jackm1943 Loc: Omaha, Nebraska

I still have my classic Pentax spot meter from my 4x5 b & w days. Think I'll dig that thing out of my 4x5 backpack and try it out for measuring the bright spot for ETTR purposes. Some possible advantages are 1) that it probably measures a much smaller spot (1 degree) than the camera's spot, 2) it would avoid specular highlights which drive the camera's meter nuts, and 3) it might actually be easier than fussing with the histogram in Live View.

rmalarz Loc: Tempe, Arizona

Andy, the in-camera blinkies are created by the in-camera jpg. So, forget the blinkies. The RAW file can contain quite a bit more data than the in-camera jpg. The concept is to push additional exposure until you can't adjust the RAW image in, I use ACR, in the RAW processor. At that point you've gone too far.

So, let's say you push your additional exposure 4 stops past what the meter indicates would be a perfect exposure. In ACR, that photo can be brought back with the Exposure slider to render an accurate image to start editing. However, let's say a 4-1/2 stops the image just can't come close to being correct using the Exposure slider in ACR. An additional 4 stops becomes the limit of additional exposure you could use with that particular camera.

If you were to see the in-camera jpg with my exposure, there are blinkies all over the place. I just ignore them, as I'm assured of what my camera will handle through testing.
--Bob

Bipod

In the words of Patti Smith, "My ex-boyfriend was a mixed-up guy."

selmslie Loc: Fernandina Beach, FL, USA

It depends on what you consider to be “a lot more”. It’s only about one additional stop.

AndyH Loc: Massachusetts and New Hampshire

Okay. Best explanation I’ve seen.

I was trying to set the overexposure trial point based on blinkies, but that will likely be way under the tolerance level I can attain.

So, in shooting, after trials, I just need to know how far I can push “overexposure” when I meter for the highlights. My unscientific blinkie-based trials left me believing I had about 2 1/3 stops, but I probably have more.

Thanks! Always something new to learn, and you are most generous with your help.

Andy

Bipod

It's true that: "expose for shadows and develop for highlights" is the general rule with B&W print film
(but color slide film is a whole different animal!), and "expose for highlights and process for shadows"
is the rule for digital.

But this is not the Zone System (devised by Ansel Adams and Fred Archer, and later promoted by
Minor White, Fred Picker, etc). The Zone System rule is use exposure and development in combintaion
to place the tones to correspond to your visualization.

In both film and digital, some misakes in exposure can be corrected later, but some can't. That's where
theory comes in. Adams wasn't wrong when he taught people theory. He knew what he was doing.

Digital cameras are not any better at reading minds than film cameras were. Nor has anyone come up with
a software algorithm to determine what "looks good". That is and will always be the photographers job.

None of the photos that Bob posted are of truly high contrast. Try Death Valley on a sunny day.

40 years of photographing in the desert (Arizona, Nevada and California) has taught me the meaning
of "high contrast scene". Maybe this debate comes down to where you live and work.

No camera ever devised by man can capture all the stops of contrast that exist in nature. So you landscape
photographers had better be careful out there.

Robert Mapplethorpe was strictly a studio photographer. He didn't have to deal with the sun.

There is a myth that digital sensors have megagobs of dyanmic range. In truth, the image capture device
with the most dynamic range is good B&W print film. Nikon claims 14.7 stops but I've seen more than that
routinely in B&W film negatives using a densiometer.

Of course, you have to scan the negative to get access to all that dyanmic range -- which is exactly what
photographers such as Beth Moon do. Zone System photographers would use pull processing on such
films to compress he dynamic range to make the negative printable, so older books do not talk about
15 or 16 stops of dyanmic range (except book son senisometry). But it's there is you want it.

By scanning a negative and then printing on an a transparency, Ms. Moon is able to record on film and
then contact print on platinum paper. There are now many, many ways to skin a cat.

Rules-of-thumb limit a photographer to the beaten path -- especially where exposure is concerned.
The first step is to understand the exposure challenge presented by a given scene. The second step is to
figure out all the possible solutions (combinations of filters, exposure and processing). Finally,
the photographer picks the one that matches how he wants to potray that scene -- the total subjective
interpretation.

I apologize profusely that this is not a simple processes, that it takes time, that it does not maximize
profits, use the latest softwre, or sell the most cameras. In the past, photographers had different priorities.

selmslie Loc: Fernandina Beach, FL, USA

That's not likely unless you have an unusual camera.

