"Expose to the right" and innacurate colors

Interesting. I've never done ETTR, but I've heard it often enough. Never questioned it, but just didn't bother with it.
 
I think it has a lot to do with the specific camera as well. I can "expose to the left" if you will with far more abandon with a 5D than with a 50D. Pulling detail from the shadows without creating huge noise problems is relatively easy with the 5D. But even trying to bring up the shadows a little bit with the 50D increases noise significantly.

Even with the increased noise, though, if you are not taking great care (i.e., paying attention) not to blow the highlights, it's probably safer to stay away from the right side of the histogram.
 
when i shoot volume with a dSLR (action/sports), meaning when i'm sensitive to the time it takes to get thru post-processing, i don't ETTR. if i add 1/3-2/3 stop EC, and the ambient light is variable and even moderately contrasty, i'll clip highlights on a unacceptably large # of shots. which will lead to a lot more time in PP trying to tame white uniforms, etc.

for me, ETTR is not so practically applicable. if i'm at the limit of my camera's iso capability, say on a really dark HS soccer field, and i add some EC to drive the histogram rightward, i have conflicting outcomes. yes, i may get less noise but then i also get slower shutter speeds and more motion blur. often i'll go with the higher s/s and an exposure less driven to the right to avoid motion blur, at the expense of some noise. i'll just use noise reduction software to deal with it. better to have some noise than motion blur, for this purpose.

thing is, in prints digi noise is much less apparent. i think fear of noise is exaggerated from the tendency to pixel peep versus looking at finished prints.

and i agree with pickett. this is all very camera-dependent.
 
I seem to recall reading that 'expose to the right' worked with nearly all digital cameras... except for the M8, for which there was some better way.

I'll go look.

---

I can't find it... from memory it was to do with how the M8 worked... underexpose and then bump it up in post to recover from the shadows? ie the opposite of 'expose to the right'.

But this is from memory...
 
Last edited:
fergus, the M8's iso ratings are about 1/3 stop conservatively stated. meaning 320 is effectively 400, 640 is effectively 800, etc.

so practically, if you're relying on the M8's meter, you have about a 1/3 stop cushion before clipping highlights.

is that what you're thinking of?
 
MCTuomey said:
fergus, the M8's iso ratings are about 1/3 stop conservatively stated. meaning 320 is effectively 400, 640 is effectively 800, etc.

so practically, if you're relying on the M8's meter, you have about a 1/3 stop cushion before clipping highlights.

is that what you're thinking of?
Click to expand...

Mike, I don't think that's it. I can remember online a few months after the M8's release about users obtaining better images through deliberately not following the expose-to-the-right mantra. Can't think of where I read it, but it will come to me eventually...
 
I try not to blow out the highlights, especially if they are important to me, and bring back shadow detail in pp later. This leads to histograms shifted to the left but so what. I have to say that noise in these file with the histogram shifted to left looks bad if you pixel peep at high mag but if printed don't seem bad at all. I shot a photo at 3200 with no noise reduction applied in pp and printed at 8x10. This print looked no worse than 400 iso prints for grain effect. I also habitually carry -.03 compensation on my D700 to avoid blown highlights and some times that is not enough.

Bob
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom