Will Michael revisit ETTR?

[JeffKohn]

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

This is a fallacious argument, unless you mean to suggest that knowledge about the process somehow makes you a worse photographer... which I would suggest is a rather silly argument.

[PierreVandevenne]

I've seen a lot of references about "good photographer" or "better photographer" in these ETTR threads.
What is a good photographer? How does one define it? 

[Ray]

I've seen a lot of references about "good photographer" or "better photographer" in these ETTR threads.
What is a good photographer? How does one define it? 

One might say there are as many definitions of a good photographer as there are people in the world who are interested in such matters.

On the other hand, many of those definitions will be essentially identical and indistinguishable from each other, so a more pertinent question might be, how many levels of distinguishable opinion can be expressed and recorded in a particular language. 

[stamper]

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.

It subtracts when people get obsessed with the technicalities and forget about the output, print or web uploads of their images.

[stamper]

This is a fallacious argument, unless you mean to suggest that knowledge about the process somehow makes you a worse photographer... which I would suggest is a rather silly argument.

There are a lot of people who sound knowledgeable but once you listen to them you find out they are merely repeating what they have read and they don't understand what they have read. Just go through some of the threads on here and you will read statements and contradictions that prove my point. If everyone knew what they were talking about then there would be very few threads on here.

[stamper]

I've seen a lot of references about "good photographer" or "better photographer" in these ETTR threads.
What is a good photographer? How does one define it? 

Quite easily. You look at their output and if there is a consensus of opinion that says the output is good then they are "good" photographer. Again this is subjective. If it is all in their head and the output is deemed "poor" then they aren't a "good" photographer. Actions speak louder than words.

[Guillermo Luijk]

It subtracts when people get obsessed with the technicalities and forget about the output, print or web uploads of their images.

Yes, it also subtracts when someone gets obsessed with the subjective ouput in a thread that is about the objective input.

There are a lot of people who sound knowledgeable but once you listen to them you find out they are merely repeating what they have read and they don't understand what they have read.

Yes, in fact I see no reason for you to be a perfect candidate.

[stamper]

It would be interesting if you could show the members some of your photographic output. I can't remember seeing any of it but I apologise if you have posted some and I have missed it.  If it was only the graphs then they are very good. If you are so knowledgeable about your photographic theory then why are there so many posts disagreeing with what you state? They all can't be wrong.

[Eric Myrvaagnes]

One might say there are as many definitions of a good photographer as there are people in the world who are interested in such matters.

On the other hand, many of those definitions will be essentially identical and indistinguishable from each other, so a more pertinent question might be, how many levels of distinguishable opinion can be expressed and recorded in a particular language. 

Ah, but often the number of levels is obscured by noise, Ray. 

Actually, I find the only useful definition of "good photographer" is either "me," or else perhaps "anyone who likes the same subject matter as me and who uses similar techniques to capture it."   

[jrsforums]

Quite easily. You look at their output and if there is a consensus of opinion that says the output is good then they are "good" photographer. Again this is subjective. If it is all in their head and the output is deemed "poor" then they aren't a "good" photographer. Actions speak louder than words.

Granted, there is more to great photography than knowing how best to use your equipment. 

However there is nothing wrong with knowing how to maximize the quality of the information gathered in your image so that you have a better basis to start your post processing.

There is a story, attributed to Bill Fortney, where Bill was asked how he got a great iconic shot of a Galcier National Park sunrise 9or sunset).  Bill's answer was....you are not going to like my answer.  I have gone to Glacier 22 separate times.  That's what it takes to get a great photograph.

John

[Slobodan Blagojevic]

... What is a good photographer? How does one define it?...

Ahhh, yes... one of the great dilemmas of mankind! Some of the brightest tried to answer it:

 

[Slobodan Blagojevic]

... why are there so many posts disagreeing with what you state? They all can't be wrong...

Stamper, this is a textbook example of a fallacy, a non-sequitur. Rebuttals might start on a high note with Galileo, and end on admittedly low note with this graffiti: "Eat sh*t... thousands flies can't be wrong"

[Eric Myrvaagnes]

This thread was getting rather boring, IMHO. So thank you, Slobodan, for livening it up. And a thanks also to Stamper for goading Slobodan into greater inspiration.

Back on the original topic, I was wondering whether frequent Exposing Too Far to the Right means you are a member of the Tea Party? 

[Richowens]

It may mean you are a pervert or a streaker.


Duhhhhhhhhhh...Sorry Eric, just got it I'm a little slow today, seems to get worse with age.

Rich

[Guillermo Luijk]

It would be interesting if you could show the members some of your photographic output.

