Back in the film days, we used to call this 'exposing for shadows and developing for highlights'. We would overexpose the film and under-develop it to get a great tonal range in the negatives used for printing.
I’ve been waiting for a raw histogram for ages. Closest thing I have found on my Nikon is to use the flat profile. It shows more of what you are capturing.
Or actually waveforms. Histograms are obsolete in my opinion. Waveforms tell you exactly which spot in the frame is overexposed while histograms leave you guessing.
@@professionalpotato4764 I think that Waveforms will tell you what at what points horizontally are overexposed, but I don't think it tells you vertically. False color representations are more useful for that, although the readout is coarser.
Yes, I don't expect to see this any time soon - all displayable info seems to be derived from jpeg. There is a general technique called 'UniWB' where you carefully tweak the jpeg settings so that the clipping/crushing indicators actually reflect the RAW data more accurately (ideally with zebras in stills mode, but histogram if that's not available). It may be worth looking into to see if there is a 'recipe' for your camera since obviously it varies from body to body. Also obviously, it renders the jpeg unusable.
Unfortunatelly flat profile makes Nikon mirrorless autofocus very inaccurate (and subject recognition very poor), while punching up sharpening (with Standard profile, or increased contrast) dramatically improves autofocus accuracy and subject recognition as well. And also makes histogram even more “wide”, showing that your higlights are clipped, which is false. So if anyone have workaround for sharp liveview and accurate histogram, please let me know :)
“When you have the opportunity “ - we’ll said . Having my formative years shooting film cameras without photoshop left us with having to plan for the final shot, so ETTR was a must - you had to nail the shot and make sure your photo lab exposed and printed your shot correctly . I had a highly decorated pro photographer come see me once after getting his prints from me that I though he messed up with . Once he showed/explained his method and I saw the results - ETTR - wow, we were both very happy . Great explanation and use of a real example . Well done :)
@@look9005 we always shot negative film for weddings. Chrome’s exposure latitude is to narrow for a fast pace event like a wedding. Then their was the cost of chrome and processing. Plus back in the day pro labs were setup for fast turn around times for negs.
Love this video, but I do have an objection! In defence of iso...High iso gets labelled as noisy and Chris has implied this by demanding an increase in actual light. I’d love a follow up video showing nine controlled light exposures where aperture, shutter speed and iso are all adjusted 1 stop at a time. Ie three batches of three, where 2 parameters are unchanged. This will show that an increase in iso “adds” less noise than reducing aperture or shutter speed 1 stop. In other words, use iso to capture a better, fuller exposure, but don’t get lazy and rely on a high iso when it IS possible to lower the shutter speed or open the aperture without impacting your vision of the photo.
Nikon (maybe others?) has a super handy mode called Highlight-Weighted Metering, which does a great job at preserving highlights. It’s ideal for stage events, but really for any scene with extreme range.
Panasonic also has this, but in my experience it's mostly useless - it often underexposes so much that it's almost impossible to bring up the shadows without a lot of noise even at base ISO.
The more recent Sony alpha7 series full-frame bodies (maybe some of the crop sensor bodies?) under Metering Mode have the option of "Highlight" which "Measures the brightness while emphasizing the highlighted area on the screen. This mode is suitable for shooting the subject while avoiding overexposure." Note that if the D-Range Optimizer is also set to On, "... the brightness and the contrast will be corrected automatically by dividing the image into small areas and analyzing the contrast of light and shadow. Make settings based on the shooting circumstances."
I usually still have to turn the exposure compensation to -1 ~ -2 when I shoot anything involving the moon if I want any details on the surface of the moon.
On the fujifilm cameras that I own I turn the picture effect preview setting to off when shooting raw and ettr. This give me a closer idea how far I can go with the exposure because of its flatter tone curve.
After 14 years after i first got into photgraphy and 1001 videos, i finally understand what really is ETTR and it's application. Thanks, chris and dpreview for making this episode. 😊
As some others have pointed out, it would be great if camera manufacturers would give us the option of a histogram that truly represented the raw range, but in lieu of that I keep my picture profile (Nikon) set to ‘Flat’. I tested every standard profile and ‘Flat’ came closest.
That was great. I had thought I understood this, but I had not realised that it involves letting in "more actual light", rather than playing with ISO settings. Thanks for a very helpful video.
Great explanation of ETTR. I’ve always been a fan of your content since getting into digital photography 10 years ago. I’m going to miss DP Review. RIP
Good tutorial. I think the basic understanding of the exposure triangle: Shutter Speed, Aperture, and ISO is suitable for practical daily use when shooting. As we advance in skill it helps to go deeper and understand that ISO is not increasing the amount of light but amplifying it in the camera after capture. ISO is in fact a post-processing tool even though we choose it prior to the shot. It is also good to understand that a high ISO doesn't increase noise, rather less light increases noise and a higher ISO reveals the noise. I agree that a histogram giving us the true dynamic range of the camera would be helpful, I test my cameras by pushing them to the right by 1/3 stops and then viewing the shots in LR to see where the whites are acually clipped. In the case of my current camera I can go 2 stop to the right and still maintain details. Keep up the good work.
