tstermitz
Well-known
There's a new article on ETTR at Luminous Landscape by Bob DiNatale. I think most of us digital photographers know that ETTR gives the best dynamic range, but I learned some new things.
DiNatale says if you aren't getting highlight blinkies on your camera LCD you probably aren't exposing high enough, so he suggests that you shoot a bracket with EV compensation to +.6, +1.3 or +2.0 in order to be doubly sure to get all the way to the right. If your initial digital take isn't milky-white, you are losing data. You can always recover down toward the blacks in post. Of course it also depends on the specific lighting situation, but...
I'm pretty lazy on my Nikon D7100 because the dynamic range is so huge. But, on my M9 I've perhaps been too cautious than he suggests out of fear of losing highlights. The CCD sensor on the M9 has quite a bit less dynamic range than on the newer sensors, so I'm thinking I should pay closer attention and try some of DiNatale's suggestions.
DiNatale says if you aren't getting highlight blinkies on your camera LCD you probably aren't exposing high enough, so he suggests that you shoot a bracket with EV compensation to +.6, +1.3 or +2.0 in order to be doubly sure to get all the way to the right. If your initial digital take isn't milky-white, you are losing data. You can always recover down toward the blacks in post. Of course it also depends on the specific lighting situation, but...
I'm pretty lazy on my Nikon D7100 because the dynamic range is so huge. But, on my M9 I've perhaps been too cautious than he suggests out of fear of losing highlights. The CCD sensor on the M9 has quite a bit less dynamic range than on the newer sensors, so I'm thinking I should pay closer attention and try some of DiNatale's suggestions.
lynnb
Veteran
I haven't read that particular article, but ETTR is good advice as long as one doesn't blow the highlights, rendering them unrecoverable. I try to ETTR without blowing the highlights in any channel, although for bw, I think you can get away with only 1 channel unblown.
aizan
Veteran
wasn't ettr debunked?
EdwardKaraa
Well-known
That was true 10 years ago. The current trend is to underexpose at low iso and push in post 
Highway 61
Revisited
Absolutely.That was true 10 years ago. The current trend is to underexpose at low iso and push in post
If you clip the highlights, what is gone is gone.
If you push the shadows after having exposed at low ISOs, with modern sensors able to produce clean images at 12,800 ISO, you will very unlikely get some noise in them.
ETTR belongs to the past (if it ever was something really advisable).
All that is on Luminous Landscape isn't the holy truth... and from far.
CVickery
Established
Maybe I'm stupid, but I find that I'm best to expose correctly when I take the shot. Modern cameras are generally decent in the shadows and highlights are fine if they aren't blown. If I expose correctly it's one less thing to deal with in post processing.
EdwardKaraa
Well-known
You aren't stupid Cal!
I fully agree, and that's what I do. In some instances with high contrast though, especially at night, I underexpose to protect the highlights then bring up the shadows in post.
I fully agree, and that's what I do. In some instances with high contrast though, especially at night, I underexpose to protect the highlights then bring up the shadows in post.
Ko.Fe.
Lenses 35/21 Gears 46/20
Nothing new in provided link. Well known for years.
Also called HAMSTR.
http://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthread.php?t=744235&highlight=HAMSTR
But here is no single recipe these days.
With some of Canon DSLRs it makes sense to shot is with exposure meter to the right in case if highest possible ISO is needed and less possible noise will be achieved.
But for anything else, as it is stated above, it is old technique. With burned out, non retrievable sky.
Normal (average) or exposure to the bright areas with deep DR of modern cameras works fast and well with simple dodging in LR.
Or just use HDR mode if camera has it.
Also called HAMSTR.
http://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthread.php?t=744235&highlight=HAMSTR
But here is no single recipe these days.
With some of Canon DSLRs it makes sense to shot is with exposure meter to the right in case if highest possible ISO is needed and less possible noise will be achieved.
But for anything else, as it is stated above, it is old technique. With burned out, non retrievable sky.
