abc1234 Loc: Elk Grove Village, Illinois

You are welcome. I thank all the companies who have made photography so rewarding and easy. And I thank all those photographers who worked with such inferior tools and still left an amazing legacy. You can learn so much by looking at those historic images. Unfortunately, few of us know how hard they worked to get them.

rmalarz Loc: Tempe, Arizona

bonjac, thanks for taking time to participate. My apologies for the delay in replying. I had to write up an explanation for you. I appreciate that, as I'm sure it will come in handy at some time in the future. So, here goes.

The range of visible light is, photographically, divided into 11 Zones. See the accompanying list for clarification. In digital photography, the range is 0-255. So, the values would be approximately as follows:

Zone 0 - 0
Zone I - 33
Zone II - 51
Zone III - 72
Zone IV - 94
Zone V - 118
Zone VI - 143
Zone VII - 169
Zone VIII - 197
Zone IX - 225
Zone X - 255

These are the values at the center of the Zones II through IX. For Zone 0 and X, the values are at the bottom and top extents of those Zones respectively.

The vast majority of light meters provide an exposure setting for a measured scene, area, or spot such that the combination of ISO, shutter speed, and aperture produce a result that renders the measures target in Zone V.

When one thinks about it, this is the ideal result. One would not want to have a light meter that was biased towards bright areas or dark areas. We can predictably rely on the light meter to provide an unbiased result regardless of what it is pointed at for measurement.

If I change any of the above to increase the exposure by one stop, the result will place the measured area in the resulting image in Zone VI. A decrease of one-stop will produce an image that is in Zone IV. This change can be accomplished by either individually changing ISO, f-stop, or shutter speed. Or, one can combine adjustments but still achieve results of a one-stop difference.

But, this leads to meters being fooled and results being less than the expected. For instance, let's say I'm measuring a snow-covered hill. The light meter doesn't have a clue as to what I'm measuring. So, it gives me an exposure setting and I fire away. The results are a disappointing gray looking photograph. Try as I may, I really can't adjust this to get a reasonably good photograph.

Now, we are going to stay with digital here for the discussion. Knowing the above setup, I can spot meter the brightest area of the snow-covered hill and get my metered reading. Knowing the snow is quite a bit whiter than middle gray but not so white that I'm blinded by it, I can increase my exposure to place the snow in Zone VIII or IX. Now, I'll have white snow.

In processing, I can adjust the darker areas of the scene to match a more realistic version of what I saw.

For a more detailed explanation, here's a good entry in wikipedia. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zone_System

Thanks for the question. I hope this provides an answer for you. If not, let's discuss it further.
--Bob

rmalarz Loc: Tempe, Arizona

I'm not so sure that it's easier. To achieve good results, one needs to have a better than a passing acquaintance with photographic processes. Again, camera manufacturers want to sell cameras. The way to do that is to produce a product that anyone can pick up and produce reasonably good photographs. This sells product. As an addition, there are products that claim to make one an even better photographer. I'm thinking of one called Arsenal. Attach that to your camera and let it do the work of evaluating the scene, etc. All of these devices are geared to make a person a better "photographer", or 'fauxtographer'. Take your pick.

Additionally, anyone who looks at a photo processing application with the idea that they can 'fix' their work in processing, is approaching this entire area with the wrong attitude.

Oh, I should add that ETTR/EBTR is not a matter of just twiddling some knobs and increasing exposure. If done with the right approach, it's a determined amount of additional exposure based on that particular camera's abilities. It's not a one size fits all situation.
--Bob

Linda From Maine Loc: Yakima, Washington

Regarding complaints about quality or content of postings: it's easy to complain, not so easy to devote time and talent to improving content, or helping individuals.

As stated in this section's guidelines, challenge threads and tutorials are encouraged and demonstrations of skills are appreciated.

Since the UHH membership consists of a variety of experience and talent, it's important to learn about individual goals and interests prior to offering feedback. Sometimes topics are posted to gather reactions (do you like it? Why or why not?), some are more specific with questions or requests for assistance. The topics posted to PP Forum that appear to be simple "sharing" often result in requests for more information or become inspiration for others to try a new tool or technique.

Let's keep our conversations positive and non-judgemental. Learning and teaching can and should be fun!

Fotoartist Loc: Detroit, Michigan

Tuning in kinda late but if the off color examples are Infrared then SOOC is impractical to start with, no?

rmalarz Loc: Tempe, Arizona

That's true, at least for the IR images I've produced. They are somewhat overly magenta.

