ETTR - do you use it often?

[Colin Southern]

I'm shooting jpeg and raw, and because my focus is on photographing birds in flight and wildlife, often in low light and hoping to avoid excess noise at high isos, I'm trying to expose to the right and stock piling raw files for the magical day when I'm a whiz at editing my raw files.

Hi Christina,

The higher the ISO mode you use, the lower the dynamic range that the camera can record at that mode. And what that means is that metering and exposure becomes FAR more critical because the healthy exposure safety margin that we normally enjoy is steadily eroded to nothing.

Or to put that another way, the higher and higher the ISO mode that you use, the more you need to push your exposures to the right; if you don't then the noise becomes far more apparent when you increase the brightness in post-processing.

[Brownbear]

Thank you Colin. Very helpful and good for me to know.

Hi Christina,

The higher the ISO mode you use, the lower the dynamic range that the camera can record at that mode. And what that means is that metering and exposure becomes FAR more critical because the healthy exposure safety margin that we normally enjoy is steadily eroded to nothing.

Or to put that another way, the higher and higher the ISO mode that you use, the more you need to push your exposures to the right; if you don't then the noise becomes far more apparent when you increase the brightness in post-processing.

[rmalarz]

You seem to have the concept, but expressed it a bit incorrectly. One never wants to over-expose. The concept of ETTR is to expose so the very brightest part of the scene is at or just below the exposure capture capability of your camera. The "at the capability" would be for specular reflections.

To use ETTR properly requires testing your camera to determine its capabilities and knowing how many additional stops it can capture without over-exposing.

As for how often I use it, every naturally lit scene. Additionally, and I'm not trying to muddy the waters, I also use UniWB to capture as much of the scene as possible.
--Bob

Hi,

This thread was prompted by a post in the RAW/SOOC debate, which suggested that with today's sensors ettr was rarely needed (SOOC shooters can smile indulgently and move on, at this point )

Just to check my understanding, ettr (expose to the right) is to deliberately over-expose the image in order to move as much of it as possible into the brighter regions where there is less noise, whilst avoiding blown highlights.

So the suggestion was that the earlier digital sensors generated significant noise, and that ettr made sense to compensate for this. However, sensor technology has improved to the point where noise levels are generally low, and there is little need for ettr.

I think I understand that low light levels can still give rise to noise, and that for large prints and/or particularly critical clients or subjects it may be important to reduce noise as far as possible. Maybe also b&w images (with high structure?) are more likely to show noise?

So, my question is, how often do you actually use ettr in practice?

Dave

[Mike Buckley]

Welcome to CiC, Bob! This is a quick reminder that the thread was begun 4 years ago. The most modern digital sensors have larger dynamic ranges and the definition of ETTR is so old that it in itself is considered to be out of date by many.

[xpatUSA]

You seem to have the concept, but expressed it a bit incorrectly. One never wants to over-expose.

The concept of ETTR is to expose so the very brightest part of the scene is at or just below the exposure capture capability of your camera. The "at the capability" would be for specular reflections.

To use ETTR properly requires testing your camera to determine its capabilities and knowing how many additional stops it can capture without over-exposing.

As for how often I use it, every naturally lit scene. Additionally, and I'm not trying to muddy the waters, I also use UniWB to capture as much of the scene as possible.
--Bob

As a Foveon-driver, I completely agree. My first or second step in sorting is to examine the three layer's raw values in RawDigger because insufficient exposure increases read noise pro-rata and my older Sigma cameras are never short of noise.

Unfortunately, exposing the Foveon all the way to the right (in the raw histogram) will often blow channels in the converted output (depending on scene colors) because of the drastic algorithms (matrix multiplications) necessary to convert camera raw to XYZ then to RGB.

I used UniWB for a while - but somehow it didn't suit the Foveon system as well as Luijk described for his Canons - and I got tired of the funny color in the LCD.

http://www.guillermoluijk.com/tutori...b/index_en.htm
.

[davidedric]

I wondered where the thread had sprung from - it was a bit of a surprise to read I'd started it (and that I've been a member for five years!).

Dave

[billtils]

... The secret, of course, ... is to expose to give yourself the best possible RAW file from which to work.

And there you have it - logical and sensible, and allows for times when you will move things to the left too.

