Will Michael revisit ETTR?

[Bryan Conner]

The key word there is implies. He doesn’t say as far as I can see, that ETTR alters the numbers of levels, only provides cleaner (less noise) in those levels.

I halfway agree.  I never had a hint of implication from Michael's text that the number of levels were altered, or changed in any way...nothing seemed to be implied at all. The understanding that I received was very clear and logical to me.  I immediately put my camera on a tripod and started shooting and testing the idea.  I was very impressed and felt like I had learned an extremely important bit of knowledge that would improve my chances of making the best capture at any given moment.

I think that a lot of very sharp minds have been wasting a lot of time over-analyzing Michael's statements.  Instead, they should have been out exploring exactly how to incorporate and implement the information into their own workflow and photography life.

[Schewe]

I think that a lot of very sharp minds have been wasting a lot of time over-analyzing Michael's statements.  Instead, they should have been out exploring exactly how to incorporate and implement the information into their own workflow and photography life.

Yep...

[ejmartin]

I think that a lot of very sharp minds have been wasting a lot of time over-analyzing Michael's statements.  

Depends whether you think misinformation is helpful in optimizing your technique.

Instead, they should have been out exploring exactly how to incorporate and implement the information into their own workflow and photography life.

I know exactly what the noise characteristics of my cameras are, how to optimize capture and workflow for best S/N and DR based on that information.  Do you?  For me the answer is more subtle than "ETTR", and depends inherently on those measured noise characteristics.

[John R Smith]

I know exactly what the noise characteristics of my cameras are, how to optimize capture and workflow for best S/N and DR based on that information.

I must say that phrases like the above make me want to run away and hide. I don't have any interest whatsoever in optimising capture and workflow, thanks very much. I want to take good photographs, and print better pictures. Now you might say that the two things are the same, and that I am quibbling about semantics, but I don't think so. I see photography as an essentially artisitic activity, and the language we use to describe the process should not alienate others in a babble of techno-jargon.

John

[Bryan Conner]

Depends whether you think misinformation is helpful in optimizing your technique.

Sometimes, misinformation can help me to optimize my technique.  This is due to the fact that in proving the information to wrong (for myself) I can solidify sound techniques for myself.  However,  I do not see, in any way, how Michael's original article put forth misinformation.  I still think that a lot of "misanalyzing" has occurred. 

I know exactly what the noise characteristics of my cameras are, how to optimize capture and workflow for best S/N and DR based on that information.  Do you?  For me the answer is more subtle than "ETTR", and depends inherently on those measured noise characteristics.

I am learning the noise characteristics of my current camera, just as I have been doing with each body since my first Kodak in 1998.  I am still learning how to make my captures and workflow better in regards to Signal to Noise Ratio and Dynamic Range based on the knowledge that I have gained from experience as well as from reading the findings of others.  So no, I have not reached the level of pompous perfection in my mind to declare that I have mastered it and know exactly all that there is to know.  For me, the answer may end up being more subtle than "ETTR", but for now, I am happy to have the information in my noggin' and to have the enjoyment of using it.  This is truly a learning forum, and sometimes, I learn things that are completely untechnical and unphotographic.

[degrub]

In my opinion, for some of us, image making is about the science. For others it is about the art. For most of us it is somewhere between and we can learn from both. While we may take offense at some writings of others, there is no reason for incivility. It only gets in the way of learning and discourages participation.
Thanks.
Frank

[John R Smith]

In my opinion, for some of us, image making is about the science. For others it is about the art. For most of us it is somewhere between and we can learn from both. While we may take offense at some writings of others, there is no reason for incivility. It only gets in the way of learning and discourages participation.
Thanks.
Frank

Frank, you are absolutely right. Mine was a poorly judged post, and I apologise for the incivility.

John

[Ray]

I think perhaps a current article in Scientific American, titled "Lessons from Sherlock Holmes", is relevant to this current debate.

Here's what Sherlock Holmes has to say in a "Study in Scarlet".

“I consider that a man’s brain originally is like a little empty attic, and you have to stock it with such furniture as you choose. A fool takes in all the lumber of every sort that he comes across, so that the knowledge which might be useful to him gets crowded out, or at best is jumbled up with a lot of other things, so that he has difficulty laying his hands upon it.

Now the skillful workman is very careful indeed as to what he takes into his brain-attic. He will have nothing but the tools which may help him in doing his work, but of these he has a large assortment, and all in the most perfect order. It is a mistake to think that that little room has elastic walls and can distend to any extent. Depend upon it there comes a time when for every addition of knowledge you forget something that you knew before. It is of the highest importance, therefore, not to have useless facts elbowing out the useful ones.”

http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/guest-blog/2011/08/26/lessons-from-sherlock-holmes-cultivate-what-you-know-to-optimize-how-you-decide/

[stamper]

Depends whether you think misinformation is helpful in optimizing your technique.

I know exactly what the noise characteristics of my cameras are, how to optimize capture and workflow for best S/N and DR based on that information.  Do you?  For me the answer is more subtle than "ETTR", and depends inherently on those measured noise characteristics.

BUT ..... does that make you a good photographer or someone who is knowledgeable about the process involved? 

[stamper]

Frank, you are absolutely right. Mine was a poorly judged post, and I apologise for the incivility.

John

Why the apology John? You said what a lot of the members are probably thinking, unless of course you are being facetious.

[stamper]

In my opinion, for some of us, image making is about the science. For others it is about the art. For most of us it is somewhere between and we can learn from both. While we may take offense at some writings of others, there is no reason for incivility. It only gets in the way of learning and discourages participation.
Thanks.
Frank

I would have thought it is about the final output? The print or an image posted on the web? I sometimes wonder about the final output of the members who seem obsessed by the science. I don't notice many of them posting their efforts on the critique forum. People like John post fine images but doesn't get caught up in the scientific side of things. He is what I call a practical photographer who knows enough to produce good work. I hope I am not being uncivil?

