brucewells Loc: Central Kentucky

I recognize it will depend upon the particular camera, but how much EC? .3, .6, 1.0? Looking for a starting point just to position myself in this.

Thanks.

Trabor

Finally someone who makes sense :thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup:

rmalarz Loc: Tempe, Arizona

:thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup:
--Bob

selmslie Loc: Fernandina Beach, FL, USA

None of the other threads address, with common images as evidence, the fundamental questions I posed here, "Why and When..."

"It is obvious" or "I always use it" are not valid responses.

I have already answered "when" - seldom, and only for a select group of cases where I want shadow detail and the highlights are not out of reach. That's merely common sense and thoughtful exposure.

Some of us wonder about the benefits of ETTR because we are curious or skeptical.

If you cannot or will not respond to those questions with evidence then should we assume that there is none?

The onus is on you, Dave and others who accept the benefits of ETTR on faith - without evidence.

DaveO Loc: Northeast CT

Many of us probably don't have a good enough monitor to really see much variation,if any. Some of you folks are on a whole different level. :)

selmslie Loc: Fernandina Beach, FL, USA

You would need to experiment with you camera near the ISO you intend to use with the kind of subjects you normally shoot. That could be a long list of scenarios and ISO assumptions.

Then you need to try +0.3, +0.7, +1.0 ... until you end up going so far that you can no longer recover the highlight information during the raw conversion.

Sounds like a lot of work? You bet it is! That's the cost side of the equation. What I am hoping to see in this thread is visual evidence of the benefits side.

Are the ETTR users unable or unwilling to demonstrate the benefits with real images? We are waiting to see.

selmslie Loc: Fernandina Beach, FL, USA

Mutual admiration society can be be expected, but it does not answer the question.

To be absolutely clear:

I am requesting evidence that:

- An image captured using ETTR is visibly (not theoretically) superior to

- An image captured with ordinary care at the camera's recommended exposure +/- any routine exposure compensation that you routinely apply and then processed from raw to recover highlight and shadow information.

kymarto Loc: Portland OR and Milan Italy

I did some informal experiments, exposing to both left and right, basically one stop over nominal, nominal and one stop under, at my base ISO of 100 with a Nikon D800E.

With aggressive sharpening there is a slight but noticeable increase in noise in the corrected -1 EV image as compared to the +1 EV image. It is very minor and only noticeable upon direct comparison at 100%. The difference between the 0 and +1 EV image was almost undetectable. I have not tried with higher ISOs yet.

This being said, there is a huge difference in shadow noise between Canons and Nikons. A test I did between my Nikon and our work Canon 5D3, with frames underexposed by 3 EV and then corrected in post show the noise in the shadows of the Canon at ISO 100 was actually worse than the shadow noise of the Nikon shot at -3 EV at ISO 800. The extra noise in the shadows for the Nikon shot at -3 EV at ISO 100 was slight.

Thia makes me wonder if ETTR is more useful for cameras with less dynamic range to begin with. It certainly makes little difference on my Nikon at low ISOs.

BebuLamar

ETTR is exposing for the highlight and not for the shadows. I don't think in the procedure for doing ETTR one would measure or checking the level of the shadows but rather concern only about the highlight.

rmalarz Loc: Tempe, Arizona

Scotty, we've already provided images that use ETTR/EBTR in numerous discussions and just presentations. Those presentations provide visual examples of the benefits. It works, period. I don't accept the benefits on faith, I've proven it to myself on a number of occasions. Those occasions were through tests and, based on tests, the practical application thereof.

You seem to be the contrarian, as such, offer proof to dissuade us from wanting to continue using this technique.

If you don't wish to do that, at least provide a thoughtful concise plan to follow to provide you with photographs you seem to need to see.
--Bob

selmslie Loc: Fernandina Beach, FL, USA

I got similar results with my D610 which has a wide dynamic range and almost undetectable noise at base ISO. My Sony A7 II is almost as good.

So one of the "why" answers may simply be, if your camera does not have a wide dynamic range or sufficient noise suppression at base ISO.

selmslie Loc: Fernandina Beach, FL, USA

What has been shown are images where the JPEG is washed out and then where the raw image was converted to show a proper result. That's part of the "how" exercise.

What has not been shown is a comparison of the same scene whose raw file was captured as a normal exposure and then as an ETTR exposure.

For example, following the Sunny 16 rule, a normal daylight scene might call for an exposure of 1/400 at f/8 for ISO 100. Now suppose that

mallen1330 Loc: Chicago western suburbs

Good question! I hope some others here will answer that question rather than launch into how well it works.

Here's why I don't use ETTR or RAW. (well, except l do so many times when practicing my hobby of landscape and urban photography), but, my main source of income is architectural and real estate photography. On a good day in the peak market, I may shoot 3 homes, taking 400 to 500 shots. If I were to take all those in RAW, the post processing would kill me (and my storage space). For this type of photography, bracketed shots on a tripod with multiple off camera flash, captures the full dynamic range. And, it makes the post processing a breeze. These photos are for the web, where for the MLS the size is 640 x 480, and for my virtual tour slideshows, 1850 x 800, at that resolution, my final JPGs are just fine. ETTR would not help.

Uuglypher Loc: South Dakota (East River)

Scotty,
you continue to use diversionary tactics.
You acknowledge that there is no reason not to use the maximal dynamic range available.
That, Scotty, is the bottom line for the use of EBTR. Why? Because use of all available dynamic range is the only way to assure maximum exposure of the sensor's pixels to photons. The basic principle to capturing highest quality (highest S-to-N ratio)is to maximize photosite exposure to photons without clipping highlight detail. Contrary to your olde wives tails, the only way to increase exposure of photosites is with aperture and shutter duration...NOT...by fiddling with ISO !
Find out your camera's ERADR by proper experimentation, and then use it. That's using the maximum DR. And that, Scotty, is the essence of EBTR.
Can't state it more clearly than that.
Until you do that, you'll never know if EBTR works in your hands.
Your tales of practicing EBTR by fiddling with ISOs are totally nonsensical.
At this point you haven't the foggiest idea if your camera's ERADR is 1/3 stop, one and 2/3 stops, or three stops...or perhaps more.
Do it right and quit your useless carping from the sidelines.
You claim to have read both Mike Reichmanns essays as well as Bruce Fraser's Adobe White Paper. Do it again, this time for comprehension!
And keep ever in mind that optimal raw data exposure requires maximal exposure to produce the brightest possible image without clipping highlights. That means using the entire dynamic range...and that means determining and using the ERADER your camera has.
If you don't want to do it, then don't! But don't, in your profound inexperienced ignorance thereby, spitefully urge others not to give it a try the right way.

selmslie Loc: Fernandina Beach, FL, USA

What has been shown are images where the JPEG is washed out and then where the raw image was converted to show a proper result. That's part of the "how" exercise.

What has not been shown is a comparison of the same scene whose raw file was captured as a normal exposure and then as an ETTR/EBTR exposure.

For example, following the Sunny 16 rule, a normal daylight scene might call for an exposure of 1/400 at f/8 for ISO 100.

Now suppose that the histogram does not quite reach the right edge of the display, you might estimate that it is short by 1/3 stop. In addition you expect that you have 1-2/3 additional range beyond the right (ERADR). Your ETTR/EBTR image could then be exposed at 1/100 sec, a 2 stop increase.

After processing both captures carefully from their respective raw files, are there any visible differences in noise or in shadow tonality, texture or detail? There should be no difference in the highlights.

I am not the only one who could find no improvement in visible noise since I could not find any in the "normal" image. However, I cannot see any difference in the shadows either, even at 100%.

Maybe you can.