"Shooting to the Right" with Leica m8/m8.2/m9?

A

animefx

Established
Local time
3:46 PM
Joined
Apr 21, 2010
Messages
77
I was wondering for those of you who are familiar the term "Shooting to the Right" which is generally recommend for those who shoot in a RAW file format. Many DSLR users are probably familar with this especially those who shoot in Manual mode.

Anyway, the past few years I've always been shooting to the right of the histogram on my 5d2, and then if I need to make the image darker I just lower the exposure in post production. On a DSLR, in particular a 5d2 shooting to the right is easy, I use spot metering or partial metering which meters off of a very small area, and then change my shutter/iso/aperture so that the highlights are +2 on the meter... so +2 is the brighest something can be without clipping.

Now to my point / question:

I realize that with the Leica cameras the meter isn't considered spot, or partial, it covers a larger area, but with a biased to what's in the center of the frame. The other issue is that the Leica camera will tell you what the "correct exposure" is, but that doesn't necessarily mean your shot is going to be snugged up to the right side of the histogram. Since there are no meter values, how do you usually handle this? Do you usually take a shot, chimp the photo, look at the histogram and then adjust your settings ignoring the camera metering telling you that you are slightly overexposed?
 
I didn't understand the first part with that "shooting to the right" and spot metering and +2. Sounds a little bit scientific.

With my M8 or 5D I take a photo. And if I am not sure if metering is ok, I look at the photo/historgram and over/underexpose for another shot according to that what my experience tells me. Most of the time I don't even look at the new shot because it will be ok.
 
Not sure what you mean about it being generally recommended that DSLR users expose to the righ of the histogram? I always thought it was expose to the left because undoubtedly there is always more chance of rescuing shadows than blowing highlights by exposing to the right. As regards metering with the M9 I do it like I have for the last thirty years with rangefinders or SLR's, I point the meter at a mid tone, or look at the scene and judge the exposure needed. In either case I wouldn't 'snug it to the right of the histogram' even if I chimped for a second opinion.

Steve
 
With Raw processing there is smallish about of highlight recovery available. This enables you to expose with most tones to the right of the histogram. This makes sure you get some exposure in shadows thus reducing noise that is inherent in dark tones in digital capture.
 
Exposing to the right basically maximises shadow detail in the final (edited) shot. As long as you don't clip the highlights.

OP - sorry, I don't have an M9 so I can't help you with that one.
 
my experience with "exposing to the right" is limited to shooting sports at dimly lighted venues. i expose "to the right" by adding +1/3 to +2/3 EC to avoid underexposure in the shadows (which otherwise would encourage noise). of course, this is a tradeoff: less noise coupled with greater likelihood of clipped highlights
 
sonofdanang said:
But as far as always exposing a certain way, and then working it back to "what I saw" in post? Meh. I find it is far more satisfying to be chimping something that looks great on the little monitor on the back of the camera. I know that technically, it actually may cost me - if I was really concerned about noise and dynamic range. And I'm not.
Click to expand...

Dead on. Imo, like most of the things that Adobe cadre proslytizes, ETTR is a load of ****. I like my pictures better a little underexposed and pulled up in raw a lot better than the opposite.
 
sonofdanang said:
All of this ("Shoot left! "Shoot right!") should be taken with a huge dose of skepticsism. Try it yourself. Film is cheap in the digital age. Shoot tons of images and see what you like when you play with them. See how far the medium will go. Shoot the same scene (please, not a "test". No charts or brickwalls, okay? Shoot pictures that are full of light, colour, and gesture!) under and over, and with a variety of ISOs. Then pull and push in post. See which one you like the most.
Click to expand...

Quoted for truth.
 
I find the advice "shoot to the right" as near as dammit impossible to follow when shooting outside of a studio. It seems to me that if you are shooting an image with a nice neat histogram shaped like a plum pudding you can expose to the left or right simply by adjusting your exposure. And this will move the plum pudding to the left or the right accordingly without too much risk of blown highlights or underdone shadows. But what if the histogram has a different shape - one that is spread more evenly across the values of 0-255? I find this often happens in the field - or the histogram is skewed on the right hand side anyway due to inclusion of the sky. How can you move this to the right without blowing some highlights?

