Luminous Landscape Forum
Equipment & Techniques => Medium Format / Film / Digital Backs – and Large Sensor Photography => Topic started by: EricWHiss on November 03, 2007, 05:00:57 pm
-
Maybe this is a dumb question....but just curious what everyone else is doing...
Seemed like expose to the right was the rule with DSLRs but since shooting my Rollei/P20 and Leica DMR (which has similar dynamic range and is also 16bit) I have found that I am getting better results exposing the images for the look I want rather than exposing to the right and pushing down in post. In fact I might be crazy but to me it seems my files look best if I expose for the final rather than push down, and sometimes I find if I have to make exposure adjustments in post that the files look better if I push up rather than push down. Am I crazy?
-
Maybe this is a dumb question....but just curious what everyone else is doing...
Seemed like expose to the right was the rule with DSLRs but since shooting my Rollei/P20 and Leica DMR (which has similar dynamic range and is also 16bit) I have found that I am getting better results exposing the images for the look I want rather than exposing to the right and pushing down in post. In fact I might be crazy but to me it seems my files look best if I expose for the final rather than push down, and sometimes I find if I have to make exposure adjustments in post that the files look better if I push up rather than push down. Am I crazy?
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=150443\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Yes.
Being more serious I use a sti>dng>silkypix workflow which I don t find too good at moving the 'exposure compensation' to the left
So I always give my self a bit of 'left headroom' (footroom?) by never exppsing at 25ISO but keeping at 50 but I still go as far right as possible with the camera at 50
So my anwer is keep right, but not too far right
S
-
Maybe this is a dumb question....but just curious what everyone else is doing...
Seemed like expose to the right was the rule with DSLRs but since shooting my Rollei/P20 and Leica DMR (which has similar dynamic range and is also 16bit) I have found that I am getting better results exposing the images for the look I want rather than exposing to the right and pushing down in post. In fact I might be crazy but to me it seems my files look best if I expose for the final rather than push down, and sometimes I find if I have to make exposure adjustments in post that the files look better if I push up rather than push down. Am I crazy?
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=150443\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
As a relative newbie to MFDB, I'm also finding that exposing to the right doesn't work particularly well. I'm finding outdoors that exposing down 1/2 to 1 stop (using a spot meter average) seems to be getting it just right. With lower contrast subjects, that could be different, I suppose.
-
using a spot meter average)[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=150447\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
The meter ? so 20th C
I am looking at the histogram all the time and trying to just stop the highlight clipping (in a typical backlit scene)
S
-
If I trusted my Sekonic meter with A75+ I would have to redo all my sessions.
To me the amount of over or under exposure depends on the subject of the shoot.
With female faces the major issue is the quality of skin when choosing the exposure. Perfect skin
( does it really exist anymore ) I tend to expose right on or slightly under as it will work very well in the post production. Worst the skin - lighter I go and than move it to the left. It is all personal taste but it works well for me and my clients.
Andre
-
If I trusted my Sekonic meter with A75+ I would have to redo all my sessions.
To me the amount of over or under exposure depends on the subject of the shoot.
With female faces the major issue is the quality of skin when choosing the exposure. Perfect skin
( does it really exist anymore ) I tend to expose right on or slightly under as it will work very well in the post production. Worst the skin - lighter I go and than move it to the left. It is all personal taste but it works well for me and my clients.
Andre
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=150451\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Yes agree - seems to be dependent on subject - skin looks good nearly all the way to the right or even clipped a little as its the red channel that will clip first. But things like flowers or with lots of color look better IMHO with normal exposure or even under then pushed up.
-
The meter ? so 20th C
I am looking at the histogram all the time and trying to just stop the highlight clipping (in a typical backlit scene)
S
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=150449\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
See, told you I was a newbie with MF...So different from 35mm in some respects. I've now added the subject dependancy to my learning curve. Thanks guys!
-
with emotion backs, together with brumbaer sw the qestion is: where is the correct exposure point? the histogram at its right side, without showing clipped-reds in the highlight-warning, means that no channel exceeds 255.
now you still can expose one or two stops more, because the "highlight recovery" code already will find enough info to restore the image details.
this is true as long no "critical" colors have to be restored. so if i see red-warnings eg. in clouds, windows or highlights, i dont care and overexpose. if e.g. skin tones are redmarked i expose more carefull.
in general the data information in the higher stops of the histogram is much more dense than in the middle and in the shadows, for the nature how is light translated to digital.
and because digital are just many yes or nos, the image will look better as more to the right you go- ofcourse only as long there is valid information in the file.
-
Maybe this is a dumb question....but just curious what everyone else is doing...
Seemed like expose to the right was the rule with DSLRs but since shooting my Rollei/P20 and Leica DMR (which has similar dynamic range and is also 16bit) I have found that I am getting better results exposing the images for the look I want rather than exposing to the right and pushing down in post. In fact I might be crazy but to me it seems my files look best if I expose for the final rather than push down, and sometimes I find if I have to make exposure adjustments in post that the files look better if I push up rather than push down. Am I crazy?
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=150443\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
I have found the same thing with my P30+. I think it is because their is so much more shadow detail than 12 bit DSLRs. I still expose to the right but don't push it as far as I used to with my Canons. I generally expose one with a normal looking histogram and another one exposed right and 9 out of 10 times I end up using the normal exposure with a little push in the shadows.
It is amazing how much more usable the MFDB files are in the shadows. I have similar results with the 14 bit Canon 1DIII but to a lesser extant than the p30.
-
Thanks to all for your responses.
I've done some more testing with this. I think I still prefer to not expose to the the right for most images. Here's what I've found with my tests and I did find differences in the files exposed to the right vs properly exposed or even under exposed. The difference has to do with where the contrast of the image is upper half or lower half.
If you expose to the right, then you will obviously need to do an extra step in post. The images from my P20/Rollei needed both a downward exposure and a gamma/brightness adjustment, but still the color saturation was different. This put another way, if you expose right, then adjust you will decrease contrast in the upper half of the tones and increase contrast in the lower half of the tones. If you underexpose and push up you get the opposite, increase in contrast in the brighter half of the image, and decrease in contrast in the lower half.
Comparing a file captured to expose to the right and proper (diff was .5 stops), I found the resulting processed files were not the same even if you adjust exposure, brightness and set the white and black points to the same figures!
As long as I am don't have the shadows totally blocked (or am shooting with ISO 400 or higher) then I am finding I prefer proper or even slightly underexposed images. Call me crazy but I like the results.
Eric
-
Seemed like expose to the right was the rule with DSLRs but since shooting my Rollei/P20 and Leica DMR (which has similar dynamic range and is also 16bit)
[{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a] (http://index.php?act=findpost&pid=150443\")
Are they capturing linear encoded Raw data? If so, the ETTR concept is no different. Its not the chip size nor the bit depth at work here, its where you put your data in a linear encoded data source.
You may notice less a difference by putting less data in the shadows by not ETTR but the results are, ETTR isn't about over exposure, its about exposing to provide the most data in the last stop.
[a href=\"http://www.digitalphotopro.com/tech/exposing-for-raw.html]http://www.digitalphotopro.com/tech/exposing-for-raw.html[/url]
-
Are they capturing linear encoded Raw data? If so, the ETTR concept is no different. Its not the chip size nor the bit depth at work here, its where you put your data in a linear encoded data source.
You may notice less a difference by putting less data in the shadows by not ETTR but the results are, ETTR isn't about over exposure, its about exposing to provide the most data in the last stop.
Andrew,
Since I am familiar with your style of posts, let me suggest you do a real test on your own. Take your MFDB and shoot a couple images on a tripod bracketing exposures and then adjust them in post so that the white points and black points are the same then adjust the brightness or gamma until the middle peaks are at the same point in the histogram. Now overlay the images in PS and set blend mode to difference. Check it out and report back. The images will not be the same. What you have no MFBD? okay use your favorite digicam, but I encourage you to do your own testing rather than speculate.
Eric
-
Check it out and report back. The images will not be the same. What you have no MFBD? okay use your favorite digicam, but I encourage you to do your own testing rather than speculate.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=151176\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
I wouldn't expect them to be the same.
Again, if we're talking about linear encoded data, the encoding can't be anything other than half of all the data being contained in the first stop, the least in the last.
As for the tests, they were done with a DSLR in the URL I posted previously.
-
I wouldn't expect them to be the same.
Again, if we're talking about linear encoded data, the encoding can't be anything other than half of all the data being contained in the first stop, the least in the last.
As for the tests, they were done with a DSLR in the URL I posted previously.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=151177\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Yeah it all makes sense in a linear encoding scheme, except that the RAW converters don't provide a way to mush the data back and forth that produces equal results both for up and down. That's what I'm saying. IF there were a way to do this with C1 then ETTR would be the best way. So far I haven't found a way to do this and get equal results. Even if you could get equal results why would you want to add one more step to your workflow if it wasn't needed? Anyhow we agree on the point that the results for normal exposure and ETTR adjusted in post are not the equal, and I am further saying I prefer the normal exposure or even .5 stop under for visual look. I think the reason is because the contrast is not affected as it is in the ETTR adjusted version. The result looks more real to me.
-
Yeah it all makes sense in a linear encoding scheme, except that the RAW converters don't provide a way to mush the data back and forth that produces equal results both for up and down.
I don't understand what that means.
That's what I'm saying. IF there were a way to do this with C1 then ETTR would be the best way.
Why is C1 an issue?
So far I haven't found a way to do this and get equal results. Even if you could get equal results why would you want to add one more step to your workflow if it wasn't needed?
They are not supposed to be equal.
Just make the highlight clipping value of each the same, let everything else fall where it will. No, the midtones and shadows will not be equal. For one, you'll see a lot less noise in the shadows (if you clamp/clip the black the same, you may end up reducing noise at the expense of true shadow detail. In fact, a great way to reduce noise is to clip the black!).
Anyhow we agree on the point that the results for normal exposure and ETTR adjusted in post are not the equal, and I am further saying I prefer the normal exposure or even .5 stop under for visual look.
They are not. But you need to normalize the rendering for what appears to be 'over exposure' unless as I point out in the article, you really DO over expose and get past the point of sensor saturation.
I think the reason is because the contrast is not affected as it is in the ETTR adjusted version. The result looks more real to me.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=151180\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Again, I can't comment on this (looks more real). One should be able to use the Raw rendering controls to get the best possible data AND a rendering you desire but I can't speak to C1, I used Lightroom (which is the same as CR).
You'll also note, I found almost as many issues with ETTR that make it an iffy proposition. But, the math is undeniable. IF you expose properly for digital, which IS ETTR (not blowing out highlight data you hope to reproduce), you WILL get better data, less noise in that last stop. That may not be important to you and that's fine.
But the format is immaterial here if indeed we're taking apples to apples with linear encoded data. Look at the figure of this in the article, its clear how much you have in the first stop and the last stop.
-
Andrew,
Sorry you assumed that I read your article. I did not and most likely will not. I think it a safe bet that other participants in this thread also will not read it.
We agree that the data IS different. We disagree that ETTR is better data, because what matters to me is how the image looks.
The whole point of the thread is to ask people who are shooting MFDB (which I think does not include you) whether they like the results of ETTR or not. I am stating that I do not in most cases (though it does seem dependent on subject). I think the reason is because it throws the contrast of the image off unequally between the lower half and upper half of the histogram. I wanted to hear from more seasoned MFDB shooters how they felt on the issue.
btw - I don't use the profile you made for me for my HP printer. The stock HP profile gave more realistic looking greens, yellows and reds.
Eric
-
Andrew,
Sorry you assumed that I read your article. I did not and most likely will not. I think it a safe bet that other participants in this thread also will not read it.
Andrew happens to be one of the foremost exerts out there in the area of color management and digital imaging. Ignoring his input is probably unwise.
-
Andrew,
Sorry you assumed that I read your article. I did not and most likely will not. I think it a safe bet that other participants in this thread also will not read it.
We agree that the data IS different. We disagree that ETTR is better data, because what matters to me is how the image looks.
The whole point of the thread is to ask people who are shooting MFDB (which I think does not include you) whether they like the results of ETTR or not. I am stating that I do not in most cases (though it does seem dependent on subject). I think the reason is because it throws the contrast of the image off unequally between the lower half and upper half of the histogram. I wanted to hear from more seasoned MFDB shooters how they felt on the issue.
btw - I don't use the profile you made for me for my HP printer. The stock HP profile gave more realistic looking greens, yellows and reds.
Eric
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=151239\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
I shoot the P45+, 5d, and 1DSMarkII, and find ETTR provides far better data and less noise in shadows. While it takes more work in the RAW processor, the end results I feel are superior - especially in the P45 files. In fact, recently I've been experimenting with a technique to simulate the 0 noise effect discussed elsewhere on this forum, and take 2 exposures, pushing all of the shadows into the upper half of the histogram on one allowing the highlights to clip. I pull this exposure back down to match the density of the original capture, then have been trying various techniques to use this layer in the shadows. If done right, the only change when I enable this layer is less noise .. no color or density changes. This isn't HDR ... my dynamic range fits easily within the histogram, it's just when I'm worried about noise in shadow regions (higher ISO).
It seems to me that as long as as the sensor is capturing the data in a linear fashion, the only difference in ETTR is the ability to capture more levels/details vs noise. As long as you don't blow pixels, the data can be pulled back down. It doesn't matter where on the histogram they lie, because the information that's important is the relationship of the values to each other, and that relationship doesn't change as long as you contain the values within the histogram - they just slide up and down equally.
I'm not sure why you wouldn't read his article, or the one by Michael. They are both very good, well written, explain the concept very well, and discuss the role Thomas Knoll played in the concept. At this point your evaluation of ETTR seems to be quite subjective, not based on actual science which supports the concept quite easily.
-
I'm not sure it would be wise to write off the advice of Thomas Knoll, Andrew Rodney, Bruce Frasier and a host of others who know a great deal more about the subject than you do. While they may not shoot for a living they did have a huge hand in creating the software that drives the industry. With more books and articles under their belts than most can absorb, it would be better to stand on their shoulders and enjoy the view then to dismiss them so easily from you one limited view. Just a thought.
Make a good exposure and don't blow the highlights. In that exposure put something there that is worth looking at and don't sweat the miniscule stuff just trust that it works.
-
Yeah it all makes sense in a linear encoding scheme, except that the RAW converters don't provide a way to mush the data back and forth that produces equal results both for up and down. That's what I'm saying. IF there were a way to do this with C1 then ETTR would be the best way. So far I haven't found a way to do this and get equal results. Even if you could get equal results why would you want to add one more step to your workflow if it wasn't needed? Anyhow we agree on the point that the results for normal exposure and ETTR adjusted in post are not the equal, and I am further saying I prefer the normal exposure or even .5 stop under for visual look. I think the reason is because the contrast is not affected as it is in the ETTR adjusted version. The result looks more real to me.
[{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a] (http://index.php?act=findpost&pid=151180\")
As explained in an essay by[a href=\"http://www.luminous-landscape.com/pdf/Curves2.pdf] Mark Segal[/url] on this site, ACR curves may increase contrast and saturation, but were designed to do so by Thomas Knoll. Indeed, Mr. Knoll is reported to have said that such behavior entails extra programming effort, but he the took the extra effort because that was what most photographers want. In the case of s simple exposure correction on linear data, one would think that no such shifts would occur as Andrew Rodney stated. Exposure boost simply involves multiplication of the linear data by a given factor; for example, an exposure boost of 1 EV entails multiplying the data points by 2. All data points are affected proportionally.
Andrew is quite well known in imaging circles and the fact that you apparently do not even know who he is indicates that you are not well read and may not be that knowledgeable in imaging theory.
Please look at Mark's table and note the HSB values before and after an exposure boost of 1.75 EV. Hue and saturation do not change, only the brightness. Why don't you post some examples of the deleterious effects of a negative exposure in ACR or C1, rather than merely making undocumented claims which contradict those expressed by authorities such as Andrew, Michael Reichman, Thomas Knoll, and Bruce Fraser? Personally, I would take the view expressed by these authorities rather than the view of someone I don't know. Perhaps then I would take your claims more seriously.
-
btw - I don't use the profile you made for me for my HP printer. The stock HP profile gave more realistic looking greens, yellows and reds.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=151239\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
As you would see on my site, I offer a money back guarantee on profiles if you're not happy.
