Blenheim Orange Loc: Michigan

Certain subjects become a little contentious around here - SOOC versus PP (straight out of camera versus post processing); JPEG versus raw files, etc. Don't let that scare you off. There are some really talented people here who are generous with their time and knowledge.

Many of the sections here are not visible on the main page. Here is a link to the complete list:

http://www.uglyhedgehog.com/all-section-list

By the way, if you click "quote reply" under the post you are responding to it makes it a little easier to follow the discussion.

Mike

CHG_CANON Loc: the Windy City

Scotty, we both agree and disagree.

Yes, these Guenons are not the best example for Dynamic Range although the OP of this thread started with a question about RAW and digital art. The discussion has migrated into a discussion of what are the best characteristics of the best RAW files.

Yes, the monkeys were indoor in low light, something not evident from the image except from the technical details.

The white of the upturned guenon is somewhere between overexposed and outside the depth of field at f/5. The highlight warnings cover this area although if I manipulate the highlights and the exposure against the RAW (CR2), there is a modicum of detail to recover. But, those details come back to the detriment of other aspects of the image where that animal's chest is not the focus of the image and the overall image begins to darken to the actual light. Your observation does give me some ideas of processing this image further if I wanted those chest details and wanted to merge the animal's chest into a different version of the image.

What was accomplished by exposing to the right was a useful image of animals in a very dark setting. An image I can darken slightly in post rather than a dark image that becomes a noisy mess when trying to lighten in post. An image with details in the highlights of the RAW file that can be recovered, if desired. I don't have an image with the camera's calculated exposure that would show what the camera's best thinking would produce.

But most important to my own photography is minimizing the noise of shooting at ISO-5000. Your other response about there being no difference in the RAW between equivalent exposures based on ISO-400 vs ISO-800 is inaccurate regarding the level of noise. Yes, it's a lot more complicated due to the individual characteristics of the sensors, but the higher you move the ISO on ISO variant DSLRs (still most cameras), the more the difference in noise even if the exposure is equivalent. My images typically are darkened in post moving the exposure setting to the left. I've spent years developing a feel for the 'blinkies' and histogram of my EOS 5D3 model and where the highlights, in the critical aspects of the image, cannot be recovered from ETTR. If I could timetravel back to 2016, I might have whispered bumping to 1/125 on the shutter given the whites of the prone guenon.

Our friends at Photography Life have published two relevant discussions to issues in this thread.

ETTR explained - http://photographylife.com/exposing-to-the-right-explained

ISO Invariance Explained - http://photographylife.com/iso-invariance-explained

SharpShooter Loc: NorCal

WHOA....., I see in Billings they also offer specialized CPR training as well!!! LoL
SS

selmslie Loc: Fernandina Beach, FL, USA

Noise is not the result of higher ISO. It is only the consequence of insufficient exposure - not enough photons reaching the sensor.

Changing the ISO without increasing the exposure will not affect noise. Changing the exposure without changing the ISO will have an effect on noise, but not much if the change is only one stop or two.

E.L.. Shapiro Loc: Ottawa, Ontario Canada

This ongoing “argument” about “post processing vs. straight out of the camera” has reached ridiculous proportions. Whether one is a veteran film photographer who has made the transition into digital photography or an experienced digital photographer one must realize that there is a time and a place for both methodologies and in the majority of instances, good imagery results from a balanced mixture of both.

In the film era, the emphasis was making good negatives and transparencies by employing excellent camera technique. Transparencies needed to be spot on in that there was little or no remedy for a poorly crafted original image. Sometimes mediocre negatives could be somewhat resurrected by any number of darkroom procedures. Even the best well exposed and processed negatives contained “information” that need to be brought forth, tweaked or enhanced in printing. This holds true with digital files as well in that not every image can attain its full potential right out of the camera, even it is perfectly exposed and composed. Perhaps some can.

Personally, I don't believe in sloppy shooting and radical post processing actions as standard operating procedure. I never wanted to “re-shoot my images in the darkroom” nor do I want to do that on my computer in that it is tedious, costly and inefficient and will not necessarily yield optimum results when compared to starting off with a a properly produced file.

To address the OP's question- Photography is an art, a craft and a science. You are the artist, the craftsman and the chief technician. Strive to make good clean raw files and then decide how YOU wish to interpret them. If you want to enhance the color saturation, contrast or create a special effect or or make “art” as you wish to express yourself, just go ahead and do it. Don't worry about trends and what others “dictate”. If you prefer a documentary or totally realistic interpretation, that is your call. If you want to work in the abstract, there ain't anything wrong with that. You don't need to be a “purist” a radical or a traditional photographer or spend too much time trying to define those terms. When you discover your forte, you will know it! Whether you want you images to look like calendar photos, Old Masters paintings or something that Picasso himself may have not understood- that is up to you!

Oftentimes folks spend too much time philosophizing and not enough time shooting and experimenting. Whenever this subject comes up, folks start making reference to Ansel Adams, Yosef Karsh, Mathew Brady and why not William Fox Talbot or Louis-Jacques Mandé Daguerre (?)! It's fine and educational to study the work of the old masters and the contemporaneity photographer alike and the fellows who invented photography but as a musician friend of mine always says: “When Mozart was my age he had been dead for 40 years”! It's fine the emulate the styles of those we admire but is is just as important to develop a style of your own.

When you ask a question, well meaning folks tell you to Google this and that and go to this “link” to find out the meaning of life- well photography life. My advice- put down the keyboard and pick up the camera! THEN post some pictures! If you are experiencing technical difficulties or equipment issues, there are lots of good folks, here on the Hog, that will assist you. WELCOME!