What you have said is true for cameras that are ISO invariant, but that is often not the case, or at least not exactly the case. The signal amplification at high iso is at least partially an analog process, analog to digital converters are not always perfectly linear, and even raw files don't always store absolutely everything. If I shoot at 200 and raise to 1600 in post, I get slightly more noise and messed up white ballance in that noise compared to shooting at 1600 in the first place. One stop of ISO correction in post is essentially not noticeable, but at 3, 4, or 5 stops it is definitely better to change the ISO in camera.
@@seth094978 in my comment I said we choose the ISO prior to the shot. Regardless, we are not increasing the amount of light, we are amplifying the light we have. It is a “post processing” feature done “pre-post.” Actually adding light can only be done with slower shutter, wider aperture or external light source. That being said, as bird photographer, my only choice is to set the camera to auto ISO and let it go where ever it needs. 😎🤙
This has a perfect analogy to recording music. For example when you record a guitar, you want it loud and full of high frequencies. It often sounds nasty and annoying. However, when you start editing and work it in the mix with other instruments, you have the ability to shape it by removing signal because you had such a high signal-to-noise ratio. If you hadn't had much level and high frequencies, you'd just be introducing noise and making the mix sound worse. Basically you want to have all the necessary signal (in terms of level and quality) needed for the end product there from the beginning, you only want to remove extra signal instead of trying to make something that you don't have. And you often find that those originally nasty high frequencies can be invaluable in giving the song some air and making the guitar audible in its own space, and it sits just fine there in the actual mix. And to be fair it just makes everything so much easier if your original material is good quality and you don't have to do any tricks to get what you want and avoid creating problems. This is why you'd want to have histogram visible easily and not behind multiple menus.
I am currently a digital camera user. This was a good explanation and obviously works well as far as not blowing out highlights and easily bringing back shadow detail with digital. It got me to reflect amusingly back to my time in the darkroom when I was a die hard fan of Ansel Adams zone system while exposing my film. Back then it was all about exposing for the shadows and developing the film to place the highlights. Similar results, just 180 degrees opposite while using a different medium.
A very good perspective. Exposing to the right had very different implications with film. It’s not so relevant in the digital age. My priority now is keep as much highlight detail as possible while not making the shadows so dark that they will look noisy after being lifted in post.
You talked about manufacturers providing an option to push the exposure for you "automatically" based on the meter. Olympus has a function that sort of accomplishes that. "Exposure Shift" in the menu allows you to either push the exposure or pull it by up to 1 stop in 1/6 stop increments. Not a complete solution, but at least it is there for those who want it.
@@jonnanieminen8848 Absolutely true. What Chris was referencing and what I'm referencing is biasing the meter's suggested started value without any exposure compensation.
Good info. You also mention that manufacturers should give an ETTR option and better histograms towards raw files. In the end, we have cameras that decide for us, and post-processing programs suggest the best solutions so we all have perfect pictures but no longer need to think. For wildlife, we may need a camera with eye focusing that is connected to a tripod whereby the camera controls its movements for even better results. I returned from smartphone to a camera, even a DSLR, because I wanted to make again more my own decisions so not all pictures are about perfect with a good smartphone, but I have to work for those pictures. Don't want everything or the fun will be gone
That was an interesting and balanced viewpoint on ETTR. However, I believe a more effective approach is to use spot metering and manual mode together, applying the zone system to the key parts of your scene. For example, if I spot meter from the brightest important part of my scene and then increase the exposure by 2 stops, I've correctly exposed to the right. This adjustment moves all other tones 2 stops to the right as well. Once you're practiced, using spot metering with manual mode is actually quick and efficient!
I use histograms along with zebras in my Sony A7iii. By setting my zebra settings to 109 I can see specific areas of potential highlight blowouts in the photo and adjust to eliminate them or minimize them. This works very well when shooting RAW to keep the shadows without blowing out the highlights. I am referring to stills here.
I use zebra in the same way also on my a7iv and a7siii. Just go one tick on shutter or aperture less than clipping. Alternatively, since my camera has dual native ISOs, if I can pop up to the higher base ISO, I may try that
Great explainer. It’s a great technique for landscape photography and other static subjects. The key is to bring your photo down in post… seems obvious but for some reason I had a mental block to bringing exposure down for many years.
I use the zebra when in trouble with the Sonys and it works very well to see where I went to far. Perhaps the noise in the shadows doesn't bother me much for two reasons: 1. the dark place of the image are general not as important. 2. if the noise makes trouble I run it through DXO anyway, which adds 2-3 stops to the dR. I'm actually more concerned to loosed the impression the place conveyed to me and pretty much ignore ETTR by setting the exposure to match the picture. That may not be a good idea all the time. Often the colours get smashed by ETTR. Usual the red comes first and gets crashed. A good ETTR would be to use all three colours. Do this will not really allow the ETTF because the red often get oversaturated and the picture is darker then the ETTR based on a simple brightness histogram. One more thing to that would be the need to have y-axis in the histogram to be log of the amount of pixel per brigtness, so you don't overlook the smaller areas in the picture you not want to saturate. Perhaps more important to me overall is that I will miss Chris and his team so much in the future. It is such a sad time to loose their inspirations and fun for all of us.