Normal (average) or exposure to the bright areas with deep DR of modern cameras works fast and well with simple dodging in LR.
Or just use HDR mode if camera has it.
mfogiel
Veteran
No matter what you do in a high contrast image, if the bit depth is not big enough you will get the digital look. Instead of pushing high iso or more pixels, they should take care of that.
CVickery
Established
That's good to know Edward
Absolutely there are times when you need to expose differently to protect highlights or alternately let the highlight blow out to expose the shadows sufficiently...depending on what you are looking for in the end product.
I bought into the ETTR method for a while, until I realized that the sky isn't always white.
Absolutely there are times when you need to expose differently to protect highlights or alternately let the highlight blow out to expose the shadows sufficiently...depending on what you are looking for in the end product.
I bought into the ETTR method for a while, until I realized that the sky isn't always white.
Pherdinand
the snow must go on
But wait. What if in the right of the frame there's a dark object?
tomtofa
Well-known
He certainly seems to have the credentials to merit a listen, but I get tired of people who produce infomercials in the guise of informational articles - 'Here's the basic concept. To learn how to actually carry this out in practice, buy my book'.
Looking at the example on his book's website:
http://onezone.photos/
I prefer the camera exposure example to his method's example. Check the eyebrows and the skin texture - I don't like what his method has done.
Looking at the example on his book's website:
http://onezone.photos/
I prefer the camera exposure example to his method's example. Check the eyebrows and the skin texture - I don't like what his method has done.
v_roma
Well-known
I have no idea whether or not ETTR is better or not but I think those in favor are arguing based on overall IQ (i.e., color depth, dynamic range) and not just noise.
YYV_146
Well-known
Basically nonsense. Modern digital sensors have a pitiful amount of highlight space and in comparison, an ocean of recoverable shadows. Aiming so close to the breakpoint is a bad idea unless you really, really know what you're doing, and have plenty of time to set the shot up. The penalty for ~1/2 stops of shadow loss is negligible, unless you're printing at the extreme sizes the sensor can deliver.
I actually agree with him if he's using an older CCD body or MFDB. I shoot my CCD cameras as close to blowing the highlights as possible, since they don't have the shadow tolerance of CMOS cameras. But then again, I won't be using one if I don't have a and tripod and a good 5 minutes to set the shot up.
I actually agree with him if he's using an older CCD body or MFDB. I shoot my CCD cameras as close to blowing the highlights as possible, since they don't have the shadow tolerance of CMOS cameras. But then again, I won't be using one if I don't have a and tripod and a good 5 minutes to set the shot up.
EdwardKaraa
Well-known
Many CCD cameras are isoless. You can shoot at base iso and underexpose by 4 stops (pushed in the raw converter) and you get better results than bumping up the iso 4 stops.
CMOS are traditionally known to have a lot of latitude in the highlights and none in the shadows. The most recent sensors however seem to have reversed this trend, to behave exactly like CCD.
CMOS are traditionally known to have a lot of latitude in the highlights and none in the shadows. The most recent sensors however seem to have reversed this trend, to behave exactly like CCD.
ChrisLivsey
Veteran
The "blinkies" are based on in camera jpeg processing and are not reading the RAW file. That means overexposed or on the limit on "blinkies" may not be on the RAW file. If you are going to ETTR you need to find out the correct right to expose to!!
Here is someone I trust technically:-
"While modern sensors produce remarkably low noise, practicing ETTR can either give you more ability to boost the shadows in post processing, or allow you to use a small camera and get results that are equivalent to a much larger, heavier, and more expensive instrument."
http://blog.kasson.com/?p=6871
Here is someone I trust technically:-
"While modern sensors produce remarkably low noise, practicing ETTR can either give you more ability to boost the shadows in post processing, or allow you to use a small camera and get results that are equivalent to a much larger, heavier, and more expensive instrument."
http://blog.kasson.com/?p=6871
Sam N
Well-known
I'm amazed this is so controversial. Detractors of the method are saying that it causes lost highlight data, but the whole point is you go to the right until just before that starts to happen. With highlight warnings and even live histograms on some cameras this is incredibly easy to do.