I have absolutely no record of building a profile for you BTW. But you can contact me off list about this since apparently you feel that this has something to do with your disagreements about ETTR which clearly it does not.
Then you can explain what "realistic looking" is colorimetrically <g>. I'm having a difficult time understanding your use of language in a few areas here.
-
I have absolutely no record of building a profile for you BTW. But you can contact me off list about this since apparently you feel that this has something to do with your disagreements about ETTR which clearly it does not.
No need to take this off topic here. Got the profile a couple years back. You probably don't remember meeting me at SFdig either.
-
No need to take this off topic here. Got the profile a couple years back. You probably don't remember meeting me at SFdig either.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=151314\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
No recollection that is correct.
-
I'm not sure it would be wise to write off the advice of Thomas Knoll, Andrew Rodney, Bruce Frasier and a host of others who know a great deal more about the subject than you do. While they may not shoot for a living they did have a huge hand in creating the software that drives the industry. ...
Definitely I'm not writing off Knoll or Frasier, or Margulis or Schewe....did I forget anybody? But what I am saying is I (me personally) like the look of the file better without ETTR. I am not looking at 1's and 0's....I am looking at an image.
-
Definitely I'm not writing off Knoll or Frasier, or Margulis or Schewe....did I forget anybody? But what I am saying is I (me personally) like the look of the file better without ETTR. I am not looking at 1's and 0's....I am looking at an image.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=151316\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
I did the experiment that Eric suggested and am somewhat surprised by the results. I had some exposures of a Stouffer step wedge. The first was exposed so that step 1 has a pixel value of 250 when converted with ACR at default settings into aRGB. This is exposed to the right as far as possible. A second exposure placed the same step at 221, and this step was brought back to 250 in ACR, which required an exposure compensation of +1.05 EV.
If you compare the resultant images in Photoshop using the difference blending mode, the differences are in the mid tones and are too dark to make out on the screen, but can be detected with the eye dropper.
(http://bjanes.smugmug.com/photos/219045125-O-1.jpg)
Imatest plots show the tonal response curves more clearly and they are different.As expected, the under exposure costs dynamic range, but when the ACR exposure compensation is carried out, the TRCs are different as shown. Comments are invited.
(http://bjanes.smugmug.com/photos/219045113-O.gif)
-
I did the experiment that Eric suggested and am somewhat surprised by the results. I had some exposures of a Stouffer step wedge. The first was exposed so that step 1 has a pixel value of 250 when converted with ACR at default settings into aRGB. This is exposed to the right as far as possible. A second exposure placed the same step at 221, and this step was brought back to 250 in ACR, which required an exposure compensation of +1.05 EV.
Curious as to which camera/back and which RAW converter was used for the test.
(noticed the nikon d200 after I posted and ACR after I posted. Sorry)
-
I did the experiment that Eric suggested and am somewhat surprised by the results.
.
.
.
Imatest plots show the tonal response curves more clearly and they are different.As expected, the under exposure costs dynamic range, but when the ACR exposure compensation is carried out, the TRCs are different as shown. Comments are invited.
Bill,
Thanks very much for your work here. I really appreciate seeing the imatest chart.
Eric
-
Bill,
Thanks very much for your work here. I really appreciate seeing the imatest chart.
Eric
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=151369\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
So this told you what exactly? That they are different and you lose dynamic range from under exposing (as I'd expect). And what about increased noise in the shadows? Also, ISO plays a pretty big role here!
-
Bill,
Thanks very much for your work here. I really appreciate seeing the imatest chart.
Eric
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=151369\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Since I have noticed the differences in the look of the images depending on exposure, I have often wondered if the sensors response is not actually completely linear near saturation or if the software handles the conversion in a non-linear way? Bill just wondering how you had the default curve set in ACR for your tests? If you used the default settings, then probably a medium curve was used and not a linear conversion? Just wondering if this might account for some of the differences in the TCRs?
-
what about increased noise in the shadows? Also, ISO plays a pretty big role here!
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=151371\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
As I have stated previously, I'm talking about low ISO shots where the DR is not bigger than the range of the camera's sensor, ie. clipping the shadows. My P20 isn't doing well even with ETTR over ISO 400 but I'm mostly talking about studio use with strobes and I normally am shooting ISO 50.
I care a lot more about how the overall image looks than about some noise in the shadows which most likely will not show up in the prints anyhow. This was not the case when I shot with my 1D, 1Ds because with those cameras even if I only pushed up the exposure by 1/2 a stop I'd get blotches and banding and other ugly things. But with the MFDB I don't see those things and now can look at the overall image. That's when I noticed the difference in the normal exposure vs ETTR.
-
As I have stated previously, I'm talking about low ISO shots where the DR is not bigger than the range of the camera's sensor, ie. clipping the shadows.
Well if the time comes that reading my piece isn't to laborious for you, you'll see that lower ISO's produce less benefits from ETTR than higher but the results in better data is still there (its just going to be hard to see).
I can't speak again to your converter but with the proper tools, there should be little reason why you can't produce a rendering you prefer with better data. Its pretty easy to add noise to shadows if that's what you like. Removing noise, that aint so easy. Same said of dynamic range. Pretty easy to clip the blacks IF that's the look you want. Extending the range? Not going to happen.
Again, for the last time (and you did start this by saying it might be a stupid question so you brought this onto yourself), ETTR isn't about over exposure, its about the best exposure for providing the best possible data to shape and tone. One could under expose a print paper and let it lay in the developer a lot longer and you might actually prefer that print. But I doubt many here would call that best practices. At the very least, its useful to see how to produce the best possible data for rendering, then if so desire, go ahead and break the rules. But its kind of pointless to argue that under exposure is going to produce a better Raw file for rendering than one exposed correctly.
-
So this told you what exactly? That they are different and you lose dynamic range from under exposing (as I'd expect). And what about increased noise in the shadows? Also, ISO plays a pretty big role here!
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=151371\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Yes, there is 1 f/stop less dynamic range and 1.4 times more luminance noise with the reduced exposure and 1 stop push, as one would expect. On average the noise follows a Poisson distribution with a factor of sqrt(2). However, in the deep shadows where read noise comes into play, the noise doubles.
-
The amount of knowledge that you guys have about these charts and numbers as well as the amount of energy that you spend on it is amazing. I must be the dumbest photographer here. My approach is so unscientific and simple based only on what is pleasing to an eye and aesthetically working in an image. I can spend 20 hours post processing a single pic and never look at any digits. I guess I consider myself lucky as certainly numbers were not what attracted me to photography in the first place.
andre
-
The amount of knowledge that you guys have about these charts and numbers as well as the amount of energy that you spend on it is amazing. I must be the dumbest photographer here. My approach is so unscientific and simple based only on what is pleasing to an eye and aesthetically working in an image. I can spend 20 hours post processing a single pic and never look at any digits. I guess I consider myself lucky as certainly numbers were not what attracted me to photography in the first place.
andre
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=151404\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
One can use decent empirical testing methods AND just look at images.
Least you forget, all those lovely images you're viewing on screen are just a big pile of 1's and zero's.
You can go back to analog photography (I don't know how old you are) and get all caught up in chemistry if you want. Numbers, chemicals, they don't make good images but without them, you have NO images.
-
The amount of knowledge that you guys have about these charts and numbers as well as the amount of energy that you spend on it is amazing. I must be the dumbest photographer here. My approach is so unscientific and simple based only on what is pleasing to an eye and aesthetically working in an image. I can spend 20 hours post processing a single pic and never look at any digits. I guess I consider myself lucky as certainly numbers were not what attracted me to photography in the first place.
andre
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=151404\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Shame on you Andre, judging simply by eye is simply not on. It doesn't count unles you pixel peeep. Next, you'll be calling yourself an artist!
I'd also observe that I've rarely seen any interesting/creative images produced by those overly concerned with the very techy aspects of photography. There are the odd exceptions.
-
I'd also observe that I've rarely seen any interesting/creative images produced by those overly concerned with the very techy aspects of photography. There are the odd exceptions.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=151413\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Like Ansel Adam’s? Or Pete Turner? Or Greg Gorman? Or Douglas Dubler (to name just a few).
-
Since I have noticed the differences in the look of the images depending on exposure, I have often wondered if the sensors response is not actually completely linear near saturation or if the software handles the conversion in a non-linear way? Bill just wondering how you had the default curve set in ACR for your tests? If you used the default settings, then probably a medium curve was used and not a linear conversion? Just wondering if this might account for some of the differences in the TCRs?
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=151376\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Yes, the default ACR has a medium curve. If you make the ACR conversions completely linear by setting brightness and contrast to zero and setting the point curve to linear, the two results become very similar. In this situation, ACR does not vary the TRC according to the content of the image.
[attachment=3762:attachment]
-
One can use decent empirical testing methods AND just look at images.
Least you forget, all those lovely images you're viewing on screen are just a big pile of 1's and zero's.
You can go back to analog photography (I don't know how old you are) and get all caught up in chemistry if you want. Numbers, chemicals, they don't make good images but without them, you have NO images.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=151405\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Andrew,
With all do respect zero's and one's has as much to do with good images as an ink has to do with good book. You right, without an ink there is no book.
I shot analog for almost 20 years. I shoot strictly MF digital for last 8 years. I operate PS since the PS2.
I consider Photoshop an artistic tool and know it as good as the other guy who spends 6-8 hours a day post processing. When working in darkroom I never cared to know chemical composition of my developers but sure knew how to use them and get the best of each one combo. I knew it because I looked at the results - the prints. Knowing how many atoms of sulphur it takes was left to others, others who look at beautiful fully commercially marketable image and check for signs of banning in the shadows.
Andre
-
I did the experiment that Eric suggested and am somewhat surprised by the results. I had some exposures of a Stouffer step wedge. The first was exposed so that step 1 has a pixel value of 250 when converted with ACR at default settings into aRGB. This is exposed to the right as far as possible. A second exposure placed the same step at 221, and this step was brought back to 250 in ACR, which required an exposure compensation of +1.05 EV.
OK, I guess I'm missing something here. To me you seem to be testing opposite of what I do with ETTR.
I expose the image to push all values as high as possible without blowing pixels, and typically use a -0.5 to -1.5 EV adjustment to pull the exposure into normal range. This sounds like you are trying to push the exposure of the normally exposed image to match the ETTR image.
I would assume the only purpose to do a test like this is to confirm that using ETTR and pulling down the exposure in a RAW converter would be a very linear process ... if it isn't very linear then ETTR doesn't work. I guess you can assume it is linear in either direction, but seems logical that you would pull down the over exposed image to make the test rather than push up the normal one, which would duplicate what ETTR does. May make no difference what so ever .. I have no clue.
What am I missing?
-
With all do respect zero's and one's has as much to do with good images as an ink has to do with good book. You right, without an ink there is no book.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=151416\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Exactly! You may not care about how the ink or the chemicals were made nor should you have to assuming someone else has taken the care and time to do this. As we both agree, without ink, there's no book, without numbers, there is no digital image. But you now control a great deal more of the process than before. You create the numbers, you don't create the film stock or the chemicals. Exposing for digital simply means you are aware of your actions when building numbers, just as exposing for the shadows, developing for the highlights (even if the development wasn't something you personally did) played a role in the quality of your image.
Yes, you'd be better off artistically being half a stop under and capturing a killer image than nailing your exposure and shooting something that isn't at all interesting. But you'd be better off exposing properly while making an artistically beautiful image. The two don't have to be mutually exclusive. I sometimes find this is a straw man argument from those would prefer to ignore best practices in any field (and I'm NOT talking about you specifically). When someone discusses proper technique, others will dismiss this as not being part of the artistic process. Well it is, to some degree.
So having art enter this particular technical discussion is just a distraction (for those of you who are going into that direction). Let's examine the original question here. Its about proper exposure and the belief that medium format is somehow different from DSLR's in this respect. I don't buy it because of the 1's and Zero's. The math is undeniable.
One can say, I don't care, I prefer the way I'm exposing by not using ETTR. That's cool. But as I've tried to point out to others lurking here, you should fully understand what's going on under the hood and probably, like me, test this yourself. I didn't write a fluff piece about how wonderful ETTR is, it clearly has issues (which I'll add, many but not all could be fixed by the manufacturers).
-
I fully agree with you on this: the technical process, being it for a chemical or a digital workflow, together with its consequences, should be known. It makes, IMO, the creative process much "easier" in the way that it allows creating images without the negative part of the "by chance" factor: as you say it rightly, "you'd be better off exposing properly while making an artistically beautiful image".
After, when knowing excatly what happens in most situations, it is up to each of us to play with this knowledge by using or ignoring it.
Thierry
Exactly! You may not care about how the ink or the chemicals were made nor should you have to assuming someone else has taken the care and time to do this. As we both agree, without ink, there's no book, without numbers, there is no digital image. But you now control a great deal more of the process than before. You create the numbers, you don't create the film stock or the chemicals. Exposing for digital simply means you are aware of your actions when building numbers, just as exposing for the shadows, developing for the highlights (even if the development wasn't something you personally did) played a role in the quality of your image.
Yes, you'd be better off artistically being half a stop under and capturing a killer image than nailing your exposure and shooting something that isn't at all interesting. But you'd be better off exposing properly while making an artistically beautiful image. The two don't have to be mutually exclusive. I sometimes find this is a straw man argument from those would prefer to ignore best practices in any field (and I'm NOT talking about you specifically). When someone discusses proper technique, others will dismiss this as not being part of the artistic process. Well it is, to some degree.
So having art enter this particular technical discussion is just a distraction (for those of you who are going into that direction). Let's examine the original question here. Its about proper exposure and the belief that medium format is somehow different from DSLR's in this respect. I don't buy it because of the 1's and Zero's. The math is undeniable.
One can say, I don't care, I prefer the way I'm exposing by not using ETTR. That's cool. But as I've tried to point out to others lurking here, you should fully understand what's going on under the hood and probably, like me, test this yourself. I didn't write a fluff piece about how wonderful ETTR is, it clearly has issues (which I'll add, many but not all could be fixed by the manufacturers).
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=151418\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
-
Andrew,
With all do respect zero's and one's has as much to do with good images as an ink has to do with good book. You right, without an ink there is no book.
I shot analog for almost 20 years. I shoot strictly MF digital for last 8 years. I operate PS since the PS2.
I consider Photoshop an artistic tool and know it as good as the other guy who spends 6-8 hours a day post processing. When working in darkroom I never cared to know chemical composition of my developers but sure knew how to use them and get the best of each one combo. I knew it because I looked at the results - the prints. Knowing how many atoms of sulphur it takes was left to others, others who look at beautiful fully commercially marketable image and check for signs of banning in the shadows.
Andre
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=151416\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
I shot analog for over 20 years as well, probably more like 25. I understood very well how to get a few particular films to perform in a various ways. I owned a decent size wholesale lab operation which started from purchasing my own Kreonite processor and enlarger, and learning how to make good prints because I didn't like what my lab was giving me. This prompted colleagues to ask me to make prints for them which got me into that business. I feel I was (emphasize was) decently skilled in printing.
I don't understand all the 1's and 0's either, and I also consider Photoshop a creative tool, much like various techniques I used in the darkroom. Common to both technologies is the simple fact that the better the capture/negative/transparency, the better the resulting image.
However, the workflow and model have changed so dramatically, yet the technology still lags behind. Metering systems are still based on analog film concepts, and gone are the days where making an image was exactly that ... making images. Other than a preliminary guide from a video analyzer, custom printing was an exercise in test after test after test, and often multiple prints before everything was just right.
Now we have photoshop and a computer monitor, and the challenge is to get it all done so we can print it right the first time. But we have cameras that determine exposures as though they had film inside, which as many try to point out, isn't the best way to get an optimum raw capture from a linear device.
So those that do understand the 1's and 0's, such as Andrew, Thomas Knoll etc, explain to us why certain techniques will result in a better raw capture before we go into photoshop, but we still seem be stuck in a world where we think we should expose our digital cameras just like we did our film cameras. We can't seem to trust them, and when they try and explain the science so we will trust them, we throw up the shields and excuses about just being an artist and just wanting good images. What they're telling us helps make better images.
