gessman Loc: Colorado

gessman Loc: Colorado

Thank you sir. More good info.

gessman Loc: Colorado

Yes, and that's an excellent analogy and I appreciate it.

gessman Loc: Colorado

I got it. Thanks.

gessman Loc: Colorado

I understand. Here's all he said: "When I shoot white birds in flight (example would be Snowy Egret) and to get detail in the feathers I shoot Raw and underexpose by at least 1 to 3 stops to get feather detail. Anything over exposed would blow out all the detail."

It looks like he didn't specify his metering method so I suppose one could surmise that would be me jumping to conclusions. You can see what he allowed us to know about his technique. I made a guess that he would meter on the bird since the bird seemed to be his primary target and the detail in the feathers was an expressed important concern. Why would he meter on something else when his only concern was the appearance of the bird. Of course he may have metered on a grey card, north sky, grass, dirt, his hand, and he didn't say. As for how the bird looks, I had a look at his Photo Gallery posts but didn't find any white birds posted anywhere. Do you reckon he just set me up so I would look stupid and you could point it out to me?

gessman Loc: Colorado

Well sir, I wouldn't have minded you posting it here. I don't think this can go on too much longer and a change of direction might even have been good. I anxiously await an opportunity to stop this and get on over there and have a look at the thread you started. Thanks for posting the url here.

CHG_CANON Loc: the Windy City

No point in guessing, not by me for sure ...

gessman Loc: Colorado

I have been known to be borderline dyslexic at times right before a nap and it is possible that I can get under- and over- exposed confused but what I think I saw that sent me to guessing was his emphasis on the bird and the push to have detail so I figured he metered on the bird and then chose to underexpose by 2 stops, just the opposite of what Gene51, rmarlyz, and others have said they'd do which is to overexpose by a stop or two so it just looked to me like he was going 180* in the wrong direction. I have seen a few pictures by him and he does a good job but then there's no white birds to look at so he's the only one who knows what that looks like. What that made me think at first glance is that there's at least 3 or 4 notches of latitude between where a white bird can fit nicely without losing the detail.

That's the kind of stuff that has me confused - when experts disagree and can't seem to do anything but argue but then along comes this guy who says he has +1.5 dialed in permanently and only the aspects of the exposure triangle change and intentional overexposure, whatever you choose to call it, is built in with the +1.5 perpetual and everybody gets good pictures and happiness abounds throughout the land. At this point it just makes me seriously wonder what all the dogmatism and argument is about and anxious to do some experiments to see what my truth is. At the very least, to me, it leaves ample room for some doubt about some of the hard lines that we see taken when it comes to technique. You know - if you don't do it this way you won't be successful...

CHG_CANON Loc: the Windy City

If you fill in the unsaid gaps with your own words / opinions, you're going to have a hard time sorting out the facts of a discussion of differences. Even if you heard this guy 100% accurate with his +1.5 reference, you didn't have / retain a word about what he was shooting and then you just filled-in this unknown with your own assumptions. We all do it, so I'm not trying to come down hard on you as if we don't all. But, developing your own solid base of what works and the details of why will help you / anyone value judge the potential of ideas that differ from your own in-depth understanding. A basic "can I see what you're talking about" can also many times cut to the heart of the matter, if there should be something real behind the internet words. The discrepancy may be nothing more than an inaccuracy of imprecise words rather than purposefully pushing bunk.

PierreD

Thanks for this comment, Anotherview! Isn't it exactly how ETTR should be used most of the time: overexposed if necessary, and until the right end of the histogram touches the right vertical axis, but without exceeding it, or just barely so? This, of course, means that there is no fixed amount of overexposing, as this amount with always depend on the scene being photographed.

Timmers Loc: San Antonio Texas.

Gessman you have discovered a person who is truly living is the idea of 'Being Digital'. It in fact sits clearly in a deep understanding of the best options.

Raw has it's place in what has emerged as Chaos Theory. his working ideas is to ensure that the white will hold all the detail needed to manipulate the image in post.

Digression with a touch of history. In the days of film photography (analogue?) the image was 'expose for the SHADOWS and DEVLOPE for the highlights' This of course worked well.

The champion of this approach was extolled by Ansel Adams. Counter to this was the photographer William Mortenson. His position was that one should expose for the highlights and the shadows would be taken care of. His position was perfectly tenable if not a bit self serving. He did studio photography with artificial light and in fact his approach was excellent for his purposes, in that one established a good exposure of film in a studio and then made efforts to see that where shadow detail was needed and wanted it was taken care of with the proper use of studio lighting.

Of the two approaches Adams was the better and more realistic for the use of film.

The problem today is that there is idiotic hold over to film (analogue) based technology. It has caused so many to just not 'get' digital photography. Today, regardless of shooting jpegs or Raw files the technology demands that you MUST "Expose for the highlights and the shadows will take care of themselves" Bill Mortenson style quote. I will go further, any photographer with any base line grasp of digital technology MUST shoot RAW files, of course that photographer (ME) may also shoot and store a select jpeg along with the RAW file, but not shooting a RAW file means that you as a photographer have no understanding of Being Digital. The RAW file ensures options for the future that the jpeg can and will never give you options for the future.

