Dark Birds over Water - Matrix or Spot Metering

[Colin Southern]

Yes, I have many photos of black crows that I spot metered with blown skies, but I also have a couple of photos of crows in blue skies that I managed with detail with spot and matrix metering where the sky is still fairly blue. But I can't seem to do it consistently. I practice photographing crows hoping that I will figure it out so I can apply the same principles to capture a black Cormorant in flight.

The difference is possibly the lighting; if the light that's illuminating the bird is behind you then it'll reflect off the black bird and give you higher tones to work with, but if the bird is between you and the light source then not only is the bird black (and thus reflecting very little light) but the black is also in shadow which means the tones are a lot lower. Think of a bride in the sun with a groom in the sun -v- a bride in the sun next to her groom in the shade; there's a LOT less light on the groom in the 2nd example and the tones recorded will be a LOT lower

Here is a photo of a black Cormorant on the ocean with better detail then most of my Cormorants which I spot metered off of the head. Manual (with auto iso = 3200 in bright sunlight) SS 2500 F7... Exposure comp +.67

All the tones on the histogram seem to be represented well. The primary difference in this photo is that I took it at 10am in the morning in bright sunlight instead early morning. Is it that taking the photo of a black bird (or say a black tuxedo) in bright sunlight lessens the usual tone mapping problems? (I am assuming that by tone mapping you mean capturing the different shades of black in the lower zone along with the blue water or sky)

This is kinda what I was referring to above. Keep in mind that even "black" objects still reflect (relatively speaking) quite a lot of light. Think of a white patch - a middle gray patch and a black patch; the white patch reflects 4 times as much light as the middle gray patch (2 stops more) and the black patch reflects 1/4 as much light (2 stops) - so the black is still reflecting 1/16th of the amount of light as the white. That may not sound like a lot, but in terms of what the camera can handle it's only a tiny fraction of the sensors range - BUT - all patches have to be illuminated the same way; when the sun is shining on them then that's happening, but if parts of the bird are black and in shadow whereas other parts of the scene either aren't in shadow or are getting direct light (not reflected light) then things "get tricky" and there is no in-camera setting that'll satisfy all requirements -- it's something that needs to be fixed in post-processing.

No - tone mapping is where we "re-order" things in post-processing. The camera will capture reflected light in a linear fashion so a white is "full strength" - a middle gray is 1/4 strength (compared to the white) and the black is 1/16th strength (again, compared to the white). No way to change that - but the problem is it can leave the blacks too dark, so a simple tone map may leave the whites at full strength - the midtones at 1/4 strength, but raise the blacks from, say, 1/16th to 1/8th strength (ie raising them from a black to a dark gray where we can see the detail). Tone mapping is the technical term - the "friendly name" for the adjustment I just described is "fill light slider".

Hope this helps

[Brownbear]

Thank you Colin,

Yes, your explanation is very helpful and easy to understand. Yes, the cormorant was front lit... For my next try for an in-flight I will try later in the day.

Tone mapping.... Fill light slider

PS Richard and Larry, Thank you for recommending Byran Peterson's book - Understanding Exposure. I found it in a book store today for just $30 CAD and at a quick glance it looks like a great book, all kinds of examples of lighting for different situations. I'm looking forward to reading it.

PPS Larry you can PM all your questions on exposure and metering and I will look it up the answer as gesture of appreciation. Truly, thank you.

[Colin Southern]

Thank you Colin,

Yes, your explanation is very helpful and easy to understand. Yes, the cormorant was front lit... For my next try for an in-flight I will try later in the day.

Think of it this way - if the sun is shining on the part of a black suit - with a correct exposure - you probably still won't see the detail you want, but it's there and can be easily revealed as required. On the other hand, if the sun is on the other side of the dashing groom then not only is the suit black - but it's a black suit in shadow - then the levels are likely to be around 3 stops lower again, which is far more difficult to reveal in PP.

The fill light slider is one control that adjusts the tone map, but there are many more. The highlight recovery only adjusts the brightest pixels, leaving shadows untouched, whereas the contrast affect both ends. Tone mapping is really just a fancy terms for "adjusting the tones we captured" to be "the tones we want".

[Brownbear]

I forgot that before I could let this thread die I needed to post the results of the metering exercise assigned to me by Mike. Well, not needed to, but felt obliged to, so others may learn from my questions.

I photographed my black lens on the grass and on a piece of white cloth, using matrix metering and spot metering. I was mighty surprised to see that I could achieve almost the same histogram using with either spot or matrix metering, just by moving the exposure compensation. If I had more patience I could've managed the exact histogram.