Take a look at Nikon's Blinkies and ETTR and three other threads I posted on the subject of blinkies. I used RawDigger to look at the raw file and find out how much exposure caused them to blink on the camera's LCD.

In the three cameras I tested (Df, D610 and A7 II) I found that they all started to blink close to a 14-bit raw value of 8000. Since the raw file blows out at 16000, that means that the raw file for all three cameras can capture only one additional stop.

If you find anything different then you may be using a camera other than Nikon or Sony with 14-bit raw.

selmslie Loc: Fernandina Beach, FL, USA

The one with the egret is overexposed by nearly 2 stops (1/500 @ f/8 ISO 400 = net EV 13). Even in the editor you can see the highlight warning. The brightest white feathers are blown out.

A Sunny 16 exposure (net EV 14.67) or better yet net EV 15 and there would have been no blinkies and the egret would have looked fine. The final result has darker shadows so why not use Sunny 16?

The image of the Black Bear Diner is even worse. It's overexposed by nearly 3 stops (net EV 12).

AndyH Loc: Massachusetts and New Hampshire

Bipod,

I hope you will take this in the spirit it is offered.

Once upon a time I was young and had time to process single batches of 4x5 sheet film for contrast control. Chemistry was cheap, and paper wasn’t too bad. I made some awful prints, and others that still hang on my wall, and those of my friends. In color, I mostly shot ‘chromes, and relied on the skills of others to turn them into hangable prints.

Today, I don’t do enough photography to justify the space or the expense of consumables. I do the best I can with somewhat older digital equipment, but don’t run out to buy LAG gear.

I do shoot film on occasion, but have it professionally developed and scanned. It forces me to work differently, more carefully and less tempted to spray and pray.

But when it comes to processing, whether originally film scan or digital, PP software gives me the chance to work toward the image I saw in my mind when I made the shot. And instead of being relegated to the darkroom, I’m in my easy chair, conversing with my wife and with a cocktail or cup of coffee beside me. I’m slowly learning the skills and having fun.

Your nostalgia for days when real skill was needed and could only be developed with great investment is understandable. But for my very limited leisure time, the new methods and gear make my hobby much more enjoyable.

I do enjoy your technical contributions and rants, but not all the contributors here are consumerist gear chasers. If it weren’t for today’s tech, I would not have been able to rediscover and practice my old love.

Andy

selmslie Loc: Fernandina Beach, FL, USA

I think you missed the key element Bipod's post, "None of the photos that Bob posted are of truly high contrast."

The only reason to use ETTR in a digital image is if there is some important information in the shadows that is important in the final image.

In the two images that Bob posted, all of the original shadow information is pretty much suppressed in the final image - returned to its original dark levels. That means that it was not important to retain those shadow values in the first place.

Since both examples were taken in broad daylight, Sunny 16 would have been sufficient - no metering required.

AndyH Loc: Massachusetts and New Hampshire

No, I didn’t. I will try some of the experiments you and Bob have recommended and evaluate my results. There is no way I can properly evaluate the final product on my 3 inch iPhone screen.

I was addressing Bipod’s generally negative attitude toward digital gear and techniques. I agree with some of his thoughts about over reliance on tech, but if it weren’t for this tech, I wouldn’t half as much fun.

Andy

rmalarz Loc: Tempe, Arizona

Some's good, a lot's better, and too much is just right.
--Bob

rmalarz Loc: Tempe, Arizona

Neither of them are overexposed. The were exposed using the additional RAW available data capabilities of the camera's sensor. If they were over exposed they would have been blown highlights.

You are correct in that I spot metered the brightest part of the bird and added two additional stops of exposure to place the value in Zone VIII. The diner photo was spot metered on the back to the car in the center of the frame. Then an additional 3 stops of exposure was added to place that somewhat specular highlight in Zone IX. As you can see once the image was normalized in ACR, the images depicted the scene as it was observed.

It's somewhat disingenuous of you to continue along with these rants and trotting out your Sunny 16, raw digger, etc. . It tends to serve only to confuse those who genuinely want to learn ETTR/EBTR techniques. If you can't contribute constructively, simply abstain from posting.
--Bob

rmalarz Loc: Tempe, Arizona

I never do. I tend to go with proof of the theory, or prove it myself.
--Bob

rmalarz Loc: Tempe, Arizona

Jack, I use an SEI Photometer or a Sekonic L758DR light meter quite a lot for measuring exposure, even for digital.
--Bob