expose to the right?

[Wayne Fox]

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

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.

[Jonathan Wienke]

Well, if you have the time to play with them, I've got these two files for you.

They aren't RAWs.

[jing q]

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.

[samuel_js]

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?

[jonstewart]

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]

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

[Jonathan Wienke]

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.

[samuel_js]

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

J
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=152090\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Opps, I'll post two new...

[Jonathan Wienke]

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?

[samuel_js]

Hi, the new files are here:

DIRECTORY LINK

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

[jonstewart]

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.  

[Ray]

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]

[samuel_js]

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:

[jjj]

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.

[samuel_js]

The three exposures side by side should look like this:
2 seconds


3 seconds (grey zone V)


4 seconds


I will write a little more about my experience a little later today...


/Samuel

[jjj]

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.

[jjj]

The three exposures side by side should look like this:
2 seconds

3 seconds (grey zone V)

4 seconds

[samuel_js]

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.

[Ray]

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_js]

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.

[digitaldog]

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.