Of course if you shoot in the street or shoot landscapes you are pretty much stuck with whatever histogram shape that belongs to the image you want to capture - and many of these are just not amenable to moving to the right or you will blow highlights - which is something we all know results in ugly images in 99% of cases.

I find the argument for shooting to the right much more compelling in the studio where you have more or less total control over your exposure. But in the field - forget it.....I find its much more valuable to shoot to minimize blown highlights - something that often requires you to "shoot to the left."
 
animefx said:
Since there are no meter values, how do you usually handle this? Do you usually take a shot, chimp the photo, look at the histogram and then adjust your settings ignoring the camera metering telling you that you are slightly overexposed?
Click to expand...

That is what I do, when there is enough time. I will also adjust the contrast to expand or shrink the exposure enough to come as close as I can to occupying the fill width of the histogram left and right.
 
"ettr is a myth"

"ettr is gospel"

absolutes aren't usually true in practice. i've shot thousands of frames at iso 3200 in miserable light at nighttime high school sports events where i counted myself lucky to maintain a shutter speed of 1/320. selling to parents, players, etc. given the choice b/w a file shot at iso 3200 and 1/400 w/a bit of ettr and one shot at iso 1600 at 1/400 w/o ettr, i will take the file exposed to the right every time. hands down. after cropping, dealing with cycling lights and difficult WB adj, and a pass (or two) in noise ninja, there's no question which file will print better, let alone present well on an monitor at 72 ppi.

whether to preserve or clip highlights, whether to preserve or lose shadow detail: these are decisions the photographer needs to make based on what values he wants to place in the image, on the challenge that the light he's facing presents. you can do either, pre-ordained rules need not apply.
 
Rob-F said:
That is what I do, when there is enough time. I will also adjust the contrast to expand or shrink the exposure enough to come as close as I can to occupying the fill width of the histogram left and right.
Click to expand...

Stretching the black point in the histogram to "fill" the width of the histogram can introduce noise in the shadows (also posterization), often dramatically. Especially true of images with a lot of shadow values. This is one instance where ettr is damaging, if it's your typical practice to "fill" out the histogram in post-processing. So, one response would be, if you chose to expose to the right to emphasize shadow detail, not to adjust the black point so dramatically, leaving "open" space on the left of the histogram, at the expense of some contrast.
 
Last edited:
aizan said:
this page thoroughly debunks the ettr myth:

http://chromasoft.blogspot.com/2009/09/why-expose-to-right-is-just-plain-wrong.html
Click to expand...

debunk? no, the author attributes the improvements at iso 800 vs 1600 to noise reduction in camera. meaning, i think, the G10 that's being used does pretty well with noise at iso 800 compared to iso 1600. so we're evaluating noise reduction applications in the article just as much, maybe more, than the exposure decision itself.

noise reduction is something imho that anyone can and should do themselves, more sensitively and intelligently, during postprocessing, using some of the really fine NR software that's out there.
 
animefx said:
....."Shooting to the Right" .......... with the Leica cameras the meter isn't considered spot, or partial, it covers a larger area.... how do you usually handle this?.....?
Click to expand...

I am very experienced at mid-grey reflective metering, but struggled for some time with the M8. I even tried Auto exposure but gave that up as too horrible for me. I have stated this before that the subject of M8/9 metering has been thrashed on LUF [which has a good 'Search' function].

I now use a technique that I find effortless, accurate, 'to the right', and without clipped highlights :

Set the exposure compensation to + 1 2/3. Manual meter only, and having set your aperture meter off the brightest highlight and set the shutter so the middle exposure dot in the viewfinder is highlighted but neither arrow. Practice the technique by checking the histogram and learn when to throw in 'exposure' tweaks depending on the area of highlight you are metering off, or the contrast conditions. For outdoors, simply meter off the brightest cloud; this should give a very good histogram. Try it; it's fast, it works.

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