ETTR is about capturing more levels and detail in the RAW capture, taking advantage of the inherit nature of the chip and linear capture. It is about exposing in a way that is best for linear digital data to get the most levels/gradations/detail out of every capture. An image using ETTR in most cases will yield a better starting point when you bring it into the raw converter ... the simple fact is it contains a lot more information. This is especially important if you are doing a lot of work with photoshop, as it sounds like you do, because most steps in photoshop to improve some aspect of the image can have a negative impact on the data in other ways.
This really isn't theory, and certainly you can choose to ignore it. But if you are trying to create optimum captures so you can get the very best prints, ETTR isn't that complicated or hard to do. You just have to believe what these guys are saying and quit believing the image you are seeing on the back of your camera when evaluating exposure.
-
OK, I guess I'm missing something here. To me you seem to be testing opposite of what I do with ETTR.
I expose the image to push all values as high as possible without blowing pixels, and typically use a -0.5 to -1.5 EV adjustment to pull the exposure into normal range. This sounds like you are trying to push the exposure of the normally exposed image to match the ETTR image.
I would assume the only purpose to do a test like this is to confirm that using ETTR and pulling down the exposure in a RAW converter would be a very linear process ... if it isn't very linear then ETTR doesn't work. I guess you can assume it is linear in either direction, but seems logical that you would pull down the over exposed image to make the test rather than push up the normal one, which would duplicate what ETTR does. May make no difference what so ever .. I have no clue.
What am I missing?
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=151417\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Wayne,
If you want, you could consider the lesser exposure as the normal exposure and the higher exposure as the ETTR exposure. If the process is linear, then the ETTR exposure could be brought down 1 EV in the raw converter to compensate for the 1 EV additional exposure in the camera and the results should be similar as you indicate. However, with ACR they are not, at least when using the default tone curve.
If your subject dynamic range is equal to that of the camera , then the only proper exposure is to expose fully to the right so as to capture the entire image without clipping either the shadows or highlights. If the dynamic range of the subject exceeds that of the camera, then you have to choose what portion of the subject you wish to capture.
If you are dealing with a short scale subject whose dynamic range is less than that of the camera, then you have some latitude in exposure and can place the exposure either to the left or right without clipping. In this case the exposure should be the one that best takes advantage of the characteristics of the capture medium.
As Ansel Adams explained many years ago for monochrome negative film, one should give the minimum exposure that still records the shadow detail. You can then obtain the desired density in printing. With digital one should place the highlights just short of clipping, and adjust the luminosity with the exposure control of the raw converter. However, if the process is not linear, then the tonal reproduction in the the image will change with exposure.
My test does not apply to a short scale subject whose dynamic range is less than that of the camera, but such a test would be of interest. The Stouffer wedge has greater dynamic range than the camera.
-
Shame on you Andre, judging simply by eye is simply not on. It doesn't count unles you pixel peeep. Next, you'll be calling yourself an artist!
I'd also observe that I've rarely seen any interesting/creative images produced by those overly concerned with the very techy aspects of photography. There are the odd exceptions.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=151413\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
This I disagree with. It seems fashion nowadays to cover a lack of knowledge by claiming to be creative. To totally master every technical aspect means a much wider spectrum of tools to feed your creative urges, IMO.
Having said this, I know people that never do the numbers but have an excellent eye on what they are doing and are able to create good results that way, some even stellar results. You would be amazed when checking their numbers how close it will get to what is being considered the 'best/right' way technically.
Technical aspects are subject to creative expression but by no means they are insignificant or 'unworthy'.
-
This I disagree with. It seems fashion nowadays to cover a lack of knowledge by claiming to be creative. To totally master every technical aspect means a much wider spectrum of tools to feed your creative urges, IMO.
Having said this, I know people that never do the numbers but have an excellent eye on what they are doing and are able to create good results that way, some even stellar results. You would be amazed when checking their numbers how close it will get to what is being considered the 'best/right' way technically.
Technical aspects are subject to creative expression but by no means they are insignificant or 'unworthy'.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=151466\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
I think its fair to assume that anyone even reading this forum has at least some interest in the technical aspects of photography. But this ETTR stuff needs to be put in perspective. Its no where near as important as lighting and composition and a whole bunch of other stuff at least IMHO. Its way down on my list, especially now with DR that is bigger than a lot of film. You do need to know how to use your tools but the goal is always to make a good image, not to feel warm inside about your 0's and 1's.
So those of you that are doing ETTR on the majority of your images, are you setting your favorite RAW converter to linear when you push down the exposure? Then what are you doing to the image? Do you add color saturation or fiddle with the curves? I am still struggling to make my color images look better especially with really saturated colors like with flowers and stuff and sometimes skin.
Thanks,
Eric
-
So those of you that are doing ETTR on the majority of your images, are you setting your favorite RAW converter to linear when you push down the exposure?
Yes. Or at least linear is my default setting in ACR. If I want to boost contrast, I'll pull in the endpoints of the curve so that the histogram fills most of the space between 0 and 255. And I may tweak the midtones by setting a point or two in the middle of the curve somewhere and pulling it up or down to get the overall tonality I want. But linear is always my starting point, and I always shoot as far to the right as I can without clipping non-specular highlights.
Exposing to the right may mean that you don't get exactly what you want with all RAW conversion settings at their default values. But it always means that you get a file with more usable image data that can be tweaked and adjusted more aggressively before falling apart than one can get by any other exposure strategy. I have very little concern for what I get with all default settings; what matters to me is the result I get after using all of the techniques at my disposal to make the image be all it can be. And ETTR is what always works best under those circumstances, whether you shoot with a MFDB, DSLR, or a digicam.
-
Yes. Or at least linear is my default setting in ACR. If I want to boost contrast, I'll pull in the endpoints of the curve so that the histogram fills most of the space between 0 and 255. And I may tweak the midtones by setting a point or two in the middle of the curve somewhere and pulling it up or down to get the overall tonality I want. But linear is always my starting point, and I always shoot as far to the right as I can without clipping non-specular highlights.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=151478\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Jonathan,
What do you mean by linear? To get a linear response from ACR, one sets brightness, contrast and the black point to zero on the main tab and the point curve in the curves tab to linear. Or is your default merely setting the point curve to linear and, possibly, the black point to zero on the main tab?
In the first case, the converted image will be very flat even after you set the black and white points, and will require manipulation of the mid-tones as well. All this can be done, but it seems to me to be a lot of extra work.
Bill
-
I have the shadow contrast, and saturation sliders set to 0. This gives a kind of flat initial look, but I can shoot ETTR, adjust exposure as needed, and then tweak the image with the curve control in ACR as desired to get the optimal amount of global contrast and overall tonality. If the image is still flat, I simply boost local contrast while running my midtone sharpening action. I run the same process on every image; I simply adjust the parameters of each step to achieve whatever look I'm going for.
http://www.visual-vacations.com/Profession...s/Portraits.htm (http://www.visual-vacations.com/ProfessionalServices/Portraits.htm)
Adding punch to a flat image is easy; you simply adjust the black/white points via levels/curves or boost local contrast with large radius USM. Trying to tame down and overly contrasty image is much harder, and in many cases impossible if channels have been clipped.
-
I did not wanted to sound like an artist hiding his ignorance behind his creation. In the past I used to scan images on state of an art Scitex-Creo scanner and had a pretty good hand of. My prints were perfect to me and my clients. In the quest to improve even farther I decided to have selected negatives rescan by first class tech on drum Tango. I supervise the process. The tech never took a look at the negatives during his work. He have completed the project just by numbers. I received a bunch of mathematically perfect images with the most information displayed in the most unpleasant way. I was never able to recover the looks the way I envision them even after days in PS.
I constantly look at the work published in the international top fashion magazines and have to conclude that over 90% of it does not meet the criteria of perfectly mathematically exposed images.
As I said at the beginning I must be the dumbest photographer who just want to be able create images that people love to look at and pay money for it. When I look at my prints I see silver or ink
but I do not see any zeros or ones. "Knowledge is a blessing and a curse" I try to remember it and balance it every day. I am done with this subject.
http://AndreNapier.com (http://AndreNapier.com)
-
.
.
.
"Knowledge is a blessing and a curse" I try to remember it and balance it every day. I am done with this subject.
http://AndreNapier.com (http://AndreNapier.com)
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=151516\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
I agree with that Andre! But let me add to that with another expression and old one. "To a hammer, everything looks like a nail."
Well I try to strike a balance too. Everytime I learn something new wrt digital tech, I have to play with it for a while on the forefront until it gets absorbed into my subconscious level where hopefully I just do it instead of having to think about it while shooting. Problem with digital stuff is there is something new nearly everyday!
-
I decided to have selected negatives rescan by first class tech on drum Tango. I supervise the process. The tech never took a look at the negatives during his work. He have completed the project just by numbers. I received a bunch of mathematically perfect images with the most information displayed in the most unpleasant way. I was never able to recover the looks the way I envision them even after days in PS.
And was the problem with the images due to exposure or bad color? If color is good, but tonality needs tweaking and you can't fix it, your photoshop skills are quite lacking. There are many ways to adjust tonality without affecting color, such as doing a curve adjustment layer with luminance blend mode, or converting to LAB and doing curves on the L channel. If the colors weren't right in the scan, then the scanning profile was bad, and fixing that can be very difficult unless you have a better profile and can assign it to the files. But neither of those things has any validity as an argument against ETTR, especially when comparing a film scan to digital capture. Given the linear nature of digital capture vs the nonlinear nature of film, your argument is comparing apples to anchovies.
-
Adding punch to a flat image is easy; you simply adjust the black/white points via levels/curves or boost local contrast with large radius USM. Trying to tame down and overly contrasty image is much harder, and in many cases impossible if channels have been clipped.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=151506\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Adjusting the black and white points in levels will increase the contrast in all areas of the image, but it might be better to determine which tonal regions of the image need a contrast boost and apply an S curve after setting the black and white points in a curve. The inflection point of the S curve can be determined by locating the critical tones with the eyedropper. The S curve adds contrast in the critical areas of the image and compresses tones in noncritical areas. This local compression helps if the dynamic range of the resulting image exceeds that of the display device.
Large radius USM is an interesting option, but the process might destroy details that one wishes to preserve.
-
And was the problem with the images due to exposure or bad color? If color is good, but tonality needs tweaking and you can't fix it, your photoshop skills are quite lacking. There are many ways to adjust tonality without affecting color, such as doing a curve adjustment layer with luminance blend mode, or converting to LAB and doing curves on the L channel. If the colors weren't right in the scan, then the scanning profile was bad, and fixing that can be very difficult unless you have a better profile and can assign it to the files. But neither of those things has any validity as an argument against ETTR, especially when comparing a film scan to digital capture. Given the linear nature of digital capture vs the nonlinear nature of film, your argument is comparing apples to anchovies.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=151529\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Jonathan, looking at your portrait link and reading your comments to Andre Napier, it seems like a joke when you are talking about ETTR and photoshop skills.
Perhaps it is time for you to brush up your portrait skills.
Cheers
Toby
-
I think its fair to assume that anyone even reading this forum has at least some interest in the technical aspects of photography. But this ETTR stuff needs to be put in perspective. Its no where near as important as lighting and composition and a whole bunch of other stuff at least IMHO. Its way down on my list, especially now with DR that is bigger than a lot of film. You do need to know how to use your tools but the goal is always to make a good image, not to feel warm inside about your 0's and 1's.
So those of you that are doing ETTR on the majority of your images, are you setting your favorite RAW converter to linear when you push down the exposure? Then what are you doing to the image? Do you add color saturation or fiddle with the curves? I am still struggling to make my color images look better especially with really saturated colors like with flowers and stuff and sometimes skin.
Thanks,
Eric
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=151468\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Wanted to chip in here as I'm working on an Aptus 75S file here...ETTR is a pain in the ass. I don't bother anymore. I find the colours and look I want eaier to achieve by getting an image with good midtones rather than pushing the data all the way to the right.
The issue here is that even though there is more information, by the time I go home to process the image I may have forgotten how the hell I wanted to scene to look in the first place. It's great if you have all day to experiment in photoshop but I think alot of us appreciate the KISS motto (keep it simple, stupid)
So I lose abit of data (which is usually negligible unless we're talking about a very dark image...), but when I got the shot I have already confirmed how I want it to look
I treat it like a slide, I know that overexposing it abit and then bringing it down in photoshop after scanning may be possible but it requires too much minute tweaking to go back to the original look.
It's like scanning film in the past. I used to get these really flat drum scans (which I'm sure are full of data...) but oh my god the amount of time taken to tweak it to the look I want! I'm not a bloody computer scientist for christ's sake.
I'm sure my DI artist can appreciate a technically perfect file for his own tweaking but for me, KISS.
I also find that skin tones don't respond accurately to how I imagine (very minute differences in contrast and tonalities that I can't place my finger on but it just doesn't feel...right)
So I read all the technical data that states that it's all the same but my experience speaks otherwise. Just my personal experience. Now I have to get back to tweaking that bloody ETTR image in photoshop.
-
And was the problem with the images due to exposure or bad color? If color is good, but tonality needs tweaking and you can't fix it, your photoshop skills are quite lacking. There are many ways to adjust tonality without affecting color, such as doing a curve adjustment layer with luminance blend mode, or converting to LAB and doing curves on the L channel. If the colors weren't right in the scan, then the scanning profile was bad, and fixing that can be very difficult unless you have a better profile and can assign it to the files. But neither of those things has any validity as an argument against ETTR, especially when comparing a film scan to digital capture. Given the linear nature of digital capture vs the nonlinear nature of film, your argument is comparing apples to anchovies.
[{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a] (http://index.php?act=findpost&pid=151529\")
Jonathan,
I really tried to restrain myself but I guess by know you really have asked for it. I checked the link that you have posted ( visual- vacation ) and have to conclude that with all your linear knowledge all your pics. posted are as flat, dull and Kmartish as they possibly can be. The fact that you do not get the point is a point by itself. Good luck to you assuming that my PS skills are lacking. I do not think that there is a hope that one day you will see past the 1's and 0's and realize where you really standing.
To all of the rest of you guys,
sorry for being so impulsive. I realize it is time for me for extended vacation from LL. I take full responsibility for this personal attack. It is just my opinion and I may as well be wrong.
Respectfully Yours
[a href=\"http://AndreNapier.com]http://AndreNapier.com[/url]
-
To all of the rest of you guys,
sorry for being so impulsive. I realize it is time for me for extended vacation from LL. I take full responsibility for this personal attack. It is just my opinion and I may as well be wrong.
Respectfully Yours
http://AndreNapier.com (http://AndreNapier.com)
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=151565\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Well both posts (yours and toby's) were uncalled for (and there's nothing respectfully being said here). We'd love to have you back when you regain some manners.
-
Jonathan,
I really tried to restrain myself but I guess by know you really have asked for it. I checked the link that you have posted ( visual- vacation ) and have to conclude that with all your linear knowledge all your pics. posted are as flat, dull and Kmartish as they possibly can be. The fact that you do not get the point is a point by itself. Good luck to you assuming that my PS skills are lacking. I do not think that there is a hope that one day you will see past the 1's and 0's and realize where you really standing.
To all of the rest of you guys,
sorry for being so impulsive. I realize it is time for me for extended vacation from LL. I take full responsibility for this personal attack. It is just my opinion and I may as well be wrong.
Respectfully Yours
http://AndreNapier.com (http://AndreNapier.com)
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=151565\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
hi Andre, I think it would be a waste to take an extended vacation based on the forceful opinions of some people who don't seem to appreciate practical experience...
-
Maybe this is a dumb question....but just curious what everyone else is doing...
Seemed like expose to the right was the rule with DSLRs but since shooting my Rollei/P20 and Leica DMR (which has similar dynamic range and is also 16bit) I have found that I am getting better results exposing the images for the look I want rather than exposing to the right and pushing down in post. In fact I might be crazy but to me it seems my files look best if I expose for the final rather than push down, and sometimes I find if I have to make exposure adjustments in post that the files look better if I push up rather than push down. Am I crazy?
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=150443\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Also, guys who are advocating the ETTR method, have you used MFDBs? the original poster noted that this was applicable to his experience with his MFDB and leica DMR.