My apologies for the less than stellar focus (hand held and my neighbours were watching me). The lens is old and greyish because it needs to be cleaned, and perhaps a little overexposed in the grass shots.

Mike, Thank you for the lesson learned.

Manual F4 SS 100 ISO 200 Exp comp +.3


Matrix



Spot



And representing a black bird on white cloth

Manual F11 SS 100 ISO 200

Matrix Exp Bias +1



Spot Exp Bias +.67

Scenario 1


I gather from your second comment that you feel that it's not possible to achieve the same basic exposure when using matrix metering as when using spot metering. That's likely because you're decreasing the exposure too much when using matrix metering and exposure compensation.

Try this: Place a black object (perhaps foam core) on the grass in your yard. Compose the scene as you would compose a dark bird floating on water. Meter the scene using matrix metering and various degrees of exposure compensation, adjusting it in increments of no more than 1/2 EV. Then meter it using spot metering and similarly adjusting exposure compensation. The purpose of this exercise is to display that you can achieve the same or at least similar results using either metering method. Once you have done that, it's a matter of determining which method is easiest to use when photographing a moving subject in changing light conditions.

Scenario 2


Once you have determined that the bird is overexposed, you should dial in negative compensation, not positive compensation. Dialing in positive compensation blows both the water and the bird.

My guess is that you meant to write that your bird was underexposed, so you compensated by increasing the exposure that led to the water being blown.

Conduct an exercise that is similar to the one that I explained above. This time place the black object on a lightly colored sheet. Best to do this in your back yard so people don't see you in your front yard and come to the conclusion that you have gone wacko. Meter the scene using both metering modes and incremental degrees of exposure compensation.

Summary
I think it was Joe who wrote much earlier in the thread that you are not going to get the ideal exposure in this situation in the camera. He is absolutely correct in that situation that your goal is to achieve an exposure that is "good enough." The various parts of the scene can then be adjusted during post-processing.

[Colin Southern]

I was mighty surprised to see that I could achieve almost the same histogram using with either spot or matrix metering, just by moving the exposure compensation.

Hi Christina,

An exposure of "X" speed at "Y" aperture and "Z" ISO is the same exposure regardless of which metering mode(s) got you there. If matrix gives you 1/200th @ F4 @ ISO 100 and spot metering with exposure compensation also gives you 1/200th @ F4 @ ISO 100 then the histograms will be identical because they're the same exposure.

[Brownbear]

Hi Colin,

Yes, indeed. So it seems

I'm a little dismayed to learn that I can't selectively expose using spot metering and/or influence the exposure triangle with a little magic in metering and exposure comp.

Lesson learned, very well indeed.

Thank you to all.

Hi Christina,

An exposure of "X" speed at "Y" aperture and "Z" ISO is the same exposure regardless of which metering mode(s) got you there. If matrix gives you 1/200th @ F4 @ ISO 100 and spot metering with exposure compensation also gives you 1/200th @ F4 @ ISO 100 then the histograms will be identical because they're the same exposure.

[Colin Southern]

Hi Colin,

Yes, indeed. So it seems

I'm a little dismayed to learn that I can't selectively expose using spot metering and/or influence the exposure triangle with a little magic in metering and exposure comp.

Lesson learned, very well indeed.

Thank you to all.

Hi Christina,

I'm afraid that any exposure selection affects the entire image. Some cameras do have trickery for raising shadow levels though - Nikon call it D-Light off memory, and Canon have another name for it (the name of which escapes me for now).

[Dave Humphries]

I can't add to Colin's excellent answers above on the Cormorant issue.

I photographed my black lens on the grass and on a piece of white cloth, using matrix metering and spot metering. I was mighty surprised to see that I could achieve almost the same histogram using with either spot or matrix metering, just by moving the exposure compensation. If I had more patience I could've managed the exact histogram.

I think the penny may have dropped

It really doesn't matter* which metering mode you use; there is only one correct exposure for a given scene and desired outcome**, you can arrive at that via any metering mode plus a different amount of EC***.

* Sure; sometimes, especially with rapidly changing "scene dynamics" , one mode will be more likely to provide consistent results than another

** If you know this, and the "scene dynamics" are not changing; e.g. sun always on subject and always from 'your' side (front lit) and the background isn't going to cause problems, the I'd suggesting go manual with that set of exposure values.

