it is just the opposite. Expose for the highlights and post process for the shadows. I often will use spot metering on my camera and meter the brightest part of the scene and then place it in the appropriate zone. However, it would be simpler to meter the brightest portion of the scene and open up 1.5 or 2.0 stops. That would ensure that the highlights were not blown out.

rcarol

😊😊

jackm1943 Loc: Omaha, Nebraska

I haven't read any of the comments because I know that by page 3 they have usually gone completely off track. But yes, this would be ETTR provided nothing is blown out. I have found that with my camera (Canon 6D2), +1.5 is typically how far I can go without blowing out highlights. That can change from scene to scene so recently I have been trying to bracket around ETTR hoping to get one useable image to work with. This, of course, is for scenic type shots with the camera on a tripod.

Now, I'll read other's comments.