rmalarz Loc: Tempe, Arizona

Oh, here we go with trotting out your graphs and diagrams. Sorry, but my research, from the start of using ETTR/EBTR techniques has shown me that for my equipment, the blinkies are from the in-camera jpg.

Now, if you can provide some other authentication, please feel free to do so. In doing so, please refrain from your self derived spreadsheets based on your interpretation of RawDigger.

I should add that I don't really rely on Blinkies, as I know my equipment, through testing. I know how many additional stops of exposure I can add to the metered reading and place the tonal values where I want them. It's neither difficult nor rocket science.
--Bob

selmslie Loc: Fernandina Beach, FL, USA

You clearly misunderstood what I said so you are arguing with a mirage.

What I said was that if you shoot at a series of increasing exposures you can achieve linearity in the raw file.



You can also shoot at a constant exposure at a series of increasing ISO settings and see the same linearity.



Since changing the ISO does not change the linearity it behaves exactly the same as the "Exposure" slider in your raw editor. That's the equivalence to which I am referring.

selmslie Loc: Fernandina Beach, FL, USA

If you have never studied the results from RawDigger as I have you can't say for certain whether the blinkies are linked to the raw data or to the rendered JPEG.

Since I have looked at the raw values (0-16383), the raw histograms and the JPEG values (0-255) and histograms I know where the blinkies are based.

rmalarz Loc: Tempe, Arizona

I have studied my camera's capabilities in RawDigger, as it is a suburb tool. However, I'll also rely on those who have intimate knowledge of the workings of Nikon cameras, specifically. They have expressed that blinkies are derived from jpg not RAW data.
--Bob

selmslie Loc: Fernandina Beach, FL, USA

That's true from the sensor's viewpoint.

But if you use the same exposure at ISO 100 and 200 and the highlights are not blown, what have you gained. All you got out of it was bigger numbers in the raw file.

If at ISO 100 Zone V was between 1000 and 2000, at ISO 200 it's between 2000 and 4000. The zone (+/-½ stop from the middle) is represented by 1000 values at ISO 100 and 2000 values at ISO 200. What's the benefit? Not much if your ultimate goal is to depict this in a JPEG with values from about 111 to 143 (127+/-16). You end up with the same range of JPEG values in either case.

The only place where there is a benefit from ETTR is in the darker zones where you can use more raw values on which to base your tonality and to get less noise.

selmslie Loc: Fernandina Beach, FL, USA

So I guess you are relying on others to to do your thinking for you. You trust them because you can't figure it out for yourself as I have.

Gene51 Loc: Yonkers, NY, now in LSD (LowerSlowerDelaware)

Everything you will see in this link was done shooting raw and using ETTR to determine exposure.

https://www.flickr.com/photos/gene_lugo/

The key is to use the camera's spot meter function to read highlight areas where you want detail, and test your camera at several different ISO settings to see how much over the camera's reading you can expose before you lose detail. It's as simple as walking.

R.G. Loc: Scotland

I can't remember the exact name Sony give the metering mode I have in mind - it's either Highlight Protected or Highlight Weighted. Anyways, if you used that metering mode together with an EC of +0.7 your exposures would be safe and also well on their way to being optimised. The only situations that would catch you out would be so extreme it would be obvious that you'd have to be using something like exposure bracketing.

My idea of an optimised file is one that can take not only a fair bit of lifting the shadows but as well as that you could give it generous amounts of contrast, clarity and sharpening without having to fight emerging noise. In other words a file that can take a lot of pushing and pulling without becoming problematic. Some might suggest that the EC of +0.7 is unnecessary but I would argue that it makes the file more robust when it comes to pushing and pulling (you never know when the need for that is going to arise). And the Highlight Weighted metering should keep your highlights safe. There should be enough extra raw available dynamic range (ERADR) to accommodate the extra +0.7 stops of exposure.

rmalarz Loc: Tempe, Arizona

Let's clarify something here, Scotty. I think for myself. However, I tend to rely on others, experts who have far more intimate knowledge of subjects I'm researching, for information on which to base my thinking. Then, based on that information I decide the best path for me to take.