*** Sometimes just a click more in one direction or other, but sometimes an apparent reversal - for example, a sunlit swan spot metered will likely need +EC to prevent under exposure, but if it is part of a bigger scene that is predominantly darker in shade and you use evaluative/average metering, you're going to need -EC to prevent the swan blowing - at least until it swims right up to see if you have food (and fills the frame, then even average metering may need +EC to prevent underexposure.

However, particularly for birds in flight, the "scene dynamics" very often are a huge problem; when we first 'lock on', the subject might not be filling much of the frame (so ratio subject to background; blue sky, sunlit cloud or trees) can vastly affect the exposure reading indicated if not in spot mode, but if you are in spot mode and lose placement of the spot on the subject momentarily as you take a snap, the exposure may again be incorrect. As it might if (when closer) the spot moves from a dark neck/head on to the much lighter area of eye or beak/bill.

So here's your worst nightmare; shooting say a Canada Goose flying under trees on a "4/8 cloud" day - the birds has black and white areas and will be moving from sunlit patches between tree/cloud shadows and be against a background of trees, water and sky, some of it with brightly lit clouds in. This is much like Colin's "sunlit bride and groom in black suit in shadow" problem, except that for us it changes from second to second, so you should expect that not all exposures will be correct, because for these "scene dynamics", there is no single correct exposure that lasts long enough. This situation is now about the only time I don't shoot manual exposure, but I'll still keep my thumb ready to spin the EC wheel as the subject moves from sunlight to shadow to offset any metering error I can predict happening. If I succeed at this, I'll just find it was out of focus - the message here is: you can't always win - but sometimes you do and when that happens!!!!!

My suggestion is to

think about what you intend to photograph - what are the subject issues?

ratio of bright to dark areas of plumage
how bright and where is it (e.g. coot with that bright white crest right on top of its head)
will it be passing close by, presenting different aspects, altering the above
will it be wet, with specular highlights off beaded water and/or wet feathers?

but also think about where you intend to photograph it:

against shady trees
sunlit grasses
sky in shot? sunlit clouds or blue sky

and of course, how will it be lit?

front lit (all lit)
side lit (some parts in shadow)
backlit (betcha blow the highlight of the beak/bill on these!)
in shadow (likely diffuse and low level lighting)

... and from these decide first whether you should be shooting Manual mode (i.e. not using auto-ISO) for exposure, if so, take test shots, determine correct exposure (blinkies and histogram) and shoot away (with one less thing to worry about)
If not, then decide which meter mode is most likely to give success dependent upon subject size changes in frame, aspect changes, backgrounds you're going to shoot against, etc. - and (I hardly need say this to you), practice a lot.

Hope that helps,

[Brownbear]

Yes, I think a penny may have dropped and let it be known that it wasn't I who revived this thread!

Thank you so much Dave for adding a wealth of information to Colin's growing essay. I have read your reply a couple of times and printed it out for future reference, just to make sure it all sinks into my skull permanently.

I'm also very delighted to say that I am pretty sure I nailed my first black cormorant in flight, just this morning, thanks to this thread. I switched to matrix metering and it was easier, but perhaps Lady Luck was also on my side, but seriously I think I was way too focused on trying to get the perfect background along with the perfect bird in flight.

I also nailed a few Canadian geese flying across the sky and high rises and a red boat, and over water! I suppose I shouldn't say nailed it until I see the photos full size... If I did manage the Cormorant in flight as well as I think I did I will post it tomorrow or Saturday the latest.. No post means, I'm still trying.

Very helpful indeed! It was good to revisit swans as I haven't tried photographing any swans in a while.

Thanks a million!

I can't add to Colin's excellent answers above on the Cormorant issue.



I think the penny may have dropped

It really doesn't matter* which metering mode you use; there is only one correct exposure for a given scene and desired outcome**, you can arrive at that via any metering mode plus a different amount of EC***.

* Sure; sometimes, especially with rapidly changing "scene dynamics" , one mode will be more likely to provide consistent results than another

** If you know this, and the "scene dynamics" are not changing; e.g. sun always on subject and always from 'your' side (front lit) and the background isn't going to cause problems, the I'd suggesting go manual with that set of exposure values.

*** Sometimes just a click more in one direction or other, but sometimes an apparent reversal - for example, a sunlit swan spot metered will likely need +EC to prevent under exposure, but if it is part of a bigger scene that is predominantly darker in shade and you use evaluative/average metering, you're going to need -EC to prevent the swan blowing - at least until it swims right up to see if you have food (and fills the frame, then even average metering may need +EC to prevent underexposure.