Oh- try to ignore the bad mouthing and don't get caught in the crossfire. Sometimes boys will be boys! Oftentimes, photo forums can be like strawberries- you may have to dig through many layers of “fertilizer” to get at the sweet fruit- but it is in there!

selmslie Loc: Fernandina Beach, FL, USA

It's a numbers game.

If you have a scene with a medium DR, maybe 5 stops, and middle gray is probably in the middle of exposure zone V (1000-2000 in 14-bit raw values) you will have a total raw value range of about 250 to 8000. Expose that one stop more and the range becomes 500-16000, as far as you can go without blowing the highlights.

Changing the brightest zone (4000-8000) by one stop (8000-16000) has no visible effect on tonality. Changing the darkest zone (250-500) by one stop (500-1000) is also not going to affect tonality.

Likewise, adding one stop of actual exposure by opening the aperture or lowering the shutter speed by only one stop will have very little visible effect on the noise in the lowest zone, even when there is a low light level.

A narrower DR, maybe 4 stops around middle gray, exposed without ETTR might span from about 350 to 5600. You could move it further to the right (1-1/2 stops) to 1000-16000 but what does that accomplish? Not much, just larger raw numeric values.

But a wide DR might make it necessary to lower the raw value for middle gray. A 7 stop DR centered around the 1000-2000 range of middle gray would range from 125-16000, as far as you can go to the right. That's already one stop above the JPEG limit of 8000 so, if you lower the exposure by one stop to eliminate the blinkies, you end up with 64-8000 in the raw file. But 64-125 is still plenty of steps to show decent tonality in the shadows and 4000-8000 is much more than you need for highlights.

But as I said earlier, noise is not the consequence of the numeric values recorded in the raw file. It is only the result of not receiving enough photons at the sensor.

If you look at a typical RawDigger histogram display you will also find that not all three colors get blown out at the same time. There is some uncertainty about the upper limit. The histogram on the camera might easily mislead you. It's best to leave yourself a cushion at the high end and hope you can recover stuff from the shadows.

(Download)

srt101fan

Another good one E.L.!

bluechris Loc: Grapeview, WA

I remember the thread that talked about art and what is an ordinary photo. And the truth be told, there was no consensus but a lot of opinions. I am sure there will be a lot more. My take on photography: I am a purist which means the photo is pure me whether I post process or not. I took the photos. Is it art, well I will not answer that, you make the call as you see it. It is what interests me that counts. Can I improve? Yes I can and try to do just that. I try to be eclectic in subject matter and that is what I like to do. Art and just plain snaps are subjective and to each his or her own. My style now came out of experimentation, frustration and success.

OddJobber Loc: Portland, OR

But there are advantages with narrow DR. Here in Oregon we don't worry about white balance because everything is 18% gray.

hj Loc: Florida

Rich1939 Loc: Pike County Penna.

selmslie "Knowing that you can only push your exposure about one stop beyond the blinkies is a critical piece of information."
My D600 can be pushed 2 - 2 1/2 stops

"I'm sorry that a narrow DR is what you have to work with. In Florida and Arizona it's a different situation
But suppose, for example, that you have a narrow DR scene and a gray card reading tells you to expose ISO 400 for 1/200 sec at f/8. How do you make that an ETTR exposure?"

In a narrow DR situation there is normally no need to use ETTR. I now live in PA but in a prior life I lived in Arizona and New Mexico (wonderful light!) I am quite familiar with high contrast situations which is where having knowledge of ETTR can be another useful tool to have on your tool belt. Please do not assume that because I understand a method that I go around willy-nilly using it in every situation. I have found that for most situations going with the camera's readings will get the shot. It's the unique conditions that call on our knowledge of all the tools available to us. Experience with them enables us to make a correct selection from that tool kit. To reject in totality any method, shortens our reach.

dugeeeeeee

BRAVO CHAMAN BRAVO!

aflundi Loc: Albuquerque, NM

Deleted.

leftj Loc: Texas

Yes - it certainly didn't need to come SOOC looking like that.

selmslie Loc: Fernandina Beach, FL, USA

You can push it only 2-1/2 steps above middle gray, not beyond where the blinkies start. Your D600 and my D610 behave the same and I have tested mine thoroughly.

That's the very point I have been making. Yet the proponents of ETTR keep showing situations with narrow DR that, of course, end up looking very light in the JPEG SOOC.

On another thread I responded to:
As I said, "All that shows is that, if you don't blow the highlights, you can recover them." I never said you blew the highlights.

You have shown that you can recover highlights. I have shown that I can recover shadows.

What we both have shown is that modern digital cameras have wide latitudes and that exposure is no longer critical so long as you don't blow the highlights.

That was not the case more than ten yeas back when cameras did not have wide latitude and good noise control. You had to meter carefully and resort to ETTR/EBTR.

But there is one thing that is constant - direct sunlight. You don't have to meter it to find out that it hardly changes at all between about 9AM and 3PM. Another thing that is constant is the reflective properties of natural objects like clouds and egret feathers. You don't need to meter them. Remember Einstein's, “The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again, but expecting different results.”

That's why I demonstrated that I could take a whole day's worth of images with the same exposure on manual without ever consulting the meter - see Exposure Value - No metering used and more examples at https://www.scotty-elmslie.com/2018-concours.html

Incidentally, all of those images were captured using Daylight white balance with no color adjustment later on the computer.

--------------------------------------

What I stated is a matter of fact, not opinion. ETTR was necessary a long time ago. It is no longer needed when you are shooting in broad daylight. You don't need it when you are shooting in narrow DR situations either. That's why I said it is obsolete.

A photographer that can predict what is going to happen based on experience has a good chance of capturing and processing an image correctly.

If you don't learn something from experience you will have to continue to meter and make adjustments to determine your exposure.