If you don't understand that a RAW file is the encoded information that allows you to engage chaos Theory tomorrow or into the future then it is high time you wake up and engage the modern world. No? Then why are you shooting digital works, go back to the old analogue jpeg of yester year and have in fact the film version of a RAW file. Yes film contains such a wealth of information that it is truly a RAW file, it is just that silver gelatin, chemicals and light through an enlarger is sooooo kool, but it is like racing a jet plane from London to Tokyo, done before you start and loose.

I know, harsh, but true.

Digital photography is not just the new way to do photography, it is so far beyond the old analogue approach that there is no way to understand this till you can begin to see with digital eyes and ears.

gessman Loc: Colorado

You're right - I did do a little "what-ifing." I mostly set out to play a little "devil's advocate" to see what others thought was going on and got drawn further into it than I intended to go when pressed for details I don't have. I just tried to "google" that phrase and nothing came up. One thing I did find interesting was on a Canon site talking about exposure compensation. The article accompanied by a side-by-side pictures of a stuffed rabbit toy in both. One side was mostly all white inside the box with good detail. The other is pretty dark grey. The accompanying text said, "...if you have a white subject with good detail you can meter on the white and dial in +1.5 to +2 you will have a good exposure and you will retain the detail in the subject. Then it said that if you meter on the dark one, which looks to be close to the shade of a grey card, and dial in -1.5 to -2 you will retain the same level of detail. Sounds like billnikon might have metered the dark side but of course, I'm just guessing again. You can find that about 2/3rds down the page at:
https://cpn.canon-europe.com/content/education/infobank/exposure_settings/exposure_compensation.do

CHG_CANON Loc: the Windy City

Yes, that's what most of us are saying: an absolute value, expressed in x.x over (or under) 0 is likely not accurate nor universally applicable. Rather, the photographer should develop their initial exposure parameters based on their needs for a fast (or slow) shutter speed and a wider or narrow aperture, then adjust the ISO and review the meter in the view finder and / or the results on the histogram looking at highlight warnings. Meter how and where you want, based on your own preferred mode. If you've developed detailed experience for your model on how much over the right side you can push the histogram, so much the better for your individual photography.

gessman's reference above to the Canon demonstration presents maybe a use of this absolute idea, though still presented as a range. The assumption is a P / S / T shooting mode and spot metering so EC can be applied at a relatively standard amount for a given camera assuming the metering is accurate and taken always on the brightest (or darkest) aspect of the image. gessman's author that started this thread might be using this exact scenario if we adjust the story to fit this approach.

gessman Loc: Colorado

So that's what I've found. I've been feeling most of the day like I'm the only person to actually see Sasquatch. I will certainly accept the idea of Chaos Theory. I've heard the term being bantered around but haven't bothered to delve into the significance. Perhaps I will now. I see that it embodies a section set aside as Chaos Theory Photography, found with Google. With a quick glance through some of what I saw, I will admit that I may not get the theory part but I sure see the chaos. I appreciate the enlightenment you bring.

Are you by chance saying that what I heard was likely to be a serious photographer who has a permanent +1.5 exposure compensation dialed into his camera(s) and regardless of the scene or how much or how little white is present or not, he always allows for white being present or not with the +1.5 and just operates his camera as though it was part of what should have been included in his camera when it was manufactured but wasn't? The consensus here in uhh seems to be that such a move would be disastrous. I'm not convinced either way but I'm going to test it out.

Since it would presumably lead to the same EV setting and retain whites and detail, it makes me wonder then that if a person wanted to dial in +1.5 to +2 it would be done by using a white card and dialing +1.5 or using a grey card and setting a -1.5 to -2 underexposure either of which should still offer him white whites and a majority or all of whatever detail is present in his subject? If that's the case, it would sure simplify metering, as I see it. The downside is that it would force everyone away from shooting in manual unless it becomes more convenient to shoot utilizing auto iso as the cameras create increasingly less noise in the near future.

Are you thinking that we may come to a point in the future when we will have some manner of auto post processing machine similar to the film developing/printing machines that will be able to reach back in time and pull up detail in digital images that predated the invention of the machine, kinda like we're doing with the growing dna data banks for all different kinds of investigative reasons? I sure would like such a machine now, please. I'm scaring myself here. I'm just an old geezer trying to slowly surrender over here. I'm not sure I can take the excitement.

Thanks for jumping into the thread with your comments, Timmers. You've given me something new to spend some time looking at if I ever get to be smart enough to not start new threads in this section of uhh using all my spare time logged in. By the way, welcome to uhh. I see you joined up in December '18. You seem to be bringing a form of chaos of your own with your posts. Don't let yourself get cornered by your subjects.

anotherview Loc: California

Re your concern: "I don't think I can get the bright tone from an image that is shot underexposed."

In Adobe Camera Raw, you can use the Targeted Adjustment Tool in conjunction with the HSL Adjustments panel to to brighten colors that appear underexposed. HSL stands for "Hue, Saturation, and Luminance."

Press the T key to bring up the TAT. The cursor will change to a crosshairs and a small circle with a dot in the middle of it.

In the HSL panel, select the Luminance tab.

Place the TAT cursor on an image color area you want to brighten.

While holding down the left button of the mouse, drag the TAT cursor to the right. The selected color will brighten.

If the color looks washed out, then first try selecting the Saturation tab. Reset the Luminance adjustment.
Place the TAT cursor over this color and drag the mouse to the right. This color will saturate more.

Note that getting a color to look natural in relation to the rest of the image may take some further tweaking between Saturation and Luminance. Your eye will tell you the right degree of adjustment.

I hope this suggestion helps.