However, particularly for birds in flight, the "scene dynamics" very often are a huge problem; when we first 'lock on', the subject might not be filling much of the frame (so ratio subject to background; blue sky, sunlit cloud or trees) can vastly affect the exposure reading indicated if not in spot mode, but if you are in spot mode and lose placement of the spot on the subject momentarily as you take a snap, the exposure may again be incorrect. As it might if (when closer) the spot moves from a dark neck/head on to the much lighter area of eye or beak/bill.

So here's your worst nightmare; shooting say a Canada Goose flying under trees on a "4/8 cloud" day - the birds has black and white areas and will be moving from sunlit patches between tree/cloud shadows and be against a background of trees, water and sky, some of it with brightly lit clouds in. This is much like Colin's "sunlit bride and groom in black suit in shadow" problem, except that for us it changes from second to second, so you should expect that not all exposures will be correct, because for these "scene dynamics", there is no single correct exposure that lasts long enough. This situation is now about the only time I don't shoot manual exposure, but I'll still keep my thumb ready to spin the EC wheel as the subject moves from sunlight to shadow to offset any metering error I can predict happening. If I succeed at this, I'll just find it was out of focus - the message here is: you can't always win - but sometimes you do and when that happens!!!!!

My suggestion is to

think about what you intend to photograph - what are the subject issues?

ratio of bright to dark areas of plumage
how bright and where is it (e.g. coot with that bright white crest right on top of its head)
will it be passing close by, presenting different aspects, altering the above
will it be wet, with specular highlights off beaded water and/or wet feathers?

but also think about where you intend to photograph it:

against shady trees
sunlit grasses
sky in shot? sunlit clouds or blue sky

and of course, how will it be lit?

front lit (all lit)
side lit (some parts in shadow)
backlit (betcha blow the highlight of the beak/bill on these!)
in shadow (likely diffuse and low level lighting)

... and from these decide first whether you should be shooting Manual mode (i.e. not using auto-ISO) for exposure, if so, take test shots, determine correct exposure (blinkies and histogram) and shoot away (with one less thing to worry about)
If not, then decide which meter mode is most likely to give success dependent upon subject size changes in frame, aspect changes, backgrounds you're going to shoot against, etc. - and (I hardly need say this to you), practice a lot.

Hope that helps,

[Colin Southern]

It really doesn't matter* which metering mode you use; there is only one correct exposure for a given scene and desired outcome**, you can arrive at that via any metering mode plus a different amount of EC***.

I know what Dave's saying, but I just wanted to add a little to avoid any confusion ...

* Once a metering mode reaches the right conclusion then it doesn't matter what the mode was or how it does it (eg 1/200 @ F8 spot-metering is the same as 1/200th @ F8 matrix metering), but

* Different modes are likely to give different suggestions in the first place.

I think metering modes confuse a lot of people -- and they really shouldn't; they're just our way of telling the camera which parts of the scene are important:

- Matrix / Evaluative says "the entire scene is important"

- Partial says "only the stuff in the middle is important - so only consider that in your calculations"

- Centre weighted average says "everything is important, but the stuff in the middle is MORE important, so take that into account"

- Spot says "only the tiny bit under the spot is important".

Having just said all that though, just because we've told the camera "what's important" DOESN'T mean to say that it knows enough to get the exposure correct (and even less what the photographer may want) ... that's where photographer knowledge comes in. Regardless of the metering mode we select, the camera will expose the "area of interest" as a middle gray - no more, no less so if the area varies significantly from a middle gray then we need to apply compensation if we want a technically accurate exposure, and the smaller the area - in general - the more we have to worry about applying the correct compensation ... not because the "bigger area" modes like Matrix do things differently, but because with a bigger area being considered generally means that the scene averages out to a medium gray anyway (make no mistake -- if you put the camera in matrix mode and meter a black wall (ie fill up the viewfinder with it) then it WILL over-expose it by around 2 stops just like spot-metering a small black square in a sea of white would).

In the case of the black bird - technically - spot-metering the bird and applying a bit of EC (probably about -1EV) will reveal detail on the bird nicely everytime -- unfortunately, the rest of the scene is probably going to be a stop over-exposed (for a directly lit shot) to around 4 stops over-exposed if the bird is in shadow at the time - hence the reason I suggest matrix mode for the entire scene, and then let the computer do it's thing to reveal the detail required.

In terms of photographic technique, just try to keep the lightsource behind you -- if you're shooting a black bird into the light then that's going to be tough.