And some of us have noticed the same issues.
for my 1Ds MKII, ETTR does help with details but when it comes to MFDB I find that it's more useful to expose for midtones or slightly underexposed even.. (on my Aptus histogram I try not to get any overexposure past +0.2 even in contrasty scenes)
-
The thing I'm not clear on is whether ETTR really gives you more data in your final image, as opposed to just somewhat better data. Yes, shifting exposure to right means more tonal values captured in the RAW file. But if you shift the exposure back to the left in the RAW convertor, aren't you going to be discarding those extra tonal values since the exposure slider works on the linear data?
For example I have a low contrast scene, and with ETTR I'm able to overexpose the image by 2 stops. Meaning items in the scene that should be recorded in the bottom most stop, let's call it zone 1, actually get recorded two stops brighter in zone 3. Zone 3 has more values in it than Zone 1, so you get a better capture, right? But if I slide the exposure slider in ACR to put that item back in Zone 1 where it belongs, aren't those extra data values going to get discarded? Remember we're operating on linear data, and zone 1 has fewer data values in which to store its part of the image.
Now I guess those values that get shifted back down to zone 1 will be cleaner, kind of like the pixel binning that some cameras do at high iso. So ETTR would still have some benefit, I just wonder if maybe it's less benefit than some might be thinking.
It would seem to me that to really make the most of those extra values you captured with ETTR, you'd have to wait and shift the data to the left in post-processing, after you have a gamma corrected image with more data values in the shadow tones. The problem with this is that getting the tonal relationships between shadows, midtones, and highlights to look right may not be such an easy task. Which I think maybe is the point Eric was originally getting at - if the ETTR image looks different even after shifting back to the right, and if one prefers the "look" of the non-ETTR image, any theoretical/technical advantage of ETTR is for naught.
-
The thing I'm not clear on is whether ETTR really gives you more data in your final image, as opposed to just somewhat better data. Yes, shifting exposure to right means more tonal values captured in the RAW file. But if you shift the exposure back to the left in the RAW convertor, aren't you going to be discarding those extra tonal values since the exposure slider works on the linear data?
No, because the linear data are being recalculated in a 16-bit space, so when you shift the exposure control down the tonal scale, you are replacing bits that would normally be noise with bits that are actual image data. Imagine you have a 16-bit camera and shoot at base ISO where there is (just as an example) 4 bits worth of noise, and you take 2 frames, the first 1 stop underexposed and the second 1 stop overexposed. With the underexposed shot, when you apply the +1 exposure correction, you are keeping all 4 bits of noise, and adding an additional invented bit to move everything one stop op the tonal scale, for a total of 5 bits of something other than actual image data. With the ETTR shot, if you didn't clip any highlights and apply a -1 adjustment in the RAW converter, you are discarding the least significant bit, and moving all of the others over one position. So you have 3 bits of noise instead of 5 bits of (noise + interpolation).
The problem with this is that getting the tonal relationships between shadows, midtones, and highlights to look right may not be such an easy task. Which I think maybe is the point Eric was originally getting at - if the ETTR image looks different even after shifting back to the right, and if one prefers the "look" of the non-ETTR image, any theoretical/technical advantage of ETTR is for naught.
If this is truly an issue, the you should consider other RAW converter options (ACR doesn't have this problem).
-
Adjusting the black and white points in levels will increase the contrast in all areas of the image, but it might be better to determine which tonal regions of the image need a contrast boost and apply an S curve after setting the black and white points in a curve. The inflection point of the S curve can be determined by locating the critical tones with the eyedropper. The S curve adds contrast in the critical areas of the image and compresses tones in noncritical areas. This local compression helps if the dynamic range of the resulting image exceeds that of the display device.
Large radius USM is an interesting option, but the process might destroy details that one wishes to preserve.
I agree with your comment about levels, a level adjustment to set the white and black point is often not sufficient, and a curve adjustment that ensures optimal tonal distribution is a better choice.
Your comment about large-radius USM is not correct though. If you apply a midtone mask to protect the highlights and shadows from being clipped, you can boost local contrast well beyond the point of good taste before you clip any color channels and lose detail.
-
Jonathan, looking at your portrait link and reading your comments to Andre Napier, it seems like a joke when you are talking about ETTR and photoshop skills.
Perhaps it is time for you to brush up your portrait skills.
(http://www.visual-vacations.com/ProfessionalServices/Portraits/187U1318.jpg)
-
No, because the linear data are being recalculated in a 16-bit space, so when you shift the exposure control down the tonal scale, you are replacing bits that would normally be noise with bits that are actual image data. Imagine you have a 16-bit camera and shoot at base ISO where there is (just as an example) 4 bits worth of noise, and you take 2 frames, the first 1 stop underexposed and the second 1 stop overexposed. With the underexposed shot, when you apply the +1 exposure correction, you are keeping all 4 bits of noise, and adding an additional invented bit to move everything one stop op the tonal scale, for a total of 5 bits of something other than actual image data. With the ETTR shot, if you didn't clip any highlights and apply a -1 adjustment in the RAW converter, you are discarding the least significant bit, and moving all of the others over one position. So you have 3 bits of noise instead of 5 bits of (noise + interpolation).
I never said anything about applying positive exposure adjustments, I think we can all agree that is going to make noise worse. And I really don't think anything else you've stated disagrees with what I've said. In your -1 EV example you've improved the noise, but if you were to make a larger adjustment, say -2, you might be throwing away more than noise.
If this is truly an issue, the you should consider other RAW converter options (ACR doesn't have this problem).
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=151584\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
I use ACR/CS3.
-
(http://www.visual-vacations.com/ProfessionalServices/Portraits/187U1318.jpg)
[{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a] (http://index.php?act=findpost&pid=151587\")
WOW - Now I am really impressed - what a feel.
In a strange way I actually liked the first image on your portrait link - it kind of have an unintended Loretta Lux look.
[a href=\"http://www.visual-vacations.com/ProfessionalServices/Portraits.htm]http://www.visual-vacations.com/Profession...s/Portraits.htm[/url]
-
Andrew I did read your your article linked above [and very good it was too] and I do think ETTR will result in the technically better image, in the right hands. But as I used to use Acuspeed developer as I preferred the look it gave to the that of 'higher quality' developers, I may also shoot digitally less perfectly, if it gets me the result I want, more easily. The less time I spend tweaking images the better, I'm getting fed up with sitting in front of a monitor. And I like tweaking images.
I will use ETTR in some circumstances where it may be appropriate and have time to fiddle around afterwards. But as I usually shoot RAW+JPEG [tweaked with camera styles] which gives me near as dammit what I want with minimal fuss most of the time, I've now gone from shooting RAW only, to enjoying nice JPEGs straight out of camera. The same way I liked using slide film, even though I loved messing around in the darkroom. And the bonus is that I can tweak the RAW files afterwards, if I want to.
I'd also observe that I've rarely seen any interesting/creative images produced by those overly concerned with the very techy aspects of photography. There are the odd exceptions.
[{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a] (http://index.php?act=findpost&pid=151413\")
And as if to prove my point, which refers mainly to those who harp on about techy stuff a little too much, rather than actual photography. It appears in this thread, that those that judge by looking at images rather than worrying about absolute fidelity/maximum dynamic range..etc, not only produce more imaginative images, but much nicer looking pictures too. IMHO
The exceptions you listed above are well...exceptions, when it comes to photography and geekiness.
Well both posts (yours and toby's) were uncalled for (and there's nothing respectfully being said here). We'd love to have you back when you regain some manners.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=151566\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
I'd say they were absolutely on point.
The proof is in the pudding - all this hypothectical wittering about various types of exposure can best be judged by looking at pictures produced by the photographers who advocate each method. As no-one ultimately cares what camera is used, what monitor it's edited on, how the exposure was achieved, blah, blah, blah.... what people looking at the image care about is quite simple. Is the picture any good?
[Which is however, very subjective and a whole other thread entirely.]
The images Jonathan showed to illustrate ETTR + it's benefits, look flat + lifeless and oddly very old fashioned. IMO. Though I do like the quality of the DJ shot at the bottom of page. Andre's shots however have real zing and not only look so much better from an exposure point of view, but have more general creativity, even though or possibly beacuse he's not so au fait with all those pesky 1s + 0s. Andre's images look like they were taken by a photographer and not a technician with a camera.
With photography being somewhat technical, of course some technical knowledge is vitally important, but there has always been a tendency for some photographers to dwell a little too much on absurdly fine technical details rather than simply taking nice pictures. Ironically, I was once accused by an Art Student I shared a house with of exactly that, possibly as I actually knew what an f-stop was! Oddly enough he now teaches photography. Examples of his work here - [a href=\"http://showstudio.com/projects/cor/cor_record_fair.html]http://showstudio.com/projects/cor/cor_record_fair.html[/url] - unsurprisingly, he's a big fan of William Eggleston - I doubt very much if either ETTRs.
This also reminds me of a successful food photographer [whose name sadly escapes me at present] who gave up on medium/large format/light meters etc and swapped to 35mm digital. And to simplify further, he shot with auto exposure. And by removing the more techy side of things, he produced more naturalistic, but still very nice images.
-
And as if to prove my point, which refers mainly to those who harp on about techy stuff a little too much, rather than actual photography. It appears in this thread, that those that judge by looking at images rather than worrying about absolute fidelity/maximum dynamic range..etc, not only produce more imaginative images, but much nicer looking pictures too. IMHO
I think this is way to broad of a generalization, and the implication is that hardly anyone who tries to understand what's going on under the hood so to speak is a good photographer. There is no way technical skill and creative photography are mutually exclusive as a general rule.
After looking at Andre's images I'm not surprised ETTR seems like too much work and a waste of time. Almost every single image is a controlled situation where he can manipulate subject matter, lighting and even makeup to control composition, subject placement, dynamic range and tonal gradations. A great deal of his skill, creativity and style has nothing to do with a camera, but with the preparation into taking a photograph. With this much control, I'm not sure ETTR would have any significant benefit. He has created a system where he can equal what he did with film and achieve results he, and I assume his clients are happy with. Nothing wrong with that. If he shoots like I've seen many fashion photographers shoot, adjusting for ETTR for a few hundred captures from a single shoot would be mind numbing and painful. I'm surprised he even posted into this subject.
Your work is very spontaneous and imaginative in a different way, and while the situations you shoot appear to be more extreme in dynamic range , you are choosing to use that as a creative tool, and even emphasize it. It appears many times photoshop is a creative tool for altering the image into visually imaginative work (nothing wrong with that), rather than a tool to maximize the quality of the capture itself. There are times ETTR may benefit you if you chose to use it, and it doesn't take that much more work... a handful of steps that become quite repetitive. One thing I do know, if you chose to understand and master it, it wouldn't hamper your creative expression.
I enjoyed both your's and Andres images, but that's not my personal style and not what my photography is about. Photoshop to me is a tool to maximize my captures and prints, but rarely alter it, and when I do use it for altering an image, I hope the alterations are not detectable. I have no criticism for other styles, but that's not what I enjoy. You may not like my style but I do. My imagination is about what part of the natural world am I going to shoot, when to shoot it, what to include, how to crop, all to create an image of nature that is obviously a photograph, but hopefully a beautiful one. There are many occasions that I cannot use ETTR because the dynamic range of the scene approaches that of the sensor, but when I shoot in early mornings and especially in late evenings, or on foggy days, exposing to the right gives me a better capture to take into photoshop (and yes this is on a P45 back). Yes it's a little more work, but it helps me achieve my end goals. Many that frequent this forum (it is called luminous landscape) are passionate about landscape photography, and find ETTR a method to maximize the quality of our images. That fact really shouldn't warrant criticism of our skill and personal preferences as photographers.
It's too bad this all gets so personal.
-
The images Jonathan showed to illustrate ETTR + it's benefits, look flat + lifeless and oddly very old fashioned. IMO. Though I do like the quality of the DJ shot at the bottom of page. Andre's shots however have real zing and not only look so much better from an exposure point of view, but have more general creativity, even though or possibly beacuse he's not so au fait with all those pesky 1s + 0s. Andre's images look like they were taken by a photographer and not a technician with a camera.
You seem to be confusing stylistic preferences with photographic skill. My approach is more documentary/naturalistic than that of others here. I really don't care for Andre Napier's style of extensive tonal and color manipulations that shout from almost all of his images, but if that is how he likes to work and it pleases his clients, more power to him. The B&W portrait I linked in my previous post is of the pastor of a church I used to attend before joining the Army. It was shot handheld at ISO 800 with a 100mm f/2 lens wide open during a sermon with a spotlight and some stage lighting. If you pixel-peep the background, you can see a bit of noise, but it's not so much that it distracts from the image. But if I had not pushed the exposure to the ragged edge of clipping, that shot would have been an unusable noisy mess. In this situation, paying close attention to the technical aspects of the process got me a nice portrait I wouldn't have gotten if I had exposed in the traditional film manner. ETTR was absolutely critical to getting the shot in this instance.
If you do all your shooting at base ISO with studio lighting, ETTR is not as critical; you can shoot a stop or so in either direction of optimal before the consequences of doing so start to become blatant (excessive clipping or noise). But if you ever shoot with natural lighting at higher ISO, ETTR will frequently make the difference between a usable image and crap. Learning to apply the principles of ETTR will allow you to shoot in a wider variety of conditions and still get excellent results. And that is one aspect of being a better photographer, regardless of one's stylistic preferences.
-
You seem to be confusing stylistic preferences with photographic skill. My approach is more documentary/naturalistic than that of others here.[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=151678\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
-
The images Jonathan showed to illustrate ETTR + it's benefits, look flat + lifeless and oddly very old fashioned. IMO. Though I do like the quality of the DJ shot at the bottom of page. Andre's shots however have real zing and not only look so much better from an exposure point of view, but have more general creativity, even though or possibly beacuse he's not so au fait with all those pesky 1s + 0s. Andre's images look like they were taken by a photographer and not a technician with a camera.
You are confusing photographic style with what you assume is the unavoidable outcome of ETTR which is incorrect.
There's absolutely no reason you can't use ETTR and produce any rendering you wish, given the tools in the Raw converter and the skill.
Our esteemed host, Michael practices ETTR. Are you suggesting his style of shooting and those you are criticizing are the same?
I suspect one could under expose and produce the style of either photographer in question here. All ETTR does is target the most data the sensor can capture into the Raw file. What you do after is totally up to you as an artist. Or a technician if you prefer.
Again, bringing up someone's photographic style or aesthetics here with respect to a purely technical aspect of image capture is simply a means of excusing the real benefits of ETTR from a data standpoint. The OP asked a question and I get the impression the answer he and a few others got, wasn't what they wanted to hear, so now the topic has been somewhat hijacked from what SHOULD be a purely technical discussion to one of artistic interpretations and veered off into a nasty direction I don't care to continue.
I've referenced my article (the one the OP decided he wouldn't read) and we have Michael's of course plus the writings of Bruce Fraser based on what Thomas Knoll has said about Raw data capture. I think the question, despite the answer not being what at least one person wanted to hear, has be answered. Is there anything more this post provides that's useful?
-
Jonathan,
I really tried to restrain myself but I guess by know you really have asked for it. I checked the link that you have posted ( visual- vacation ) and have to conclude that with all your linear knowledge all your pics. posted are as flat, dull and Kmartish as they possibly can be. The fact that you do not get the point is a point by itself. Good luck to you assuming that my PS skills are lacking. I do not think that there is a hope that one day you will see past the 1's and 0's and realize where you really standing.
To all of the rest of you guys,
sorry for being so impulsive. I realize it is time for me for extended vacation from LL. I take full responsibility for this personal attack. It is just my opinion and I may as well be wrong.
Respectfully Yours
http://AndreNapier.com (http://AndreNapier.com)
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=151565\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Forget the extended vacation, Andre; your work is not beholden to anyone else´s opinion and from your site I really don´t see what anybody here can teach you that you don´t already know.
The big problem here is simple: whilst not EXCLUSIVE to landscape photographers and landscape photography, there do not seem to be lots of photographers here who speak fashion. And that´s the word I mean. It took a lot of buying, stealing and borrowing magazines before I developed my own ability in the language , so short of that investment, there´s little way that those not so interested will ever understand what´s going on in that world. And there is even less reason why they should - the wish comes from within.
Enjoy your life and your work - don´t allow anybody else to push you, one way or the other.
Rob C
-
Hey! Andre,
There's one particular model on your website who always has blown highlights, in the white dress she's wearing. Any particular reason for this? Is she a big spender, always blowing her budget, or what?
