Pages: 1 [2]   Go Down

Author Topic: Holy %@#$  (Read 5010 times)

Hans Kruse

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1376
    • Hans Kruse Photography
Re: Holy %@#$
« Reply #20 on: July 05, 2014, 08:18:50 AM »

Basically the ideal exposure is as Michael describes: get your histogram as close to the right side as possible but not so close as to cause the over exposure indicator to flash. The ideal exposure ensures that you have maximum number of levels describing your image without loosing important detail in the highlights. The closer you get to this ideal then the more of those levels are being used to describe your shadows.

If someone does as suggested using raw then there is - in my experience - a 2/3 stop of underexposure before clipping occurs. A little flashing of overexposure is good. Experiment by taking an image with different f/stops and load them into Rawdigger and that will give you a more "accurate" idea of clipping.

http://www.rawdigger.com/

There is not a fixed level of exposure difference. The amount of overexposure as judged by a RAW histogram depends on the metering method, the camera and the light distribution over the scene and dynamic range. This is judged from my experience using Canon and Nikon cameras (1Ds III, 5D series and D800E and the older Canons were not that different in this respect). You can easily have blinkies on the LCD and no clipping of the RAW file. You can have clipping or underexposure using 0EV exposure compensation with matrix metering. Also you have quite some clipping on the LCD and some clipping in RAWdigger and Lightroom will still not show clipping with default parameters and AWB from the camera.

In my experience the best method (unless you are a big fan of using exposure compensation all the time) to simply bracekt your shots and choose the best exposure in Lightroom. This usually would be the most exposure without clipping.

In the case of the picture from Michael on a Canon or Nikon this would be a +1EV exposure compensation and show some underexposure and a +2EV might have a little clipping.

I feel the picture was Michael was still a bit flat. My experience is that opening up the shadows and highlights need to be compensated with not just clarity but with contrast and exposure adjustments (of course).

ErikKaffehr

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Online Online
  • Posts: 9758
    • Echophoto
Re: Holy %@#$
« Reply #21 on: July 05, 2014, 08:24:15 AM »

Hi Slobodan,

At least in my book.

Best regards
Erik

To be truly pedantic, when one says ETTR, adding "but stopped short of clipping" is simply redundant. Because, by definition, ETTR implies no clipping. ;)

Fine_Art

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1173
Re: Holy %@#$
« Reply #22 on: July 05, 2014, 10:24:52 AM »

There is not a fixed level of exposure difference. The amount of overexposure as judged by a RAW histogram depends on the metering method, the camera and the light distribution over the scene and dynamic range. This is judged from my experience using Canon and Nikon cameras (1Ds III, 5D series and D800E and the older Canons were not that different in this respect). You can easily have blinkies on the LCD and no clipping of the RAW file. You can have clipping or underexposure using 0EV exposure compensation with matrix metering. Also you have quite some clipping on the LCD and some clipping in RAWdigger and Lightroom will still not show clipping with default parameters and AWB from the camera.

In my experience the best method (unless you are a big fan of using exposure compensation all the time) to simply bracekt your shots and choose the best exposure in Lightroom. This usually would be the most exposure without clipping.

In the case of the picture from Michael on a Canon or Nikon this would be a +1EV exposure compensation and show some underexposure and a +2EV might have a little clipping.

I feel the picture was Michael was still a bit flat. My experience is that opening up the shadows and highlights need to be compensated with not just clarity but with contrast and exposure adjustments (of course).

The image looks natural if you have seen similar storm clouds. You may be right that some contrast and exposure is needed, but the description of the processing is still correct. Most of us have our software on auto levels which makes those adjustments when it first opens the image.

For example on my similar cloud shot which i posted as "Storm Coming" Raw Therapee opens it with auto levels. I clicked neutral to see where the histogram really is. It was compressed in the middle with a long tail to the right. I set clipping from default 0.02 to 0, clicked auto levels to put it back, set vibrance to 10, then saved as 90% jpg. That put a very light banding in the clouds in case some internet scourer tries to blow the clouds up to be the sky in their assignment or brochure.

As you say, bracketing is important to make up for any strangeness in the metering. The habit I have for landscapes is to bracket so that the darkest shot of 3, 1 ev apart is ETTR. That gives me lots of shadow data I can pull from the other brackets if I need it. I also know I can process with no (or very little) noise.
Logged

Hans Kruse

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1376
    • Hans Kruse Photography
Re: Holy %@#$
« Reply #23 on: July 05, 2014, 11:22:49 AM »

The image looks natural if you have seen similar storm clouds. You may be right that some contrast and exposure is needed, but the description of the processing is still correct. Most of us have our software on auto levels which makes those adjustments when it first opens the image.

For example on my similar cloud shot which i posted as "Storm Coming" Raw Therapee opens it with auto levels. I clicked neutral to see where the histogram really is. It was compressed in the middle with a long tail to the right. I set clipping from default 0.02 to 0, clicked auto levels to put it back, set vibrance to 10, then saved as 90% jpg. That put a very light banding in the clouds in case some internet scourer tries to blow the clouds up to be the sky in their assignment or brochure.

As you say, bracketing is important to make up for any strangeness in the metering. The habit I have for landscapes is to bracket so that the darkest shot of 3, 1 ev apart is ETTR. That gives me lots of shadow data I can pull from the other brackets if I need it. I also know I can process with no (or very little) noise.

I have seen lots of them and my comment is not about a so called natural look. In my opinion what counts is what is a great and convincing image. Natural is a heavily overused word in my opinion. If you are documenting then it is important, but if you create art then who cares what is natural? I don't think it is a good idea to open a RAW image with tons of default adjustments, at least it is not what I do.

Fine_Art

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1173
Re: Holy %@#$
« Reply #24 on: July 05, 2014, 03:45:56 PM »

I have seen lots of them and my comment is not about a so called natural look. In my opinion what counts is what is a great and convincing image. Natural is a heavily overused word in my opinion. If you are documenting then it is important, but if you create art then who cares what is natural? I don't think it is a good idea to open a RAW image with tons of default adjustments, at least it is not what I do.

Whatever you are doing is working, you have many fine images at your site. Very nice.
Logged

michael

  • Administrator
  • Sr. Member
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 5084
Re: Holy %@#$
« Reply #25 on: September 10, 2014, 07:54:27 AM »

"I say what I mean and I mean what I say". - The Mad Hatter.

Since I invented the phrase ETTR (Thomas Knoll first described it to me, and I wrote it up more than a decade ago), I am allowed to mean what I mean, which is "...and don't blow it".

Michael
Logged

digitaldog

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 11536
    • http://digitaldog.net/
Re: Holy %@#$
« Reply #26 on: September 10, 2014, 11:01:04 AM »

To be truly pedantic, when one says ETTR, adding "but stopped short of clipping" is simply redundant. Because, by definition, ETTR implies no clipping. ;)
I agree 100% (see Slobodan, we can at times  ;D). ETTR should never be about blowing out any highlights you wish to retain. That's exposure 101. Why would anyone clip highlights they don't want to clip, especially Michael! If I had a dime for every time someone felt that ETTR was about over exposing, resulting in blown highlights, I would buy something real expensive and frivolous.
Logged
Andrew Rodney
Author “Color Management for Photographers”
http://digitaldog.net/
Pages: 1 [2]   Go Up