If you are referring to the somewhat green colored SOOC examples, they are not IR. I use UniWB in those digital cameras in which I can make the appropriate settings.
--Bob

abc1234 Loc: Elk Grove Village, Illinois

A lot to chew on here. As for selling cameras, I agree with you regarding the low end cameras. However, smart phones have reduced those numbers. On the other extreme, the mid- and high-range cameras have so many controls I doubt if many people know how to use all of them. Sometimes I wonder if they are solutions in search of problems. Nonetheless, they do help us get better results. As for Arsenal, I agree with you. Why not learn the basics instead?

I think when you say "fix", you are getting into semantics. If I decide I want the final image to be darker than when I took the shot, am I fixing, adjusting, correcting, getting artistic or what? If I have a shot I like but focused, no amount of fixing will fix it. I consider it a lesson learned.

ETTR. I would need a lecture from you on that. On my Canon 80D, the only way I know to shift the histogram is by adjusting the bracketing, ISO, shutter or aperture. The right side seems to move a lot but not the left side. Correct me if I am wrong. Ansel Adams always baffled me. I read his stuff and what others said but could still not really get it. Part of my issue was that I shot roll film. Did he use ferricyanide as a local reducing to goose up the contrast?

rmalarz Loc: Tempe, Arizona

Addressing the 'fix' issue. To me photos are processed. Fixing is in line with editing and that's where an editor wants something other than what was presented and it's could you edit this out, edit this in, etc. Yeah, semantics plays a role in these discussions. That's for sure.

As for ETTR/EBTR, I wrote a reply to someone in this thread that touched on this, as well as The Zone System. If that helps, let me know. If you have questions, ask away.
--Bob

Paul Diamond Loc: Atlanta, GA, USA

Thanks Bob for sharing about the zone system with a valuable wikipedia link. Back in my film days, the zone system, for me, required a spot meter for best results. Can't even find my old spot meters, if I still have them. But, reading the link brought me to a gem of knowledge about Ansel's prints using selenium toner to gain an extra 'zone' of detail in the rich shadow area of his images. I always appreciated those original Adams prints at an exhibit. He was a master in the darkroom, devoted to results in the final product.

rmalarz Loc: Tempe, Arizona

Paul, I still remember seeing my first Ansel Adams photograph. Up until then, I was simply taking my 35mm camera out and taking pictures. Processing them in the darkroom and making prints. They were OK prints but nothing I'd frame and hang anywhere. When I saw that AA photograph, my first thought was how do you do something like that?

That led me to the library and books both about and by AA. I read, almost memorized, the content. I did the tests described in detail in his books. I even took a graphic arts class, though my major was mechanical engineering. The reason for taking the class was the lab had a densitometer. Being a student in the class gave me permission to use it. Every night I was making exposures of a gray card and developing those negatives. The next day would find me in the classroom early measuring densities.

Within a year, I had a spot meter and a 4x5 view camera. Though I still have that meter, I have upgraded and use different ones today. I also still have that view camera, along with a couple of other ones. Yes, I still get my fingers wet developing negatives.

A few years ago, another UHH member made a comment to me regarding exposure and techniques. Through exploring his comment and suggestions that I realized The Zone System could be applied to digital captures but works opposite the techniques used in black and white film. That was it. That made one of the biggest leaps of improvement in digital photography I've personally achieved.

Does it take time and dedication? It certainly does. Probably more than most would care to pursue. But, the return on invested time is enormous.
--Bob

bonjac Loc: Santa Ynez, CA 93460

Hi Bob,

I found your reply after a bit of thought. I am really impressed by the time and effort it took to prepare your response. Moreover, your willingness to further discuss is really appreciated and a tribute to you as a person. I will research the wikipedia reference later in the day.Thank you for help and offer of assistance.

Jack

rmalarz Loc: Tempe, Arizona

Jack, you're quite welcome. I'm glad I could help a bit.
--Bob

mwsilvers Loc: Central New Jersey

As you and I have discussed before, many people who don't understand your approach may think your "before" pictures are mistakes that you have been able to correct as a result of your great PP skills. I suggest you include a concise bit of boilerplate text with a very brief overview of your process so viewers understand why your "before" images look like they do. It can be a short very high level description which I think would save misinterpretation and confusion among those unaware of your process, such as AzPicLady.

rmalarz Loc: Tempe, Arizona

That's a very good idea, mwsilvers. Thanks for the suggestion.
--Bob

PhotogHobbyist Loc: Bradford, PA

Some excellent processing results. Thank you for sharing.