-
Hey! Andre,
There's one particular model on your website who always has blown highlights, in the white dress she's wearing. Any particular reason for this? Is she a big spender, always blowing her budget, or what?
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=151750\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Nice to see you awake again, Ray; thought you´d gone of on one of those long Tibetan treks of yours!
Rob C
-
Hey! Andre,
There's one particular model on your website who always has blown highlights, in the white dress she's wearing. Any particular reason for this? Is she a big spender, always blowing her budget, or what?
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=151750\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Ray,
You're pretty far off topic. This thread is about whether people prefer ETTR for MFDB or not. Please try to keep on topic and not personal. Do you have anything to add to the topic?
Eric
-
Ray,
You're pretty far off topic. This thread is about whether people prefer ETTR for MFDB or not. Please try to keep on topic and not personal. Do you have anything to add to the topic?
Eric
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=151839\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Not entirely off topic. Shall I rephrase the question.? Andre, were the fashion shots of the lady with the blown dress ETTR shots, under ETTR shots or over ETTR shots?
-
Two comments
1. When we were civilized we went to bars got drunk and beat each other up. Now that we have evolved we fight with each other on a photography forum? Neither George Orwell or Jean Roddenberry saw this comming.
2. There might be a phenomenon here? ETTR has worked well for me with a DSLR. The comments that ETTR doesn’t work well have come from MFDB users. Just perhaps there is a difference in the contrast when one captures 8 stops of light when your eye sees 12 stops (DSLR) and when you capture 12 stops of light (MFDB and human sight). I personally would like to understand why those who capture 12 stops prefer a correct exposure and those who capture 8 stops prefer ETTR? I would also like to understand if it is technique or tools that prevent a MFDB ETTR file when darkened from matching a normal exposure?
Marc
-
Hey! Andre,
There's one particular model on your website who always has blown highlights, in the white dress she's wearing. Any particular reason for this? Is she a big spender, always blowing her budget, or what?
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=151750\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
POSTCARD from vacation "Desire" - Mexico
Hey! Ray,
The model you referring to is neither a big spender nor really likes to blow her budget. Matter of fact she is the biggest Polish Model discovery of 2007. Her current day/rate is a minimum of $10,000 + expenses. That is $30,000 for a three day shoot like the one below where she was not even the main model.
Andre
Attachments removed due to commercial reasons.
Andre
-
Not entirely off topic. Shall I rephrase the question.? Andre, were the fashion shots of the lady with the blown dress ETTR shots, under ETTR shots or over ETTR shots?
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=151851\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Ray,
If you have experience that directly relates to this post such as your own use of a MFDB, then please share it. For example do you use ETTR with your MFD images or not? If not why? If so what do you do in post to get them looking right.
Eric
-
Actually, Ray has a point, namely that if the shots with the blown-out dress came from the camera like that instead of resulting from heavy tonal manipulations in Photoshop, then Andre is in fact practicing ETTR at least occasionally despite all his protestations to the contrary.
Also, no one has offered any evidence to disprove Andrew Rodney's point that one can obtain any rendering one wishes from an ETTR RAW, as long as the highlights aren't blown. It might also be helpful to getting this discussion back on point if someone posted links to an ETTR + non-ETTR RAW pair where the ETTR RAW is unusable and the non-ETTR RAW is not. It's a bit difficult to intelligently discuss a phenomenon that has only anecdotal support and no actual examples to look at.
-
Ray,
If you have experience that directly relates to this post such as your own use of a MFDB, then please share it. For example do you use ETTR with your MFD images or not? If not why? If so what do you do in post to get them looking right.
Eric
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=151861\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Hey! Eric, I'm here to learn. Is asking questions forbidden here? I'm just as curious as many others why some users of MFDBs ignore the principle of ETTR.
I can think of some reasons. There's a greater risk of inadvertantly blowing highlights and ruining the shot if you're trying to push exposure to the point where you're getting maximum shadow detail. If you don't need the extra shadow detail because it is intended that such areas will be black anyway, why take the risk.
Since MFDBs have a higher dynamic range than smaller format cameras, there should be more latitude and therefore less concern about not being able to fit the DR of the scene within the DR of the camera or sensor.
The main issue here that I see, and is why I asked Andre about some of his apparently overexposed fashion shots, is what happens to the mid-tones and lower mid-tones in an underexposed shot (ie. one that has less exposure than an ETTR shot)?
From what I understand, the vast number of tonal values in the brightest stop or two is far more than the eye can discern. However, at some point in the image, moving towards the lower mid-tones and shadow areas, there may be fewer tonal values than the eye can discern. And, even if there are not fewer, it's always better to have more values than the eye can discern if image manipulation is to take place.
To get back to Andre's blown-highlight fashion shots, I was curious if these were accidental overexposures, deliberate overexposures, or underexposures (from the ETTR perspective) which Andre decided after the shoot, in post processing, should be pushed to the point where the highlights are blown, perhaps to create that snow-white virgin quality.
Now, am I being reasonable or not?
-
The proof is in the pudding - all this hypothectical wittering about various types of exposure can best be judged by looking at pictures produced by the photographers who advocate each method.
So do you think that Michael's photos are all flat, dull, poorly exposed, and uninteresting? He shoots with MFDB and DSLR, and was one of the first to write about ETTR as the optimal exposure strategy when shooting digital.
-
POSTCARD from vacation "Desire" - Mexico
Hey! Ray,
The model you referring to is neither a big spender nor really likes to blow her budget. Matter of fact she is the biggest Polish Model discovery of 2007. Her current day/rate is a minimum of $10,000 + expenses. That is $30,000 for a three day shoot like the one below where she was not even the main model.
Andre
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=151860\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Jeez! And I've been grumbling at paying just a couple of hundred dollars to persuade a Thai model to take off her clothes .
With so much money at stake, I'd be bracketing every shot to increase my options. But I'm just an amateur.
-
Ray,
If you have experience that directly relates to this post such as your own use of a MFDB, then please share it. For example do you use ETTR with your MFD images or not? If not why? If so what do you do in post to get them looking right.
Eric
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=151861\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
one thing to consider (depending on how you shoot) is that blown out highlight details are alot more noticable than dense shadows...if you're working in a situation of variable exposure and you're shooting a human where the expressions are changing, practicing ETTR can risk extreme overexposure...over 1.2 stops (from what I've tried..) on the Leaf presents problems already in good highlight recovery
-
practicing ETTR can risk extreme overexposure...over 1.2 stops (from what I've tried..) on the Leaf presents problems already in good highlight recovery
If you have to "recover" highlights, you're going beyond what ETTR is all about. ETTR is about NOT blowing highlights in the RAW data, but rather is about keeping the highlights close to clipping, but not clipped. When shooting in fluctuating lighting, that usually means aperture priority mode, and setting a +1/3 or +2/3 exposure compensation over the meter default.
-
If you have to "recover" highlights, you're going beyond what ETTR is all about. ETTR is about NOT blowing highlights in the RAW data, but rather is about keeping the highlights close to clipping, but not clipped. When shooting in fluctuating lighting, that usually means aperture priority mode, and setting a +1/3 or +2/3 exposure compensation over the meter default.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=151874\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
yes I know what ETTR is
And what I am saying is that there is more risk of blowing highlights sometimes because the meter readings are not always the most exact or trustworthy esp in fast changing light.
if I underexpose with my MFDB there's much more leeway for shadow recovery than highlight recovery. numerous people have noted this also with the output from MFDBs
-
It's true that you can't push the ETTR concept as hard in rapidly changing light; the risk of an unusable shot due to blown highlights is greater than the risk of an unusable shot due to excessively noisy shadows. Blown highlights are more problematic than noisy shadows whether shooting with a digicam, DSLR, or MFDB. But that doesn't negate the fact that an exposure where the highlights are close to, but not clipped (excluding small specular highlights) in the RAW results in a capture with the greatest dynamic range, lowest noise, and the most processing flexibility.
-
It's true that you can't push the ETTR concept as hard in rapidly changing light; the risk of an unusable shot due to blown highlights is greater than the risk of an unusable shot due to excessively noisy shadows. Blown highlights are more problematic than noisy shadows whether shooting with a digicam, DSLR, or MFDB. But that doesn't negate the fact that an exposure where the highlights are close to, but not clipped (excluding small specular highlights) in the RAW results in a capture with the greatest dynamic range, lowest noise, and the most processing flexibility.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=151881\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
sure, theoretically.
strangely I find myself not practicing it even though I know the theory
seems that I find that having to bring the exposure down in post processing doesn't seem to retain the same kind of colour saturation I'm looking for.
maybe I'm just lazy, I find myself working better just throwing a curve on a image properly exposured or even slightly under.Gets a more saturated contrast on my images that suits my style.
I think it's great to know the theory but one should experiment with different techniques themselves to find what suits their visual taste best
I find photography quite ritualistic, sometimes we photographers will have crazy little quirks in the way we approach taking photographs and processing them. mine is just liking to see that my image on the screen properly exposured so that I can envision the right look of th eimage in my mind straight away.
-
I agree with jing q. Most of the time the best starting point to an image capture is a neutral WB and properly exposed one. From there one can tweak to taste. The only exception is when light is so contrasty that it is beyond sensor's ability.
-
Since this subject seems to be back on topic somewhat I have a question that has had me a little curious, which can only be answered by those really understanding the 1's and 0's (I hope Andrew is still lurking).
The main difference I see between MFDB and DSLR's ... at least most of them currently, is the bit depth. Does a 14bit MFDB by nature capture more levels so without exposing to the right as far, you essentially gain a similar amount of data? Or are we talking about different kinds of levels here?
A second question, if LR and ACR by default is non-linear, is it important to set up a linear default, normalize the EV, and then modify other parameters? For example if I have a medium contrast curve, and pull the EV down, is my result substantially different than if I eliminate the curve, pull the EV down, and then put the same curve back in? Does that make any sense? Just trying to understand the most optimum workflow when I am using ETTR.
-
12-bit: 1/2 of data is in the 12th bit
16-bit: 1/2 of data is in the 16th bit
MFDB with 16-bit has more levels to capture the darker shades than 12-bit. That is my understanding.
-
The main difference I see between MFDB and DSLR's ... at least most of them currently, is the bit depth. Does a 14bit MFDB by nature capture more levels so without exposing to the right as far, you essentially gain a similar amount of data? Or are we talking about different kinds of levels here?
No, the distribution theory is still the same since again, its linear encoded data.
A second question, if LR and ACR by default is non-linear, is it important to set up a linear default, normalize the EV, and then modify other parameters? For example if I have a medium contrast curve, and pull the EV down, is my result substantially different than if I eliminate the curve, pull the EV down, and then put the same curve back in? Does that make any sense? Just trying to understand the most optimum workflow when I am using ETTR.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=151890\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
For me, my normalize settings in LR is simply a move of exposure. But that's just a starting point I use for import. From there, I may have no further adjustments or many to produce a rendering appearance I desire. The exposure slider does all the major work of making what by default looks over exposed, normally exposed.
I'm pretty sure based on seeing how Michael worked in Amazon, this is his basic starting point too.
-
Does a 14bit MFDB by nature capture more levels so without exposing to the right as far, you essentially gain a similar amount of data? Or are we talking about different kinds of levels here?
If the noise level was exactly the same in absolute terms (both the 12-bit and 14-bit cameras have 4 bits of noise), then your proposal would be correct. But simply using an ADC with more bits of output is no guarantee that the additional bits are all signal and no noise. In the real world, some of those extra bits will be noise, so exposing all the way to the right with a 12-bit device will still give you a better capture than underexposing 2 stops with a 14-bit device.
The exact amount of benefit those extra bits will offer depends heavily on the specific cameras and their ISO setting. Comparing a 16-bit MFDB pushed to ISO 1600 to a 14-bit 1Ds-MkIII at ISO 1600 will probably yield different results than if both cameras are shot at ISO 100.
-
Since this subject seems to be back on topic somewhat I have a question that has had me a little curious, which can only be answered by those really understanding the 1's and 0's (I hope Andrew is still lurking).
The main difference I see between MFDB and DSLR's ... at least most of them currently, is the bit depth. Does a 14bit MFDB by nature capture more levels so without exposing to the right as far, you essentially gain a similar amount of data? Or are we talking about different kinds of levels here?
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=151890\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Many MFDBs have 16 bit ADCs and output 16 bits per color. That means that the brightest f/stop has 32767 possible levels compared to the 2048 possible levels with a 35 mm style digital camera with a 12 bit ADC. However, the human eye can perceive only about 70 of these 32767 levels and the rest are effectively wasted. It his helpful to have more levels than the eye can perceive to provide a margin of safety in processing, but the above margin is far greater than necessary.
In real world photography, dynamic range is limited by noise rather than quantization and the quantization theory of the advantages of ETTR is overblown IMHO. The real advantage of ETTR is reduced noise and better dynamic range. If your exposure does not result in near full well photo sites, then you are not taking advantage of the capabilities of the sensor. If you reduce exposure by 1 stop and you lose 1 stop of DR. The signal drops by a factor of 1/2 (0.5) and the shot noise falls by 1/sqrt(2) or or 0.707. The resultant signal to noise (S:N) is 0.5/0.707 or 0.707 of what it was previously. Contrary to popular belief, noise is actually higher in the highlights, but the S:N is better in the highlights.
The Kodak KAF-39000 39 MP sensor used in many high end MFDBs has a full well capacity of 60,000 electrons and a read noise of 16 electrons, giving a dynamic range of 3750:1 or 11.87 f/stops. The data sheet states a DR of 12 stops. This is no better than the latest Canon sensors and I see no reason to believe that the principles of ETTR are different for the MFDBs than 35 mm style DSLRs.
A second question, if LR and ACR by default is non-linear, is it important to set up a linear default, normalize the EV, and then modify other parameters? For example if I have a medium contrast curve, and pull the EV down, is my result substantially different than if I eliminate the curve, pull the EV down, and then put the same curve back in? Does that make any sense? Just trying to understand the most optimum workflow when I am using ETTR.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=151890\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
The adjustments are done on the linear data before the tone curve is applied, so the manipulations you suggest are not necessary. In my previous post, I held the white point constant, but let the black point vary. If you keep both of these constant, the tone curve does not change that much when you increase exposure in the raw converter.
In any event, you have full control over the tone curve in ACR, but the signal:noise is controlled by the actual in camera exposure, according to the number of photons captured. With this in mind, I can think of no reason for not exposing to the right, perhaps bracketing or else leaving a bit of headroom so as to not clip the highlight. Small amounts of overexposure can often be corrected with highlight recovery in the raw converter.
Bill
-
Bill, just curious: which MFDB do you use?
-
the brightest f/stop has 32767 possible levels compared to the 2048 possible levels with a 35 mm style digital camera with a 12 bit ADC. However, the human eye can perceive only about 70 of these 32767 levels and the rest are effectively wasted. It his helpful to have more levels than the eye can perceive to provide a margin of safety in processing, but the above margin is far greater than necessary.
Bill
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=151961\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
If the human eye has only 70 levels against 2048 of a 35mm. How do you explain that your eyes can register much greater DR?
And how do you explain that my P21's DR is still under the human eye's DR capacity if so much levels are "efectively wasted"?
-
Could somebody PLEASE post two MFDB RAWS, one ETTR (but not so far to the right that the highlights are clipped), and one with less exposure, same subject, lighting, focus, etc. where the ETTR RAW is inferior to the RAW with less exposure?
So far, no proof that ETTR is flawed has been offered other than vague anecdotal assertions that a non-ETTR shot is easier to process or has better color saturation or superior tonality or whatever. If ETTR is as bad an idea when shooting with MFDB as Andre and some others here have claimed, then presenting such a pair of RAWS should be easy, and the advantage of processing one over the other should be straightforward and obvious. The advantages of ETTR have a solid basis in both mathematical theory and the practical real-world experience of many photographers and digital imaging experts. It's up to the critics of ETTR to prove that the earth is really flat after all. Is anyone up to the challenge of presenting some tangible evidence for their assertions, or do you all prefer to continue with personal attacks against anyone who dares to express skepticism?
-
If the human eye has only 70 levels against 2048 of a 35mm. How do you explain that your eyes can register much greater DR?
And how do you explain that my P21's DR is still under the human eye's DR capacity if so much levels are "efectively wasted"?
