gessman Loc: Colorado

Thanks.

gessman Loc: Colorado

So that would explain billnikon's comment about retaining detail when shooting white bif at -1. Ok. I think I'm starting to get it if this impending nap don't blow it all out. As you can see, I didn't heed your admonishment to pay better attention to what I read.

gessman Loc: Colorado

gessman Loc: Colorado

gessman Loc: Colorado

Brightness is something that I deem to be important too. Thanks for that observation.

gessman Loc: Colorado

I'm glad you're getting clarity 'cause I'm getting confusion.

srt101fan

Again, it depends on the metering mode. If his white egret is against a dark background, and he meters the WHOLE scene, the white areas might well be overexposed if he doesn't reduce the exposure from what the meter tells him.

CHG_CANON Loc: the Windy City

It's not apples to apples and even harder to "see" what one means from an partial anecdote about exposure method. What did he meter on, the spot of the white of the bird and underexposed that? Or, the entire scene of which the bird was a percentage and underexposed from that metering?

Does the person saying to underexpose mean that they need to process or don't desire to process the image? Or, does it mean they have to increase the exposure in post to get back to a white bird with feather details? If / when processed, what do the shadows and image noise look like in that processed image? Have they tried exposing for the highlights and kept the brightest spots in the image at or just below where the highlights blow? When processed to completion, how does that image compare?

Again, you can't compare one person's high-level description of their method to another's without both seeing the results and analyzing / understanding the different methods used to create each result. Otherwise, you simply have the run of the mill 10-page UHH thread ...

gessman Loc: Colorado

Thanks, selmsie. I appreciate you doing that.

gessman Loc: Colorado

Thanks!

rmalarz Loc: Tempe, Arizona

Exactly!!! However, as with film to determine the amount of development time to achieve the necessary values, digital requires controlled testing to determine one's camera's capabilities. Once that is done, there is no worry about blowing highlights.
--Bob

gessman Loc: Colorado

Thanks for the reply. Sorry for the sloppy words regarding "right ." I meant "right" as you described it here: "...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 think that paraphrases what Gene51 said he does and it seems to raise the question of either leaving something on the table either when shooting or doing post and it made me wonder if you don't "get it right" in the camera what are the chances you can make it right in post and where are the boundaries where that's no longer possible, how many stops of latitude is available, if that's a fair question.

Good analogy! I may have simply misunderstood his intended message. It could have been prefaced with a comment about shooting a certain limited range of subject matter in a stable environment and I just didn't pick up on it. As I said, the comment that stuck with me didn't have much of an impact on me when I read it but it kept coming to the forefront. I'm probably just not thinking broadly enough about the whole thing. I probably don't need to state the obvious which is that I'm not all that serious a student of photography and don't devote that much time to it but some things just seem to be in conflict now and then. That is probably due to what you said about the advent of all the different ways people do things within the realm. Sometimes it's hard for me to accept that because it seems to offer an inadequate explanation for why some are so good and others not so much.

I tend to equate the good ones with those who know what they're doing and do it right, you know? Maybe that's an oversimplification since there is so much variance with different training, devotion, motivation, equipment, and the ready availability of comparable and differing subject matter. Regardless of training, skill, talent, devotion, and equipment it's just pretty stinkin' hard to get a majestic snow capped mountain range shot in northwest Texas.

Thanks for taking your time on the detailed response. I do appreciate it as well as what you observably do on a daily basis which is to share a lot of good information. You certainly know your stuff and will likely never come to know what the true value what you share is to many people.

rmalarz Loc: Tempe, Arizona

I just posted Another ETTR Discussion to avoid clouding this conversation. Instead of a lot of theoretical discourses, I simply posted photographs done with the technique.
https://www.uglyhedgehog.com/t-573233-1.html
--Bob

CHG_CANON Loc: the Windy City

I might put together something similar to Bob's white bird on dark background, above. I had one example Ibis in my edit queue this afternoon that maybe will work as an example. A similar post from the past that tried for 'ETTR in Practice' can be found at: https://www.uglyhedgehog.com/t-567344-1.html

gessman Loc: Colorado

Thank you. Good information. Photography seems to be one of those things that, like Chg_Canon said, most of us work out our own methods but since most of us do it alone, I'm wondering if many of us, having worked out our own methods, are not doing pretty much the same thing. Two days ago, after this came up, I set my Sony a6500 at +1.5 and took some shots inside my home which is pretty dark, using different meter modes and metering with spot on the brightest parts of the walls around the room. The images look pretty good on the lcd, although a bit light. I haven't processed them yet to see exactly what I got and whether or not I can pull up all the detail and tonal values in the room. I'm going to experiment some more outside in different light and see what I come up with.