It's basically just the zone system for digital. Instead of exposing for shadows and processing for highlights, you simply do the opposite. You may not feel it's necessary for your photos (just as many don't bother with the zone system), but it is no less valid now than in the early days.
Edit: If you're doing run-and-gun shooting in changing light situations, it may be better to expose slightly less to avoid blown highlights... so ETTR is not a one-size-fits-all approach. It's probably not too advisable with street photography, for example. It requires more exposure and image quality isn't generally top priority with street shots.
It's basically just the zone system for digital. Instead of exposing for shadows and processing for highlights, you simply do the opposite. You may not feel it's necessary for your photos (just as many don't bother with the zone system), but it is no less valid now than in the early days.
Edit: If you're doing run-and-gun shooting in changing light situations, it may be better to expose slightly less to avoid blown highlights... so ETTR is not a one-size-fits-all approach. It's probably not too advisable with street photography, for example. It requires more exposure and image quality isn't generally top priority with street shots.
EdwardKaraa
Well-known
The problem with this method is that it seems to lower the color quality in the mid tones on modern sensors. Exposing correctly is the best way to obtain the best tonality and color quality on modern sensors.
YYV_146
Well-known
It's a bad idea because if there is extreme light differences in sections of the scene, then aiming for the highlights will cause loss of mid-tone and shadow information for modern CMOS digital sensors. You're essentially trading off 2-3 stops of shadows for ~1 stop of highlights.
Scrambler
Well-known
This is the first time I've heard of ETTR but it makes sense to me and I think some people are missing why this is a good idea for digital.
The nature of how digital capture is recorded means that there is a linear measurement of light while the experience is logarithmic. Or more simply, you double the recorded light recording for every stop of light.
In an 8-bit recording that's nine stops of data, but with as much recording space for the shades in the brightest stop as for the shades in the other 8. At the bottom end, the last discernible stop/zone is either there or not, move to the next stop/zone.
While modern 14 bit RAW has 15 stops of data, the same is true that the brightest stop has 50% of the available recording space for fine gradation.
So keeping the capture histogram as far right as possible BUT NO FURTHER gives the most detailed information. And the most usable noise characteristics.
If you want your sky to have detail, you place it as your reference point. In some cases ETTR could place the histogram to the left of a matrix metering, if the bright areas are the "artistic vision" and a choice is made to lose shadow detail to preserve highlight detail.
Once you realise that the brightest stop has 1/2 the digital detail, while each stop below it has 1/2 the detail of the one above it, you realise why this works.
The other thing in its favour is 16 bit image processing software, which allows two extra stops of information to be retained, compared to a 14 bit RAW.
The nature of how digital capture is recorded means that there is a linear measurement of light while the experience is logarithmic. Or more simply, you double the recorded light recording for every stop of light.
In an 8-bit recording that's nine stops of data, but with as much recording space for the shades in the brightest stop as for the shades in the other 8. At the bottom end, the last discernible stop/zone is either there or not, move to the next stop/zone.
While modern 14 bit RAW has 15 stops of data, the same is true that the brightest stop has 50% of the available recording space for fine gradation.
So keeping the capture histogram as far right as possible BUT NO FURTHER gives the most detailed information. And the most usable noise characteristics.
If you want your sky to have detail, you place it as your reference point. In some cases ETTR could place the histogram to the left of a matrix metering, if the bright areas are the "artistic vision" and a choice is made to lose shadow detail to preserve highlight detail.
Once you realise that the brightest stop has 1/2 the digital detail, while each stop below it has 1/2 the detail of the one above it, you realise why this works.
The other thing in its favour is 16 bit image processing software, which allows two extra stops of information to be retained, compared to a 14 bit RAW.