Your constant trotting out your spreadsheets and drivel is certainly not something on which I'd base much of what I do.
--Bob

selmslie Loc: Fernandina Beach, FL, USA

How do you determine whether an "expert" is reliable?

I have taken the time and effort to do my own research. I certainly have more intimate knowledge of this subject than you do.

If you think that what I say is "drivel" then you just don't understand it.

rmalarz Loc: Tempe, Arizona

Very simple on determining an expert. How about a conversation with a Nikon Tech. I think that should be a good start. Another is reading the Nikon RAW file specification. Yeah, I did get a hold of that one some time ago.

I've spent quite a lot of time doing my own lab work to make determinations regarding my cameras. I don't think you are qualified to make a statement such as you did, "I certainly have more intimate knowledge of this subject than you do." You have no clue as to how much knowledge I have. However, I'm not going to get into a pissing contest with you or anyone else over that.

With that, I'll rest my case that the camera is showing highlight warnings from the in-camera derived jpg and whatever in-camera software is making and analyzing that jpg. Additionally, in order to provide a better user experience, the warnings are a tad aggressive to ensure the average user gets better pictures. So, if you have documented proof that states otherwise, let's see it.
--Bob

selmslie Loc: Fernandina Beach, FL, USA

Yea, that's about as reliable as asking a factory certified auto mechanic to explain the Carnot cycle or how to win a Formula One race.

If you can't understand my measurements it's because you don't know what they mean and you never did any research of your own.

But then I guess that's what can be expected from someone who still uses UniWB in their camera. You can't explain that either. You just took someone's advice there too. But White balance has no effect on your meter, only on the sickly green JPEG histograms. And if you are not looking at those histograms, what purpose does UniWB serve? None!

You need to start thinking for yourself.

I already showed it to you and it went over your head.

frankraney Loc: Clovis, Ca.

ETTR is exposing to the right of "0" just to the point blinkers (overexposed). This father's more light and it's easier to recover in post than unexpressed. Just play with your camera to find where this point is on you camera. Bob and Paul both have given great examples and explanation. Happy trials.

selmslie Loc: Fernandina Beach, FL, USA

Here is a simple test that anyone can use to demonstrate the basis for the blinkies.

I used my D610 because it has a Standard, High contrast and Low contrast JPEG mode under Set Picture Control. These clearly alter the JPEG and its histogram.

1. The camera was set to ISO 200 and f/8.
2. I metered my calibrated monitor which was displaying the white background for an empty folder. The meter recommended 1/40 sec.
3. I opened the aperture to f/2.8 to get EC+3 exposure. I then took three shots - at 1/40, 1/50 and 1/60.
4. I repeated the test at all three contrast settings.

In each case I got the same set of raw values within a reasonable experimental range of less than +/- 0.05 stops.

The first image in each case showed highlight warnings over most of the image. These were reduced in the second image and they were gone in the third image.

This proves that the highlight warnings are based on the raw values, not on the JPEG.

But don't just take my word for it. Do the test yourself.

rmalarz Loc: Tempe, Arizona

Scotty, I owe you an apology. How could I, or any of the mere members of this site, not recognize the genius level of your exalted wizdom. Anything we research or learn doesn't compare to the level of knowledge which you seem to possess. With that, any spirited discussion, revelations, exchange of ideas, except those which you choose to share with us, is a lost cause.

In closing, I'm sure the programmer I know at Nikon will be exceptionally delighted to know that someone like yourself compared him to a local car shop mechanic. Knowing his personality, he'll probably get a pretty huge laugh out of that one.

So, continue exalting yourself so us mere mortals can continue to be held in awe of your vast collection of spreadsheets and other miscellaneous bits of data. Or, as some wise philosopher once opined, if you can wow them with wisdom, baffle 'em with bull manure.
--Bob