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=152006\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Actually, nobody knows for certain how many colours the eye (which is very adaptive in its perception) can perceive.
Commonly perceived knowledge now is that it is in the millions, and even suggestions of up to 100 million. I'm glad I have a 16 bit sensor with all those 'extra' colours!
-
Could somebody PLEASE post two MFDB RAWS, one ETTR (but not so far to the right that the highlights are clipped), and one with less exposure, same subject, lighting, focus, etc. where the ETTR RAW is inferior to the RAW with less exposure?
So far, no proof that ETTR is flawed has been offered other than vague anecdotal assertions that a non-ETTR shot is easier to process or has better color saturation or superior tonality or whatever. If ETTR is as bad an idea when shooting with MFDB as Andre and some others here have claimed, then presenting such a pair of RAWS should be easy, and the advantage of processing one over the other should be straightforward and obvious. The advantages of ETTR have a solid basis in both mathematical theory and the practical real-world experience of many photographers and digital imaging experts. It's up to the critics of ETTR to prove that the earth is really flat after all. Is anyone up to the challenge of presenting some tangible evidence for their assertions, or do you all prefer to continue with personal attacks against anyone who dares to express skepticism?
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=152007\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
But who cares? Most people in this forum seem to spend more time actually doing photography in a way that produces pleasing results for themselves and ultimately their clients. Most, if not all, have an understanding of what ETTR is, and how to do it, if they so want.
I happen to agree: expose correctly and you should have a little headroom, but why make all the fuss about it.
Just let it drop. You seem very intent on prolonging the argument long beyond it's sell by date, just to prove your point. I can see how this grates on some.
-
Could somebody PLEASE post two MFDB RAWS, one ETTR (but not so far to the right that the highlights are clipped), and one with less exposure, same subject, lighting, focus, etc. where the ETTR RAW is inferior to the RAW with less exposure?
So far, no proof that ETTR is flawed has been offered other than vague anecdotal assertions that a non-ETTR shot is easier to process or has better color saturation or superior tonality or whatever. If ETTR is as bad an idea when shooting with MFDB as Andre and some others here have claimed, then presenting such a pair of RAWS should be easy, and the advantage of processing one over the other should be straightforward and obvious. The advantages of ETTR have a solid basis in both mathematical theory and the practical real-world experience of many photographers and digital imaging experts. It's up to the critics of ETTR to prove that the earth is really flat after all. Is anyone up to the challenge of presenting some tangible evidence for their assertions, or do you all prefer to continue with personal attacks against anyone who dares to express skepticism?
[{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a] (http://index.php?act=findpost&pid=152007\")
Well, if you have the time to play with them, I've got these two files for you. Personally, and because i took the pictures, I think ETTR with a digital back is a bad idea, but that's personal experience. Please don't look at the artistic side of the photos, they are just part of a test...
Hasselblad h2 with P21 and 35mmHC lens on tripod and mirror up, tif unprocessed:
[a href=\"http://www.samuelaxelsson.com/temp/ETTR.tif]ETTR.tif[/url]
NORMALEXP.tif (http://www.samuelaxelsson.com/temp/NORMALEXP.tif)
Good luck with the test.
-
Well I downloaded both (wish they were RAW's) using levels I set the white point the same and adjusted the normal exposure to match the ETTR exposure (the normal seemed a bit dark to me) and the ETTR looked better? More local contrast and dynamic range.
Marc
-
If the human eye has only 70 levels against 2048 of a 35mm. How do you explain that your eyes can register much greater DR?
And how do you explain that my P21's DR is still under the human eye's DR capacity if so much levels are "efectively wasted"?
[{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a] (http://index.php?act=findpost&pid=152006\")
The number of levels in one f/stop has nothing to do with dynamic range. I suggest you do a bit of reading, rather than making foolish statements. I would suggest you start [a href=\"http://www.normankoren.com/digital_tonality.html]here[/url].
The human eye can not see that wide of a dynamic range all at once without adaption as explained in this article on Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dynamic_range). 30 db is 1000:1, less than what your camera can record. Shifting your gaze about a high dynamic range scene and letting the eye accommodate is like taking a number of shots with your camera at various exposures and combining them into a HDR image. The trouble with digital sensors are that they are linear rather than logarithmic as is the eye, and they therefore waste a lot of bandwidth in the higher f/stops of the scene.
Bill
-
Well, if you have the time to play with them, I've got these two files for you. Personally, and because i took the pictures, I think ETTR with a digital back is a bad idea, but that's personal experience. Please don't look at the artistic side of the photos, they are just part of a test...
Hasselblad h2 with P21 and 35mmHC lens on tripod and mirror up, tif unprocessed:
ETTR.tif (http://www.samuelaxelsson.com/temp/ETTR.tif)
NORMALEXP.tif (http://www.samuelaxelsson.com/temp/NORMALEXP.tif)
Good luck with the test.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=152024\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
(BTW, first thanks to those that replied to my 2 questions, very helpful.)
These appear to be processed tiffs, not RAW. If they have been processed out with no adjustments, they are more of an example of Normal exposure vs underexposure. The dynamic range of this scene doesn't lend itself to ETTR exposure. Yes, the highlights are held to just short of clipping, but that isn't what makes a capture an ETTR.
Seems like this topic keeps evolving to a philosophical debate, which while sometimes helpful, usually doesn't involve a right or wrong answer, just many opinions. The OP's question was pretty basic, feeling that since switching from DSLR to MFDB he gets better results without ETTR, and wondering if he was crazy.
A two part question, objective and subjective. As far as objective, most (including myself) do not understand the math well enough, but at this point I accept the fact that from a purely technical perspective, the math is the same, so their is no difference between the DSLR and MFDB. To me that's perfectly logical .. after all it is just a bunch of data recorded basically in an identical way ... just a larger chip with more sensors, and perhaps more bits, but that seems like it just supplies more refined data.
As far as practical use and results, that is subjective and there are many that don't even think it's necessary for DSLR, let alone MFDB. That's pretty much a decide for yourself kind of thing.
I will only add that as a user of both DSLR and MFDB's, unlike the original poster and others I still believe I get better results when using ETTR on my P45 back. I do feel it seems harder to process the p45 file than the 5d files, but the end result is still better to me. However, I also feel that a normally exposed MFDB file is often as good or better than an adjusted ETTR file from a DSLR . Hard to really quantify this since I don't do identical exposures, so it's more based on feel working with many files from both. Just my opinion, very subjective. Call me crazy as well, won't hurt my feelings.
While this topic has gotten a little too personal and off topic a few times (and I include myself in those going off topic) , it has been very educational from a technical perspective, and would like to thank those providing that information. I think it has helped me in the practical application of ETTR to my workflow.
-
Well, if you have the time to play with them, I've got these two files for you.
They aren't RAWs.
-
Could somebody PLEASE post two MFDB RAWS, one ETTR (but not so far to the right that the highlights are clipped), and one with less exposure, same subject, lighting, focus, etc. where the ETTR RAW is inferior to the RAW with less exposure?
So far, no proof that ETTR is flawed has been offered other than vague anecdotal assertions that a non-ETTR shot is easier to process or has better color saturation or superior tonality or whatever. If ETTR is as bad an idea when shooting with MFDB as Andre and some others here have claimed, then presenting such a pair of RAWS should be easy, and the advantage of processing one over the other should be straightforward and obvious. The advantages of ETTR have a solid basis in both mathematical theory and the practical real-world experience of many photographers and digital imaging experts. It's up to the critics of ETTR to prove that the earth is really flat after all. Is anyone up to the challenge of presenting some tangible evidence for their assertions, or do you all prefer to continue with personal attacks against anyone who dares to express skepticism?
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=152007\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
no one is saying it's flawed theoretically.
I just don't personally the benefits are that great in the field.not like I haven't tried it.
Sometimes I'll take two shots, one normally exposed and one ETTR, when my camera's on a tripod.
When I get home to process it I find that I just stick with the normal one because the ETTR one seems to need more tweaking to get back to the original point. Not a simple matter of lowering the exposure.
Also, you have to consider that for most applications the benefits are far too small to make much difference. I've printed pretty big at high resolution and if you're talking about the benefits with noise well I have to tell you any little extra bit of noise never really bothered me with a properly exposed image vs an ETTR one...
If you feel the need to be so adamant about your point though,and you feel the need to push your opinion on everyone using a back, I suggest you take the pictures and show them to us to prove your point.
-
They aren't RAWs.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=152061\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
They have been opened in photoshop and resaved as 8 bit tif (raw's are 8 bit tif too). The only difference is that the metadata is erased. Why are't these useful?
-
They have been opened in photoshop and resaved as 8 bit tif (raw's are 8 bit tif too). The only difference is that the metadata is erased. Why are't these useful?
[{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a] (http://index.php?act=findpost&pid=152089\")
Sorry Samuel, Phase one Large raws are 16 bit lossless compression, not 8 bit.
Check out [a href=\"http://www.phaseone.com/Global/products/iiq%20raw.aspx]http://www.phaseone.com/Global/products/iiq%20raw.aspx[/url]
J
-
Sometimes I'll take two shots, one normally exposed and one ETTR, when my camera's on a tripod.
When I get home to process it I find that I just stick with the normal one because the ETTR one seems to need more tweaking to get back to the original point. Not a simple matter of lowering the exposure.
What kind of tweaking? I'm not trying to be an ass here, I really want to know. Can you post links to a pair of ETTR/non-ETTR RAWs with a specific description of why the non-ETTR RAW is superior; i.e. color is wrong in the ETTR RAW and cannot be easily fixed, tonality is wrong and is not easily fixed, contrast is lower, detail is compromised, etc.
I'd like to have at least one concrete RAW example of what you guys are talking about. If there really is something to what you are saying, then let's take a closer look and figure out why. Is it due to a non-linearity in the sensor? A bug in a particular RAW converter's exposure control math? Or simply a personal preference for default settings if the results are felt to be "good enough" even if other options can result in improved image quality? If there really are circumstances where ETTR is not the best exposure strategy, then those circumstances are probably applicable to DSLRs and other digital cameras as well. And if not, then perhaps we will isolate a RAW converter bug or discover an image adjustment that is being overlooked by those skeptical of the value of ETTR.
-
Sorry Samuel, Phase one Large raws are 16 bit lossless compression, not 8 bit.
Check out http://www.phaseone.com/Global/products/iiq%20raw.aspx (http://www.phaseone.com/Global/products/iiq%20raw.aspx)
J
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=152090\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Opps, I'll post two new...
-
Opps, I'll post two new...
Thanks, Samuel. When you post the RAWs, could you be kind enough to describe as specifically as possible in what way(s) the ETTR RAW is inferior to the non-ETTR RAW? Or in what way(s) you feel it is more difficult to process?
-
Hi, the new files are here:
DIRECTORY LINK (http://samuelaxelsson.com/temp/)
I uploaded three files now. 100 ISO f8. I spot-metered a QPcard's grey to Zone 5. It gave 3 seconds at f8. Then I took another 2 seconds exposure and a four seconds third exposure. If you open them in ARC be sure to reset the autoexposure settings, it will show the wrong histogram.
/Samuel
-
What kind of tweaking? I'm not trying to be an ass here, I really want to know. Can you post links to a pair of ETTR/non-ETTR RAWs with a specific description of why the non-ETTR RAW is superior; i.e. color is wrong in the ETTR RAW and cannot be easily fixed, tonality is wrong and is not easily fixed, contrast is lower, detail is compromised, etc.
I'd like to have at least one concrete RAW example of what you guys are talking about. If there really is something to what you are saying, then let's take a closer look and figure out why. Is it due to a non-linearity in the sensor? A bug in a particular RAW converter's exposure control math? Or simply a personal preference for default settings if the results are felt to be "good enough" even if other options can result in improved image quality? If there really are circumstances where ETTR is not the best exposure strategy, then those circumstances are probably applicable to DSLRs and other digital cameras as well. And if not, then perhaps we will isolate a RAW converter bug or discover an image adjustment that is being overlooked by those skeptical of the value of ETTR.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=152091\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Do you know, Jonathan, I think you'd quite enjoy having an MFDB to play with.
-
If you open them in ARC be sure to reset the autoexposure settings, it will show the wrong histogram.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=152100\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
What's going on here Samuel? My ACR program is set to show default settings. I clicked on auto and got the following histogram for the 4 seconds exposure which shows a +0.05 exposure correction, zero recovery and zero fill.
This doesn't look like an ETTR exposure to me. I think you need to give at least another 1/2 stop exposure, say 6 seconds, for a full exposure to the right.
I made a few other adjustments such as increasing vibrancy, but there's not much point in my trying to get a pleasing result because I'm currently on an uncalibrated laptop.
Thanks for providing the images.
[attachment=3808:attachment]
-
What's going on here Samuel? My ACR program is set to show default settings. I clicked on auto and got the following histogram for the 4 seconds exposure which shows a +0.05 exposure correction, zero recovery and zero fill.
This doesn't look like an ETTR exposure to me. I think you need to give at least another 1/2 stop exposure, say 6 seconds, for a full exposure to the right.
I made a few other adjustments such as increasing vibrancy, but there's not much point in my trying to get a pleasing result because I'm currently on an uncalibrated laptop.
Thanks for providing the images.
[attachment=3808:attachment]
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=152114\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
I see, don't click the auto button, also everyone has different default settings I supose... So do the correct exposure is shown when the blacks are set to 0.
Like this:
(http://samuelaxelsson.com/temp/settings.jpg)
-
I think this is way to broad of a generalization, and the implication is that hardly anyone who tries to understand what's going on under the hood so to speak is a good photographer. There is no way technical skill and creative photography are mutually exclusive as a general rule.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=151651\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
As I said - "And as if to prove my point, which refers mainly to those who harp on about techy stuff a little too much"
I am commenting on those whose obsess about technical stuff way beyond what is necessary to actually create good images. And my observation is those that tend to do so usually produce technically correct but uninteresting images.
There are exceptions, but to repeat, they are exceptions and very much not the norm.
Many that frequent this forum (it is called luminous landscape) are passionate about landscape photography, and find ETTR a method to maximize the quality of our images. That fact really shouldn't warrant criticism of our skill and personal preferences as photographers.
It's too bad this all gets so personal.
It's not getting personal as such. It's just that if someone is harping on at length about ETTR and it's supposed quality benefits and posts a link to show off his images, which are mostly flat and lifeless [IMO]. Commenting about that is in context with the discussion and not just a personal dig. As the whole point of ETTR is to supposedly to produce better quality images, one needs to show images that are quite something to illustrate it's worth pursuing.
My view is that ETTR may be a method to best extract out the last few few bits of absolute tonal range/detail.., but sometimes that is really not what one wants. Perfection can be deathly boring at times.
-
The three exposures side by side should look like this:
2 seconds
(http://samuelaxelsson.com/temp/2seconds.jpg)
3 seconds (grey zone V)
(http://samuelaxelsson.com/temp/3seconds_normal.jpeg)
4 seconds
(http://samuelaxelsson.com/temp/4seconds.jpg)
I will write a little more about my experience a little later today...
/Samuel
-
You are confusing photographic style with what you assume is the unavoidable outcome of ETTR which is incorrect.
No I am not. I was simply comparing the images between two photographers one of whom was banging on about the merits of ETTR and then posted his images as an example. I was also talking about people being too obsessed with technical matters and the images JW posted to show the benefits of ETTR are simply uninspiring, which is what I come to expect from those who overtalk technical issues. As at the end of the day, it's only the images that really count. Apart from photo nerds, no-one cares about the processing/camera...
Again, bringing up someone's photographic style or aesthetics here with respect to a purely technical aspect of image capture is simply a means of excusing the real benefits of ETTR from a data standpoint. The OP asked a question and I get the impression the answer he and a few others got, wasn't what they wanted to hear, so now the topic has been somewhat hijacked from what SHOULD be a purely technical discussion to one of artistic interpretations and veered off into a nasty direction I don't care to continue.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=151721\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
I said ETTR has it's place and I think you are being very over sensitive for no good reason.
-
The three exposures side by side should look like this:
2 seconds
3 seconds (grey zone V)
4 seconds
-
The 4 sec, 'over exposed' image looks like what people may think is a correct exposure according to the Histogram. And if one alters the exposure [in ACR] of the 3 sec exposure without clipping the highlights, it means I have to tweak by +0.45 and the 'over exposed' image I leave as it is. So I'd say the 4 sec exposure is more 'correct' than ETTR in exposure terms.