[dje]

I wondered where the thread had sprung from - it was a bit of a surprise to read I'd started it (and that I've been a member for five years!).

Dave

Spooky isn't it! And isn't it interesting to see all those familiar names amongst the posters, many of them still around.

[John 2]

.......................... I absolutely loath losing detail in highlights but I will usually accept a little bit of noise in shadows. If I am in doubt I will bracket the exposure.......................................... ...........

Paul and Lex have said it for me. I have used it in the past but not for a few years due to the improvement in sensors already covered. If anything I will expose to the left in the knowledge that I can recover shadow detail and in the knowledge that I can selectively apply noise reduction.

[Shadowman]

This topic comes up so much the thread titles should be dated.

[rmalarz]

I'm not sure why a larger DR would render ETTR technique as out of date. The technique is designed to make use of the DR regardless the size.
--Bob

Welcome to CiC, Bob! This is a quick reminder that the thread was begun 4 years ago. The most modern digital sensors have larger dynamic ranges and the definition of ETTR is so old that it in itself is considered to be out of date by many.

[Mike Buckley]

Welcome to CiC, Bob!

I'm not going to get into a discussion due to time constraints explaining my post other than to mention that there is lots of information available explaining why the need for ETTR isn't nearly the same as when it was first conceived. The guy who is famous for conceiving it even wrote several years ago about that.

[jisner]

my methodology is to consider the camera as a data collection device

Yes, and ETTR gives you the best quality data!

[NorthernFocus]

I'm not sure why a larger DR would render ETTR technique as out of date. The technique is designed to make use of the DR regardless the size.
--Bob

I guess it is outdated from a standpoint that it is not as important as it was in past years. I still use ETTR and I shoot a camera with one of the highest dynamic range measurements on the market. In high DR situations I still find it easier to recover detail from highlights than from shadows and to reduce overall exposure value than to increase it. That said, along with higher DR, improved noise performance has made it much easier to shoot for more or less average exposure and correct both ends in post.

[Manfred M]

The math and physics associated with ETTR are still relevant today, although as others have noted, improvements in camera and processing tools mean that they are not as important to most photographers using more current camera models.

When I got into photography years ago (film of course), the one thing we were taught was to "expose for the highlights and the shadows will take care of themselves". While this is not ETTR per se, the logic was very much the same; blown out highlights are not something anyone wanted, but loss of shadow details was easier to deal with.

Like Dan, I shoot very much like I did in the film days and ETTR very much follows that direction. I watch my histogram and ensure that I am not clipping on the right hand side; the rest gets handled in post.

[Mike Buckley]

When I got into photography years ago (film of course), the one thing we were taught was to "expose for the highlights and the shadows will take care of themselves".

I'm surprised about that perspective, Manfred. When I began my study of photography in the early 1980s, everything I read said to expose for the highlights when using slide (positive) film and to expose for the shadows when using print (negative) film.

[Mike Buckley]

One of the issues I have with discussions about ETTR is that there are different definitions of ETTR and that most people assume there is only one definition. The result is that far too many people are lulled into thinking that everyone is assuming the same definition when that's not really the case.

[Manfred M]

One of the issues I have with discussions about ETTR is that there are different definitions of ETTR and that most people assume there is only one definition. The result is that far too many people are lulled into thinking that everyone is assuming the same definition when that's not really the case.

I tend to stick with the "original" definition as per Michael Reichmann's July 2003 article in the Luminous Landscape.

https://luminous-landscape.com/expose-right/

While I recognize that other people may have taken the definition in different directions, reading the original article should clarify what this is all about.

[Manfred M]

I'm surprised about that perspective, Manfred. When I began my study of photography in the early 1980s, everything I read said to expose for the highlights when using slide (reversal) film and to expose for the shadows when using print (negative) film.

I guess we were taught differently then, Mike.

I was taught / mentored by a commercial photographer for a couple of years in the early 1970s . He had a formal education in photography as well as years of experience in behind the camera and in the darkroom.

[Black Pearl]

I'm surprised about that perspective, Manfred. When I began my study of photography in the early 1980s, everything I read said to expose for the highlights when using slide (positive) film and to expose for the shadows when using print (negative) film.

Thats exactly what I was taught when I first started photography in the 70's and the advice stayed the same as I went through uni and onwards.