[Bryan Conner]

I would have thought it is about the final output? The print or an image posted on the web? I sometimes wonder about the final output of the members who seem obsessed by the science. I don't notice many of them posting their efforts on the critique forum. People like John post fine images but doesn't get caught up in the scientific side of things. He is what I call a practical photographer who knows enough to produce good work. I hope I am not being uncivil?

Reading your reply made me think about a class I took under Art Rainville  http://www.studiorainville.com/ .  He was teamed up with another photographer who was real technical, used all of the latest high tech equipment (made wonderful captures too) and really preached being exact with everything.  So, the first four hours, we heard all of this really good technical info and then comes Art.  He moves his lights around, sets the power on the back of the monolights, sticks his index finger into his mouth to wet it, holds it up in front of his subject like he is checking for wind direction,  and trips the lights! He never used a light meter during the next four hours.  He used his experience and his camera's histogram.

I think that in the end, we all (including myself) need to accept that there is not a single "best" way for everyone to approach anything photographic.  There is, however, a single best way for each individual to approach photography:  Keep an open mind in order to absorb as much information as possible while learning what specific information is of the best use in your workflow.  Being iron-fisted and declaring that only one way exists is not conducive to anyone learning....included the one with the iron fist.  A closed mind will learn nothing.

[Guillermo Luijk]

BUT ..... does that make you a good photographer or someone who is knowledgeable about the process involved?  

In fact he is a very knowledgeable person.

I sometimes wonder about the final output of the members who seem obsessed by the science. I don't notice many of them posting their efforts on the critique forum. People like John post fine images but doesn't get caught up in the scientific side of things. He is what I call a practical photographer who knows enough to produce good work. I hope I am not being uncivil?

Not incivil, just not very clever since science can be a goal on its own. I'm pretty sure most engineers working for camera makers produce bad outputs or even don't take pictures at all, but they are involved in contributing to photography science and hence to photography in general. This thread is about a tecnique to scientifically improve taking pictures, so there is room for both sides of the story.

[stamper]

One point not mentioned. The thrust of the argument is about noise in shadows and how to lighten them? What happens if you are like me and like shadows that are black - or nearly black - and a little clipped. I suspect there are a lot of photographers like me. A few years ago the info in Photoshop books was to set blacks at 15 15 15 and whites at 245 245 245. You see very few advocating that now.

[stamper]

In fact he is a very knowledgeable person.
Not incivil, just not very clever since science can be a goal on its own. I'm pretty sure most engineers working for camera makers produce bad outputs or even don't take pictures at all, but they are involved in contributing to photography science and hence to photography in general. This thread is about a tecnique to scientifically improve taking pictures, so there is room for both sides of the story.

At the end of the day this is primarily a photographic site. With regards to the scientific discussions I see very little consensus among the advocates and the photographer who has a more practical mind must be a little dismayed at the outcome of some of the threads. However I recognize that some of it is enlightening and I will still read them. Splitting the wheat from the chaff is difficult.

[Guillermo Luijk]

One point not mentioned. The thrust of the argument is about noise in shadows and how to lighten them? What happens if you are like me and like shadows that are black - or nearly black - and a little clipped. I suspect there are a lot of photographers like me. A few years ago the info in Photoshop books was to set blacks at 15 15 15 and whites at 245 245 245. You see very few advocating that now.

Clipping shadows is a matter of post processing, not of capture. Unlike the highligths, in the RAW file shadows are not clipped, they just have more or less noise according to exposure. So you cannot take any decision about clipping the shadows at shooting time (when ETTR is applied), that will be done later.

The only reason I can see for that (15,15,15) and (245,245,245) recommendation is to prevent whites and blacks loose details in the output device (typ. prints). With properly calibrated equipment and a correct workflow, I see no reason for those safety ranges.

Splitting the wheat from the chaff is difficult.

Not more difficult than splitting the wheat from the chaff when looking at the outputs produced by practical mind photographers. In my case, I don't think even 10% of the pictures I see are of any interest to me.

[Bryan Conner]

In my case, I don't think even 10% of the pictures I see are of any interest to me.

Are you speaking of only your own pictures, only those of others, or both?  Just curious.

[Guillermo Luijk]

Are you speaking of only your own pictures, only those of others, or both?  Just curious.

Of both.

[digitaldog]

The only reason I can see for that (15,15,15) and (245,245,245) recommendation is to prevent whites and blacks loose details in the output device (typ. prints). With properly calibrated equipment and a correct workflow, I see no reason for those safety ranges.

Exactly. The reason we don’t see people recommending arbitrary values is because no set of values is ideal for all images and processes.

But some love the idea of distilling complex items like this into “7 simple points” and dumbing down every process. Kind of reminds me of the old saying about making something fool proof.

[Rajan Parrikar]

At the end of the day this is primarily a photographic site. With regards to the scientific discussions I see very little consensus among the advocates and the photographer who has a more practical mind must be a little dismayed at the outcome of some of the threads. However I recognize that some of it is enlightening and I will still read them. Splitting the wheat from the chaff is difficult.

Since this is primarily a photographic site, discussions about the science and technology underlying image-making are entirely apposite.  Understanding the physics of vibrating strings may not make you a better musician but that understanding is valuable to those designing/refining the instruments.  Furthermore, knowledge of the underlying science can "only add.  I don't understand how it subtracts." That quote from -

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hIZhgLKSBaY