Interesting for you, I guess. Unfortunately my interest in showing you my photographic output is the same I have in knowing yours, none. I simply try to let you know this thread is not about anyone's output, but about ETTR, a technique to objectively improve quality of RAW capture.

[stamper]

Interesting for you, I guess. Unfortunately my interest in showing you my photographic output is the same I have in knowing yours, none. I simply try to let you know this thread is not about anyone's output, but about ETTR, a technique to objectively improve quality of RAW capture.

To achieve better output, in other words a good print. None of it matters unless the final outcome is good?

[Ray]

Let's have a look at Bill Janes rebuttal of some points in Michael's essay, in reply #114, to see where there might be a flaw in Bill's logic, or an incorrect statement.

In particular, the following comment from Bill looks a bit suspicious:

However, he (Michael) never quite comes around to the fact that the number of discrete and distinguishable levels is limited by noise throughout the image from highlights to shadows (disregaring read noise) rather than the number of levels in the raw file.

What does Bill mean by distinguishable? I presume he means visually distinguishable otherwise there would be no need to write 'discrete and distinguishable'

Now this statement from Bill is contrary to my understanding of the situation, which is that the number of levels the camera can record in the brighter stops, despite the presence of noise, is far greater than the eye can distinguish. However, the number of levels the camera can record in the darker stops is far fewer than the capacity of the eye to detect, even without the presence of noise.

Those who insist that it's only the reduction of noise that counts, not the increase in available levels, should consider what would happen in the situation of a theoretical noise-free camera. Let's imagine that all internal camera noise has been eliminated with sophisticated noise-cancellation techniques, and let's imagine that Emil Martinec has invented a device that fits over the lens to remove all photonic shot noise.

A principle of a 12 bit DSLR is that the brightest stop can contain 2048 recorded levels and the darkest stop just 1 level, giving us a theoretical 12 stop DR.

Does anyone really believe that the human eye can distinguish no more than one level in the deepest shadows of a 12 DR scene?

As I understand, the human eye has a tremendous capacity to adjust to changing lighting conditions. When the gaze shifts from the brightest part of a scene, of 12 stops DR that we are about to photograph, to the darkest part of that scene, the pupil dilates, if not instantaneously then within a few seconds, and we see more detail in that darkest shadow, if the detail exists. Certainly far more than the 1 or 2 or 4 levels that a 12 bit DSLR is able to record in those 3 darkest stops, irrespective of noise considerations.

If we want the camera to record say 16 levels in that darkest stop, which the eye has seen in the real scene and which we want to capture, and which may in fact turn out to be only 8 or 10 levels of real information, the rest being noise, we have to overexpose by 4 stops and sacrifice the highlights, or bracket exposure for merging to HDR.

I maintain that ETTR is all about both noise and the number of levels.

[hjulenissen]

Does anyone really believe that the human eye can distinguish no more than one level in the deepest shadows of a 12 DR scene?

As I understand, the human eye has a tremendous capacity to adjust to changing lighting conditions. When the gaze shifts from the brightest part of a scene, of 12 stops DR that we are about to photograph, to the darkest part of that scene, the pupil dilates, if not instantaneously then within a few seconds, and we see more detail in that darkest shadow, if the detail exists. Certainly far more than the 1 or 2 or 4 levels that a 12 bit DSLR is able to record in those 3 darkest stops, irrespective of noise considerations.

At a "given state of adaptation" we can distinguish something like 100:1. In-between adaptation we can distinguish something like a gazillion:1. I presume that the presence of bright white objects cause a temporary/spatial "blindness" to really dark details (close to a bright white star or just after driving into a tunnel, it might not really matter if the black stuff is "sort of black" or "very black").

For a real scene it might depend on how large it is/at what distance, and if the bright parts are evenly intermingled with the dark parts, or if it is clearly separated into large "dark" and "bright" regions.

In practice, paper and displays are LDR devices, and will not render anything HDR. If you do extensice tonemapping to squeeze maximum information out of your image aqcuisition, perception does not matter that much because any camera improvement may give you more details to work on.

[ejmartin]

Two tones can be reliably called different only if their difference exceeds the noise.  Here is an example for illustration:



On the top line, tonal jumps are about 8 levels on the 0-255 scale.  The next line superposes noise whose typical fluctuation is 12 levels; the boundaries between different tones melt away -- though the 'scene' of tonal steps has discrete jumps, they cannot be distinguished.  The next line increases the size of the tonal jumps to about 36, three times the strength of the noise; in the fourth line, one can begin to make out the separate steps in spite of the noise.  (Ignore the last two lines; they are more of an illustration of quantization error than anything else.)

[bjanes]

Post deleted, as Emil had already responded to Ray's contention.