[jprzybyla]

I have been following this thread with interest and the gist of most responses have been getting the exposure correct in the camera. I follow a different path... I want to get an exposure I can use in post processing. In his book The Digital Negative the author Jeff Schewe captures exposures of a scene bracketing from -2 through 5 stops to +2. Using the -2, 0, and +2 exposures as an example he shows how all can be made to look the same with the same histogram in post processing. The only difference is that the -2 exposure had more noise than the +2 exposure but to see the difference in print the image had to be enlarged to 400%. The following is a quote from that book " These days, with digital cameras having much more sophisticated metering and digital negs capable of being finely adjusted in Camera Raw and Lightroom during post-capture processing, I’m afraid the art of exposing tends to fall by the wayside. " Jeff Schewe, The Digtal Negative, Peachpit Press. There is so much latitude for correcting images in post processing that struggling for the exact exposure is not really necessary. An image can be post processed for multiple exposures within that image, an exposure for the background, an exposure for the subject, another for something else. That is not possible in the camera... the camera is always a compromise. I use Adobe Lightroom, the Develop Module has global adjustments the affect the whole image, after the global adjustments are the tools of Graduated Filter and the Adjustment Brush which allow post processing of parts of an image. What I want out of my camera is the subject in sharp focus, as sharp as I and my camera can achieve. Next a depth of field so that what I want in focus is sharp. Thirdly a balanced exposure without non-specular highlights blown or clipped and if shadows are important those protected from clipping also. If I have achieved these three things the image will be fine to work with in post processing. All I have written above assumes that the image is shot in RAW format providing the maximum ability to post process an image. Put the sun to your back and have fun. Everyday I go out to shoot the birds I love there are some I cannot photograph ( experience has taught me so ), so I watch, enjoy and upon leaving say... catch you next time my friend.

[Brownbear]

Thank you Colin for the wonderful summary.

Thank you for sharing Joe. Truly appreciated. I will see if I can find that book at the library or a book store, it sounds like something I should read. Matrix metering....

[Colin Southern]

I have been following this thread with interest and the gist of most responses have been getting the exposure correct in the camera. I follow a different path... I want to get an exposure I can use in post processing. In his book The Digital Negative the author Jeff Schewe captures exposures of a scene bracketing from -2 through 5 stops to +2. Using the -2, 0, and +2 exposures as an example he shows how all can be made to look the same with the same histogram in post processing. The only difference is that the -2 exposure had more noise than the +2 exposure but to see the difference in print the image had to be enlarged to 400%. The following is a quote from that book " These days, with digital cameras having much more sophisticated metering and digital negs capable of being finely adjusted in Camera Raw and Lightroom during post-capture processing, I’m afraid the art of exposing tends to fall by the wayside. " Jeff Schewe, The Digtal Negative, Peachpit Press. There is so much latitude for correcting images in post processing that struggling for the exact exposure is not really necessary. An image can be post processed for multiple exposures within that image, an exposure for the background, an exposure for the subject, another for something else. That is not possible in the camera... the camera is always a compromise. I use Adobe Lightroom, the Develop Module has global adjustments the affect the whole image, after the global adjustments are the tools of Graduated Filter and the Adjustment Brush which allow post processing of parts of an image. What I want out of my camera is the subject in sharp focus, as sharp as I and my camera can achieve. Next a depth of field so that what I want in focus is sharp. Thirdly a balanced exposure without non-specular highlights blown or clipped and if shadows are important those protected from clipping also. If I have achieved these three things the image will be fine to work with in post processing. All I have written above assumes that the image is shot in RAW format providing the maximum ability to post process an image. Put the sun to your back and have fun. Everyday I go out to shoot the birds I love there are some I cannot photograph ( experience has taught me so ), so I watch, enjoy and upon leaving say... catch you next time my friend.

Hi Joe,

There's a lot of good theory in what Jeff wrote, but the practice doesn't always align quite so well. In the case of a landscape - illuminated by reflected light - that can be shot as base ISO - then yes, absolutely, but when backlighting is added then the dynamic range of the scene increases significantly, and correct exposure becomes more critical.

In situations where it's necessary to use much higher ISO modes (eg birds in flight, sports photography), the dynamic range available in the camera decreases significantly, and again - due to the vastly reduced safety margins (even with a RAW capture), one needs to be careful with exposure.