So before doing ETTR, surely we need to establish what the correct exposure is first?!
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=152128\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Yes it's true, but this is adjusting in ARC. When you take the pictures you have in camera 1/3 stop. After the 4 exposure seconds I tried 1/3 more, then the highlights are clipped. ETTR is going to the right as long as you can without clipping isn't it. Well then that's it. The camera can't fine tune the exposure like ARC. Another aspect is that if you have something white in the image the the room is much smaller to expose to the right.
-
I see, don't click the auto button, also everyone has different default settings I supose... So do the correct exposure is shown when the blacks are set to 0.
Like this:
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=152119\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Samuel,
This is still not ETTR, unless the way ETTR is implemented with MFDBs is different to 35mm DSLRs. For full exposure to the right with all my cameras I need an exposure which has to be brought back at least 1/2 a stop and sometimes as much as a full stop. More than a full stop however can cause at least one of the channels to blow out. With a grey sky usually one stop of recovery is quite safe.
In the later versions of ACR there's a recovery slider which has the effect of a minus EC correction but without darkening the image.
-
Samuel,
This is still not ETTR, unless the way ETTR is implemented with MFDBs is different to 35mm DSLRs. For full exposure to the right with all my cameras I need an exposure which has to be brought back at least 1/2 a stop and sometimes as much as a full stop. More than a full stop however can cause at least one of the channels to blow out. With a grey sky usually one stop of recovery is quite safe.
In the later versions of ACR there's a recovery slider which has the effect of a minus EC correction but without darkening the image.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=152131\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Ray, Jonathan asked for non-clipped files. That's what I've posted. If you want true ETTR you need to clip some of the channels or a low contrast image.
-
This isn't rocket science:
Setup a test shot using something with a very specular white (like I did in my article).
Use an incident light readng. Ideally, like my setup, you'll be within a 1/10 stop all four corners (copy light setup of targets).
Bracket from the meter recommendation at least 2 stops (on my 5D, I was able to use 1 ½ stops over, 2 was too bright, got actual sensor saturation, your mileage may vary).
Use CR or LR exposure in an attempt to keep specular highlight from clipping (255/255/255). Adjust ideally so all exposures produce the same specular white value (again, ideally something as close to 254/254/254 or in that neighbourhood).
Examine the shadows.
-
The proof is in the pudding - all this hypothectical wittering about various types of exposure can best be judged by looking at pictures produced by the photographers who advocate each method.
So do you think that Michael's photos are all flat, dull, poorly exposed, and uninteresting? He shoots with MFDB and DSLR, and was one of the first to write about ETTR as the optimal exposure strategy when shooting digital.
[{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a] (http://index.php?act=findpost&pid=151871\")
And I read the articles with interest when he did so. But as I said in a post above, I was simply comparing two specific photographers involved in each side of the debate, not all photographers and not Michael. As if I had, I would have mentioned him in my post. You were commented on simply as you had offered up your images for inspection. So I was not generalizing from that, to all photographers who use ETTR. IMO, your pictures are unlikely to get people to use ETTR as I do not think they best demonstrate ETTR's virtues.
Michael's images certainly are not flat like the ones you showed us in this link,
[a href=\"http://www.visual-vacations.com/ProfessionalServices/Portraits.htm]http://www.visual-vacations.com/Profession...s/Portraits.htm[/url]
- your images look a bit like tone mapped images you get in weak HDR shots and are not to my taste. But I'd also say Andre's images are a nicer quality than Michael's too. Again as in most artistic judgements, that's just better to my taste and not to everyone else's.
It would save a lot of time if people read more carefully what was actually written. Heck I'm not even anti-ETTR as a concept per se, but I think it has it's place in certain situations and for certain photographers. But for many others it's a complete waste of time. Especially if you can easily produce images how you want them, without it.
-
Yes it's true, but this is adjusting in ARC. When you take the pictures you have in camera 1/3 stop. After the 4 exposure seconds I tried 1/3 more, then the highlights are clipped. ETTR is going to the right as long as you can without clipping isn't it. Well then that's it. The camera can't fine tune the exposure like ARC. Another aspect is that if you have something white in the image the the room is much smaller to expose to the right.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=152130\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Are you relying on the camera's histogram to tell you it's clipping? As that is not accurate enough for this. Keep increasing exposure by the smallest amount possible for shots up to +2 stops as Andrew says. And then examine and tweak in ACR.
-
Yes it's true, but this is adjusting in ARC. When you take the pictures you have in camera 1/3 stop. After the 4 exposure seconds I tried 1/3 more, then the highlights are clipped. ETTR is going to the right as long as you can without clipping isn't it. Well then that's it. The camera can't fine tune the exposure like ARC.
My experience using ACR with several different cameras is that even if there is a small amount of clipping with exposure at 0, the RAW is not necessarily clipped. Dialing in -.3 to -.5 stop exposure will often solve the clipping. When the actual RAW data is clipped, the histogram will look something like this with exposure set at -1 stop or so:
(http://www.visual-vacations.com/Photography/MiscImages/ClippedRAWHisto.gif)
Note the little spikes on the right of the color channels, even though they are not touching the edge of the histogram. Does the histogram of the 6-second exposure look like this, even with exposure set to -1 stop?
Another aspect is that if you have something white in the image the the room is much smaller to expose to the right.
I agree.
-
I feel like I'm in dpreview forums.
I'm outta this thread now.
-
I thought I'll give it a try and explain my personal experience so, not being a technical person at all, here we go.
When I was learning photography I early adopted Ansel Adam's Zone System (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zone_system) to determine the right exposure. The ZS is a representation of the photographic scenes in 12 stops, being 0 total black and 12 pure white.
My opinion is that a normal histogram should be centered, with a little room at left and right, meaning not clipped shadows or highlights. Like Ansel said, a good photograph should have something almost white and something almost black in the greyscale. This isn't an universal truth, is something for everyone to think about. My personal experience using a DB is the same as using B&W film when metering. That's one of the reasons for me to use a DB, the DR. The ZS method gives very accurate metering and very real representation of the scene "as visualized by the photographer. A normal contrast scene, metered to a grey card or with incident light usually gives a centered histogram. The 3seconds exposure sample I posted is an example of this. I metered both to the card and the incident light and the reading was 3 seconds at f8. If the histogram is slightly to the left could be the light changing, as It was getting dark, but still good exposure, no big deal.
Now, moving an exposure to left or right depends on a lot of factors and thats why I'm not supporter of the ETTR method. It depends on the object, the lightning, the contrast, the colors and the most important, it depends on what you want to achieve. So what's the point on moving the histogram to the right just because is the way or a rule to do it? Are you afraid of the shadows?
Let me put an example:
Sunny day, say about 18:00 , you are going to photograph a stone bridge from the river level: I point my sekonic to the blue sky, just before it star to get really dark blue and place it on Zone 6,5 or 7. The shadows under the bridge will be dark but with detail. Why should I move to the histogram to the right? The light part of the sky would be almost white, the browns of the stone desaturated and the shadows under the bridge would no longer paint the arc's curvature. Remember that photography means "paint with light"?
Another example:
A portrait. Expose to the right? My experience is flat faces, not going in more detail...
If you absolutely need to avoid noise (what I don't necessarily think is a bad thing at least in my DB), the best way is to make good exposure. Registering the contrast of the scene as it is. And having a tripod if you need.
An underexposed shoot gives you unnecessarily too much noise because it's simply a bad exposure, but in a correct exposure, there's no need, in my opinion, to move the exp, to the edge, loosing color and the drawing in the shadows.
This applies Medium Format Digital which I experience more or less like film. A 35mm has less DR and not as good color rendition, so I don't see the point doing ETTR either.
The rule should be ER (expose right).
I see making this practice (ETTR) a routine is like to stop looking at the pictures you take. It's simply not possible. A scene containing almost black and white (like the one I posted) can't be moved too much without clipping channels. By the way I can say that a clipped photograph is not necessarily a bad one. The thing is that looking at pure white or black you see no detail or texture, you se nothing, but it can be expressively very strong.
At last I'd like to add that ETTR like HDR are just creative techniques that should be used after your photographic vision, and not as a routine. HDR is a great thing but it's sad that it's so easy discoverable. Most people abuse it instead of using it to complete their creativity.
I don't think there's rules or truth about ETTR (or HDR), is like someone telling me that I couldn't create good images if I were forced to use another brand.
It's funny, so many years of grainy photographic history and now every picture must be completely clean...
/Samuel
-
BACK ON THE SUBJECT!
Since I caused some unnecessary commotion to this thread I will try to repay you guys I with more composed approach to exposure for fashion and glamour photography. I originally joined the thread with my initial respond to the question posted.
To me the amount of over or under exposure depends on the subject of the shoot.
With female faces the major issue is the quality of skin when choosing the exposure. Perfect skin
( does it really exist anymore ) I tend to expose right on or slightly under as it will work very well in the post production. Worst the skin - lighter I go and than move it to the left. It is all personal taste but it works well for me and my clients.
Andre
[{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a] (http://index.php?act=findpost&pid=150451\")
I stand by what I said with the quote and here is detailed explanation. First of all I need to state that I do not use Adobe as a Raw converter but rather my trusty Leaf11. I would love to use ARC as it is bullet fast and time is the commodity that I have the least, but after intense scrutiny with dozens of sample files I concluded that Leaf converter delivers much nicer and smoother results. As far as intentional over exposure or ETTR with fashion shots, the problem that one will encounter is as follow. With standard zone system the average Caucasian skin puts itself around two steps above average gray. That is for properly exposed flat lid image. Fashion photographers very seldom use flat diffuse light as a key light but rather a fill. To make image more attractive and dramatic we tend to give face an extra punch by either gridded spot lite or gridded soft box.
Generally that brings a face to a 3 full levels above the medium gray. Due to curvature of human face and to the nature of light it is unavoidable that even with most meticulous make-up artist application some parts of model face will reflect more lights than the other. This extra one half to full step brings us to 3and 1/2 to 4 steps over the gray. Exposing to the right by 1 to 2 steps will bring us to a level from which human skin would never recover to normal, attractive look.
I have tried it numerous times and always ended up with color fringing and ugly discoloration that were for all practical reasons impossible to retouch even with the most intense healing process.
I hope it puts thing in prospective for many of you who are anonymously reading LL and trying to learn from it. It is not that we are against ETTR as a principle. It is a good tool for some application but if you are a people photographer you need to thing twice before using it as a rule rather than exception. When you submit your work for publication now days, most editors want to see perfectly photoshoped skin with real texture left in it. Over exposure tend to produce plasticky look that is not in fashion unless you shooting for Hair Now magazine. Intentional overexposure is a very complex issue and we are using it to accentuate certain parts of wardrobe and to put attention to the main subject of an image. When post processing an image I almost always work with several layers of differently process Raws and over impose them at the specific lightness I envision for each detail. That is on the top of employing an average of six to eight light sources individually controlled to one image. I hope my respond will help some of you.
[a href=\"http://Http://AndreNapier.com]Http://AndreNapier.com[/url]
-
When I was learning photography I early adopted Ansel Adam's Zone System (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zone_system) to determine the right exposure. The ZS is a representation of the photographic scenes in 12 stops, being 0 total black and 12 pure white.
My opinion is that a normal histogram should be centered, with a little room at left and right, meaning not clipped shadows or highlights. Like Ansel said, a good photograph should have something almost white and something almost black in the greyscale.
[{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a] (http://index.php?act=findpost&pid=152230\")
Adams' description of the zone system in The Negative, 1981, describes eleven zones, 0-X, but he regarded the useful dynamic range to be Zones I - IX, or 9 f/stops.
If you want to use the Zone system for your digital camera, you should determine its useful dynamic range. [a href=\"http://www.clarkvision.com/imagedetail/dynamicrange2/index.html]Roger Clark[/url] determined that the Canon 1D Mark II had a DR of 10 stops. Kodak rates some of their sensors used in MF backs (e.g the KAF 39000) at around 72 db or 12 f/stops; DR is limited by the noise floor and depends on how much noise is tolerable in the shadows, and you may choose a more conservative value.
You should be aware that digital has no shoulder and clips without warning and there is also no knee. Film has a logarithmic response, whereas digital is linear.
Middle gray, Zone 5, is at about a pixel value of 117 with a gamma 2.2 space (aRGB, sRGB) and 98 with a 1.8 space such as ProPhotoRGB, so you might want to place your Zone 5 luminances at that pixel value. If you use ETTR, you would place the highlights just short of clipping. I suggest the latter is more consistent with Ansel's approach. When he discusses a short scale subject (a low contrast subject that uses less than the full scale of zones), he suggests that Zone III placement for the shadow areas even though a higher placement could be used without clipping of the highlights (page 67 of The Negative), since there will be less grain and higher acutance. The proper density in the print can be achieved in printing. He concludes, "optimal image quality will be obtained for all values using the minimum exposure consistent with securing desired shadow detail"
With digital, it is just the opposite. The highlights should be placed just short of clipping. In this way, you will have less noise in the shadows. With a full scale subject, you have no room at either end of the scale and Zone placement of the midtones could be used. However, in this case it might be better to look at the histogram (once you have determined how it relates to clipping of shadows or highlights) and expose just short of clipping. Alternatively, you could take a highlight reading with your spot meter and place the highlight just short of clipping as determined by previous tests. This is what Bruce Fraser recommended. To paraphrase Adams, "optimal image quality will be obtained for all values using the maximum exposure consistent with securing desired highlight detail"
-
Andre, you are a true gentleman
Now, not to take this thread of-topic too much I was wondering. I agree with you that LC11 does a better job on .mos files than ACR but have you tried Iridient RD? It appears to deliver the same quality as LC11 but with the speed of ACR. Have you tried it and discarded it because you did not like the results? (I am still having some difficulties believing how fast RD is and how good the files turn out).
-
Adams' description of the zone system in The Negative, 1981, describes eleven zones, 0-X, but he regarded the useful dynamic range to be Zones I - IX, or 9 f/stops.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=152258\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Yes, of course, the original ZS is ten stops. I was referring to the 12 stops of a DB. I didn's explain myself so clear.
Andre, you are a true gentleman
Now, not to take this thread of-topic too much I was wondering. I agree with you that LC11 does a better job on .mos files than ACR but have you tried Iridient RD? It appears to deliver the same quality as LC11 but with the speed of ACR. Have you tried it and discarded it because you did not like the results? (I am still having some difficulties believing how fast RD is and how good the files turn out).
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=152331\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
I can add that I normally use Capture One and I get better files than with ARC or Lightroom too.
-
I stand by what I said with the quote and here is detailed explanation. First of all I need to state that I do not use Adobe as a Raw converter but rather my trusty Leaf11. I would love to use ARC as it is bullet fast and time is the commodity that I have the least, but after intense scrutiny with dozens of sample files I concluded that Leaf converter delivers much nicer and smoother results. As far as intentional over exposure or ETTR with fashion shots, the problem that one will encounter is as follow. With standard zone system the average Caucasian skin puts itself around two steps above average gray. That is for properly exposed flat lid image. Fashion photographers very seldom use flat diffuse light as a key light but rather a fill. To make image more attractive and dramatic we tend to give face an extra punch by either gridded spot lite or gridded soft box.
Generally that brings a face to a 3 full levels above the medium gray. Due to curvature of human face and to the nature of light it is unavoidable that even with most meticulous make-up artist application some parts of model face will reflect more lights than the other. This extra one half to full step brings us to 3and 1/2 to 4 steps over the gray. Exposing to the right by 1 to 2 steps will bring us to a level from which human skin would never recover to normal, attractive look.
I have tried it numerous times and always ended up with color fringing and ugly discoloration that were for all practical reasons impossible to retouch even with the most intense healing process.
Your concept of "expose to the right" is a bit exaggerated if you're thinking in terms of 1-2 stops. For most subjects, 1/3-2/3 of a stop is about all you can do before you start clipping one or more channels. The color fringing / discoloration you're referring to is probably caused by a blown red channel, and the whole point of ETTR is to push exposure as far as you can without blowing any color channels.
-
Wasn't it 1.2 stops that was the recommended amount for Andrew's setup?
-
Wasn't it 1.2 stops that was the recommended amount for Andrew's setup?