Jeff is a big proponent of ETTR (which is what your passage was discussing if I remember correctly from when I read his book), but again, it's not always that "cut and dried"; yes, often you can recover a couple of stops of over-exposure from a RAW capture - but with "golden hour" shots especially, there's often a heavy bias in one white balance direction and (for example) the red channel may have significantly higher inputs over the blue channel; ETTR runs a couple of risks here; (1) of straight clipping / over-exposure (ever wondered why you get those unrealistic yellow areas around a sunset?) and a more subtle issue of creeping into the sensor's non-linear region at it approaches the clipping point (that induces weird tone-dependent colour shifts that are damn near impossible to correct) (or at least I've found them to be that way).

Thirdly a balanced exposure without non-specular highlights blown or clipped

I'm afraid that if they're not clipped then they're probably not specular highlights; specular highlights are practically the same as shooting directly into the sun and nothing will stop them blowing. This shot is full of them - and it was shot at 1/8000th @ F32!

[jprzybyla]

Yup, Matrix Metering... shoot in good light on the subject, do not try impossible exposures and have fun.

[Colin Southern]

I will see if I can find that book at the library or a book store, it sounds like something I should read. Matrix metering....

It's available on Kindle, but be warned ... it'll make your head hurt

[jprzybyla]

Agreed Colin, but with ETTR what most forget is that there are conditions to using it. First is do not expose to the right if non-specular important highlights will be clipped. Second is if the aperture needed will not provide enough depth of field, and third is that if the shutter speed needed to expose to the right will not be fast enough for the lens used or subject being photographed. I photograph nature/birds... almost every bird photograph prevents exposing to the right. If the bird is white or has white that will clip exposure is a problem. If the bird is close depth of field a problem. If flying shutter speed a problem. The thread began about dark birds over water and drifted. I shoot Matrix Metering all the time and use the EV control to adjust exposures to prevent clipping for a balanced exposure I can work up in post processing. Maybe not totally correct but it allows photography to be fun and simple. I think that is what it is all about to most, to have fun and enjoy this wonderful thing that photography is.

[Nancy Moran G]

Ok, wait, this has to be one of the best response threads ? 74-75 responses! Serious ones at that.
Now for those of us that are roller coaster, hands in the air, type of person- this information is like.....playing bridge to me!!
Great info that will take me weeks to figure out, but hey, THANKS, I needed this.
Nancy

[Colin Southern]

Agreed Colin, but with ETTR what most forget is that there are conditions to using it. First is do not expose to the right if non-specular important highlights will be clipped. Second is if the aperture needed will not provide enough depth of field, and third is that if the shutter speed needed to expose to the right will not be fast enough for the lens used or subject being photographed.

I agree with all of those reasons, but other reasons also come into it which - in my opinion anyway - negate any "advantage" in ETTR a lot of the time, which in turn occur more often than people realise.

I like to put situations into 3 groups, not two;

1. Situations where ETTR is either mandatory or advantageous - such as when shooting into the light and yet still needing to protect foreground shadow detail.

2. Situations where ETTR works against you (like the reasons you mention)

3. Situations where you can do it anyway, but it really doesn't gain you anything in real-world terms, but creates more work. And I personally feel that a lot of situations come into this category eg your typical low to medium dynamic range reflective scene where the darkest detail is already several stops above the noise floor. In those (common) situations folks end up with all the work and risks of ETTR (working with a reduced safety margin, more work etc) but none of the real-world benefits (yes, noise is lower, but it's noise that can't be seen anyway).

At times where I've used ETTR in normal dynamic range reflective scenes I often find that I can never quite get the midtones looking quite the way I want them -- sounds weird I know, but that's just the way I've found it none-the-less. A lot of the ETTR mantra was good advice 5 to 10 years ago when sensor dynamic range far far more limited -- these days we have far more safety margin to play with (thank goodness!).

Just my 10c worth anyway.

[Brownbear]

Here are my Cormorants, not perfect but the best I've managed to capture so far and the first time I've captured the orange colouring around its' head.

This one may be a little overexposed, I'm not sure because the sun was shining on the front of the bird




An hour or two later in a different spot







I'm just starting to learn layers and on this one I applied a levels adjustment layer and just darkened the water (not the bird)




Colin, I don't have a Kindle and the library doesn't have that book, so I'll have to check it out at the bookstore and see how much it will make my head hurt

Nancy, I print all the informative responses and file them away, to read and digest at my leisure.

[chauncey]

Christina, none of those images are sufficiently out of exposure to even warrant leaving LR by playing with the highlights and/or shadows...not enough, then use the adjustment brush to tweak them further.

Having said that, there is nothing wrong with the layer approach. The bird is too dark in the last one though.