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=152350\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
In the case of THIS specific image and lighting, yes. That is, I was able to over expose (which isn't over exposure) 1 ½ stops over the incident reading while not blowing out the specular highlights.
-
At what point (on the scale of dit depth) would ETTR be of no incremental value? Obviously it's a no brainer at 8 bit - but at that level, probably equally an argument for RAW as ETTR. At 12 bit there was still clear (to me) value in ETTR and less value, but still worth it for 14 bit. I assume the value would be less again at 16 bit. As a pure hypothetical, surely at 256 bits (assuming a constant dynamic range) there's little motivation to practice ETTR? All I'm saying is that at sompe point between 8 bit and some greater bit depth, the practice becomes moot. Based strictly on reading this extensive thread, I'd guess that 16 is at least close to the margin.
-
At what point (on the scale of dit depth) would ETTR be of no incremental value? Obviously it's a no brainer at 8 bit - but at that level, probably equally an argument for RAW as ETTR. At 12 bit there was still clear (to me) value in ETTR and less value, but still worth it for 14 bit. I assume the value would be less again at 16 bit. As a pure hypothetical, surely at 256 bits (assuming a constant dynamic range) there's little motivation to practice ETTR? All I'm saying is that at sompe point between 8 bit and some greater bit depth, the practice becomes moot. Based strictly on reading this extensive thread, I'd guess that 16 is at least close to the margin.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=152421\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
This is why I suggest that you need to have some experience of a (relatively current) MFDB before you try and suggest *how* important ETTR is in practice at 16 bit.
It seems that most of those extolling it's virtues have most or all of their experience in 35mm / 12bit where (I know from experience) it is important. Please don't misinterpret this as demeaning: it's certainly not. I've only had mine for a month or so, but am still in awe of the differences between it and 35mm.
-
There's more to it than just the number of bits in the camera's ADC. ISO is a huge factor. When shooting at the camera's base ISO you can underexpose a stop or two below ETTR and still get an acceptable, even excellent image. But at ISO 1600, ETTR is pretty much mandatory or the noise will overwhelm the image.
-
There's more to it than just the number of bits in the camera's ADC. ISO is a huge factor. When shooting at the camera's base ISO you can underexpose a stop or two below ETTR and still get an acceptable, even excellent image. But at ISO 1600, ETTR is pretty much mandatory or the noise will overwhelm the image.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=152437\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
But here I can say that that is something that I have noticed with all my MFDB's. When using higher ISO you better expose right (in both senses) or you will be rewarded with really ugly noise.
All other things I can only say I expose what I want to have and adjust later. I don't go for ETTR perse, only when I know that most zones are in my image otherwise I expose for the things I find important. Not sure why maybe because I am lazy and it works.
-
This is why I suggest that you need to have some experience of a (relatively current) MFDB before you try and suggest *how* important ETTR is in practice at 16 bit.
It seems that most of those extolling it's virtues have most or all of their experience in 35mm / 12bit where (I know from experience) it is important. Please don't misinterpret this as demeaning: it's certainly not. I've only had mine for a month or so, but am still in awe of the differences between it and 35mm.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=152436\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
This is getting to be a pointless set of posts because some here seem to believe (based on what I have no idea) that somehow a larger chip or a different bit depth somehow spreads the data differently in a linear encoding. That's simply not the case. If you want to dismiss the math for religious reasons, well tell us now, so that the rest of us who refuse to enter into religious debates can use our valuable time posting elsewhere.
ETTR is only important IF you care to understand how linear encoded data is handled in all situations. No one here is, as far as I've seen, is demanding anyone expose this way 'or else', we're simply representing the facts of data capture of Raw, scene referred linear data. If you wish to under expose your capture, by all means do so. Again and for the last time, ETTR isn't over exposure, its correct exposure based on digital, linear encoding. Do you want to debate the math? Or Thomas Knoll? If so, you're on your own here. Expose the data any way you want. But PLEASE view the original question, top of the post (the one where the OP states correctly, this may be a stupid question). I usually don't believe there's such a thing as a stupid question when it is presented honestly as a question. This discussion if you can call it that is now way past fact based, one of personal opinion like what's better, a Mac or a Windows box, a Canon or a Nikon (or for this audience, a Leaf back or a Phase back).
If those of you who like to argue over and over again about religious imaging theory, not simple math, may want to continue, over on the Yahoo Color Theory list. At least you can argue about flat earth theories san's any scientific data till the cows come home.
-
xx
-
Mr. Dog I think you are the religious one - not wanting to accept real life photographers experiences with MFD - you just keep hanging on to your theory based on Canon files, and simply cant get into your head that MFD is another ball game.
Torben
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=152483\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
It has nothing to do with Canon files. Linear encoded data is linear encoded data.
The math is undeniable. End of story.
-
My personal experience with the Canon 5D versus Phase P45 shooting architecture....
Just like I don’t read MTF carts when choosing a lens, I simply try different models and look for the sharpest lens using my eyes.
My Audi doesn't have an altimeter therefor its not necessary in an transportation device?
With your above statement, about the Canon/P45 and how you prefer to only use your eyes, I'm certainly happy you're not an airline pilot.
-
PhotoShop also allows one to apply mathematically perfect grain. Can not argue mathematics but
IT AIN'T PRETTY!!!!!!
http://AndreNapier.com (http://AndreNapier.com)
-
With your above statement, about the Canon/P45 and how you prefer to only use your eyes, I'm certainly happy you're not an airline pilot.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=152486\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Andrew,
Very good that you brought this example.
Instrument flying is close to my heart. All pilots use blindfold navigation for their comfort and when visual control is not possible ( example - night flying )
However with all that technology no pilot ever attempted auto pilot landing or start. This same applies to all critical flying situation where human judgment exceeds all mathematical combination.
Matter of fact whenever situation allows visual control most pilots still prefer to trust their eyes and intuition. I do not think that this situation is any different for well trained photographers and pictures that have many critical variation in order to capture the soul. ( By the way I am not religious at all. Quite contrary I have to see it to believe. )
{" Young lady comes home a catches her husband with another women. The other women runs away.
Young lady cries and screams - how could you do it to me.
Husband calmly replies - do what?
Lady - well cheat on me.
Husband replies again - I never even thought about cheating on you.
Lady - what are you saying, I have seen it with my own eyes!
Husband - well, you have to decide if you are going to trust your husband or you are going to trust your own eyes.}
By the way the most advance computers far more mathematically advance than photoshop software still have a heck of a time to beat the stupid eye-brain combination of master player in the most mathematically advance game - CHESS.
Andre
-
Andrew,
Very good that you brought this example.
Instrument flying is close to my heart. All pilots use blindfold navigation for their comfort and when visual control is not possible ( example - night flying )
However with all that technology no pilot ever attempted auto pilot landing or start. This same applies to all critical flying situation where human judgment exceeds all mathematical combination.
Matter of fact whenever situation allows visual control most pilots still prefer to trust their eyes and intuition. I do not think that this situation is any different for well trained photographers and pictures that have many critical variation in order to capture the soul. ( By the way I am not religious at all. Quite contrary I have to see it to believe. )
{" Young lady comes home a catches her husband with another women. The other women runs away.
Young lady cries and screams - how could you do it to me.
Husband calmly replies - do what?
Lady - well cheat on me.
Husband replies again - I never even thought about cheating on you.
Lady - what are you saying, I have seen it with my own eyes!
Husband - well, you have to decide if you are going to trust your husband or you are going to trust your own eyes.}
By the way the most advance computers far more mathematically advance than photoshop software still have a heck of a time to beat the stupid eye-brain combination of master player in the most mathematically advance game - CHESS.
Andre
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=152508\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Trust your eyes if you like, but they can and will deceive you. The laws of physics will remain constant.
Do you trust your eyes to tell you that square "A" and "B" are exactly the same shade of gray? They are.
[attachment=3817:attachment]
-
My personal experience with the Canon 5D versus Phase P45 shooting architecture:
With the 5D I have to make sure not to get underexposed images (I will rather blow some highlights) since the shadows looks very bad. With the P45 I tend to expose a little to the left since I can recover all shadow details without any noise at all.
This is based on real life photography - not reading color theory. Just like I don’t read MTF carts when choosing a lens, I simply try different models and look for the sharpest lens using my eyes.
Mr. Dog I think you are the religious one - not wanting to accept real life photographers experiences with MFD - you just keep hanging on to your theory based on Canon files, and simply cant get into your head that MFD is another ball game.
Torben
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=152483\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Thank you Torben, you have explained more cogently what I feel to be true in my limited experience of MFDB's (and I too have the 5D)
-
Trust your eyes if you like, but they can and will deceive you. The laws of physics will remain constant.
Do you trust your eyes to tell you that square "A" and "B" are exactly the same shade of gray? They are.
[attachment=3817:attachment]
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=152520\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Very good one. This is an amazing staff. Never seen anything like it. You converted me completely.
Matter of fact I will no longer calibrate my computer screen just by my eyes. Actually I may end up like Claude Oscar Monet who after his cataracts surgery wanted to repaint all his works.
God so much work in front of me to catch up with the time I have inadvertently lost.
Andre
-
Did I say GOD?
-
Trust your eyes if you like, but they can and will deceive you. The laws of physics will remain constant.
Do you trust your eyes to tell you that square "A" and "B" are exactly the same shade of gray? They are.
[attachment=3817:attachment]
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=152520\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Go to your magazine's editor or a client with that arguments and the will give you..... "that look"...
-
an
-
Trust your eyes if you like, but they can and will deceive you. The laws of physics will remain constant.
Do you trust your eyes to tell you that square "A" and "B" are exactly the same shade of gray? They are.
[attachment=3817:attachment]
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=152520\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
may be but so far the only species I know that are looking/buying images are human... so if tomorrow my computer can say something and buy photographs I'll take care of that.
-
It has nothing to do with Canon files. Linear encoded data is linear encoded data.
The math is undeniable. End of story.
[{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a] (http://index.php?act=findpost&pid=152484\")
There are some differences between a Canon with a 12 bit ADC and the medium format backs with 16 bit ADCs. For example, the Kodak 39 MB KAF 39000 chip used in some of these high end backs has a full well capacity of about 60K electrons. At base ISO, the unity gain would be 1 electron/ 16 bit data number.
Unity gain for the Canon 5D with a 12 bit ADC is at ISO 1600. When one is exposing according to light meter readings with the meter set at 1600 ISO, one must increase the ISO on the camera setting to 1600 so that the electronic gain will increase enough to enable the ADC to capture all the information in the image. The 5D has a full well of 80,000 electrons, so the gain at base ISO is 19 electrons/12 bit data number. The granularity of the measurement at base ISO is 19 electrons and this would lead to significant imprecision at ISO 1600 where fewer electrons are collected. At ISO 1600 the 5D would collect 80000/16 = 5,000 electrons in the highlights and half as many in each darker f/stop as one goes towards the shadows.
With the 16 bit MFDB, one could leave the ISO setting of the camera at base ISO and increase the exposure in the raw converter and still get all the information. This is explained by [a href=\"http://www.clarkvision.com/imagedetail/digital.sensor.performance.summary/]Roger Clark[/url] on his web site.
However, signal to noise ration in digital cameras is limited primarily by photon counting statistics. If you double the number of photons collected, the S:N will increase by the square root of 2, 1.414. This applies to Canon and Nikon 35 mm style cameras, MFDBs, and the Hubble space telescope. This is the main rationale behind ETTR. Perhaps you boys with MFDBs are satisfied with your S:N, but you could do better with ETTR. That is a fact of physics and mathematics.
Another consideration is that noise with a 39 MB file will be much finer grained than with a 12 MB file when the images are printed at the same size, even though the noise expressed as a standard deviation of the pixel value might be the same.
-
There are some differences between a Canon with a 12 bit ADC and the medium format backs with 16 bit ADCs.
I don't think anyone has disputed this.
-
Trust your eyes if you like, but they can and will deceive you. The laws of physics will remain constant.
Do you trust your eyes to tell you that square "A" and "B" are exactly the same shade of gray? They are.
[attachment=3817:attachment]
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=152520\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Interesting, isn't it! This is symbolic of the sort of thing over which major wars have been fought, one side claiming they are white and that the other side is black and vice versa, when in fact, according to a more objective standard, they are both similar shades of gray. Gives pause for thought, don't it?
I checked the values in Photoshop, just in case wou were kidding me , and it's true, both squares A and B are exactly the same shade of gray, 120,120,120.
-
Andrew,
Look, I am already improving. I fixed my overexposed white dress by cloning it from picture B
to picture A. Is it my eyes or the A looks more beige. They are the same color, I swear.
Andre[attachment=3832:attachment][attachment=3832:attachment][attachment=3833:at
tachment]
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=152566\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Both dresses look approximately the same shade of white to me, Andre. Only the background and the model's skin tones have changed. But I concede the point that what appeared to me as overexposed dresses may not actually be overexposed.
I sometimes forget that the appearance of things on my Adobe Gamma calibrated laptop is not accurate. I've since discovered by attempting to print images from my laptop that all values of grey between about 230,230,230 and 255,255,255 look the same.
-
where did HE (http://www.luminous-landscape.com/tutorials/expose-right.shtml) get this informations ? :
Because CCD and CMOS chips are linear devices. And, of course, each F/Stop records half of the light of the previous one, and therefore half the remaining data space available. This little table tells the tale.
Within the first F/Stop, which contains the Brightest Tones
2048 levels available
Within the second F/Stop, which contains Bright Tones
1024 levels available
Within the third F/Stop, which contains the Mid-Tones
512 levels available
Within the fourth F/Stop, which contains Dark Tones
256 levels available
Within the fifth F/Stop, which contains the Darkest Tones
128 levels available
I find allways on internet this 5 (or 11 zones) from Bright tones to Dark tones
but nobody says from where they know it ?
from Canon ? NIkon ? KodaK ?
any idea or link ?
thank you
-
where did HE (http://www.luminous-landscape.com/tutorials/expose-right.shtml) get this informations ? :
I find allways on internet this 5 (or 11 zones) from Bright tones to Dark tones
but nobody says from where they know it ?
from Canon ? NIkon ? KodaK ?
any idea or link ?
thank you
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=155171\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Thomas Knoll I believe. It's always been the basic rationale for ETTR on this forum since the phrase was first coined.
-
If you are asking about Zones, then it was Ansel Adams.
-
Thomas Knoll I believe. It's always been the basic rationale for ETTR on this forum since the phrase was first coined.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=155192\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
I also think he (and or Michael) used this set of values to make the math easier for us to understand. I don't think he's saying this 6-stop, 12 bit file is based on any exact real world capture device but rather a theoretical one such you can see how the 4096 steps divide up per stop.
-
at the same level of "Perceiving/Seeing/Interpretating" things, go to:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/science/humanbody/bod...enge/senses.swf (http://www.bbc.co.uk/science/humanbody/body/interactives/senseschallenge/senses.swf)
Good luck for the test!
Thierry
Very good one. This is an amazing staff. Never seen anything like it. You converted me completely.
Matter of fact I will no longer calibrate my computer screen just by my eyes. Actually I may end up like Claude Oscar Monet who after his cataracts surgery wanted to repaint all his works.
God so much work in front of me to catch up with the time I have inadvertently lost.
Andre
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=152545\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
-
at the same level of "Perceiving/Seeing/Interpretating" things, go to:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/science/humanbody/bod...enge/senses.swf (http://www.bbc.co.uk/science/humanbody/body/interactives/senseschallenge/senses.swf)
Good luck for the test!
Thierry
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=155222\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
15/20. Granted I new all the anatomy question from school.
-
Thomas Knoll ?
thank you
I also think he (and or Michael) used this set of values to make the math easier for us to understand. I don't think he's saying this 6-stop, 12 bit file is based on any exact real world capture device but rather a theoretical one such you can see how the 4096 steps divide up per stop
my question was more about each F/Stop records half of the light of the previous one, and therefore half the remaining data space available
-
Thomas Knoll ?
thank you
my question was more about each F/Stop records half of the light of the previous one, and therefore half the remaining data space available
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=155558\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
f/stops are log base 2 scaled. If you use integer linear encoding the above is true regarding the data space, but if you used log encoding (already used in some HDR encoding schemes) you can use the same data space and have the same encoding accuracy in all f/stops.
Bill