Even with all the Pentax bashing, the K-3 III has a sort of ETTR mode, at least for when you want to underexpose. It preserve most of the highlight, and if the shadow are too much pronounced, I just need to save as DNF, and boost them in post, instead of my usual JPEG format. Which I often overexpose, at least with wide angle, when the sky isn't the subject. The Pentax Highlightweighted metering is doing the job so well, that I use it most of the time, and that I rarely override the metering (which I did a lot on the K-5).
I love that Sony already has a "Highlight priority" metering mode. I use it pretty much 90% of the time and have my exp-compensation set to +1ev. That way it usually exposes for the bright parts of my image when I use Aperture-Priority-Mode and still overexposes just so much that the image is not underexposed. About 1ev - 1.1/6ev overexposure also happens to be the leeway I have in my RAW files for recovery, so setting the compensation to +1ev in highlight priority metering usually results in a well lit image. But I still want those RAW histogram options and more you talked about. Especially when I'm not in the studio with workhorse Sony and rather on my own hobby and holiday stuff with my personal Fuji.
Excellent! Thank you. Better histograms: there is a trivial solution that might work on all modern digital cameras: take a picture with the lens cap on and use that dark frame to create a custom white balance. When using that custom white balance, the image will be mostly green, but the histogram should be exact. I agree that an important argument against ETTR is risk management: clipped highlights will never be recovered while dark shadows can usually be recovered with some post-processing work. As Chris mentioned, multiple-exposures is a meaningful alternative, particularly when using a tripod. With cameras that don't combine self-timer and bracketed exposure (yes, manufacturers can make really bad design decisions), self-timer with multiple identical exposures is just as good in most situation as long as you use EFFTR (Expose Far From The Right) and enough images. Stacking identical exposures is a trivial post-processing operation that doesn't introduce any risk of unappealing HDR artefacts while reducing noise and opening up a lot of flexibility for shadow recovery.
Zebras is an option to histograms that is not based on jpg, and some cameras do have an "expose for highlights" alternative (e.g., Sony). It does not work well in video, since it can change exposure dramatically depending on what light sources happen to be in the frame at any given moment.
On Sony at least the zebras are actually also based on the jpeg, that's why if you set it to 100 you can still recover from within the zebras. It's just that most people will set it to 107 or 109 to approximate the RAW instead of the jpeg. Also setting the exposure to hightlights doesn't actually ETTR while preserving highlights, I wish that was a setting but instead it just exposes for the highlights resulting in excessively underexposed photos with the brightest pixels being nowhere close to clipping. You can try to approximate ETTR by exposing for the highlights and setting a +2 or +3 exposure, but IME this isn't even as reliable as just using multi and checking your zebras.
@@alpacagurl92Thanks for the clarification. Perhaps the zebras it's more accurate for video since most of the time you are not recording raw anyways (it seems accurate). Yes I always use auto exposure with exposure compensation as well (in the spirit of ETTR), so when I use expose after highlights I always have it on +2 which is max for video. I use it in snowy landscapes mostly.
Really excellent, clear and thoughtful presentation - thank you Chris and Jordan and DPReview TV. (And to hell with Amazon for closing down DPReview - absolutely disgusting behaviour).
IMO: This is a great video. He hit on all the points I work through. I have used Auto ISO and ETTR to optimize my primary subject. Now I have to consider, going back to the basics. Please continue to release the types of videos. Not only are they very informative, but the presentation is very good.
Great video, I would however be cautious about ‘letting some of these highlights go’, as depending on the lit surface sometimes they are part of the micro-texture reflections (e.g. sweaty skin or some reflective fabrics) or also the sensor will manage colors and Bayerian transformations differently in more or less lit photographs, with dramatically diverging results even using raw (color science can be complicated at the sensor-electronics level). That’s probably also why manufacturers don’t turn on an auto-ETTR option or try to have more readable base-histograms.
@nikilragav2193 Sort of, depending on how much the RGB elements are independently saturated by the microtexture reflections, you might e.g. lose some of the red micro-contrast and get some microtexture/hue/color distortion.
Good explanations. To be very pedantic, increasing exposure usually doesn't decrease the noise, but increase it. It's the signal-to-noise ratio that goes up. That's because in a Poisson process (that typically dominates over thermal noise) the noise goes like the square root of the mean (the exposure), so signal-to-noise ratio improves likes square root of the mean (x ^1 / x^0.5 = x^0.5).
I’ve never been clear on relative noise source contributions. What are the sources… photon counting statistics (Poisson), readout noise (exposure independent?), thermal noise (exposure independent, or proportional to integration time?)…What else? Is there some kind of A/D noise or amplification noise introduced? I don’t know what typically dominates.
Excellent content. (Everything was correct!). I would like to add that in my Sonys, a7R III and RX100 VII (and other Sonys of course) it is possible to set the Zebras level above 100, and when set to 109+ (the max), zebras match pretty well with the limit in the raw file. This gives some of the functionality that is missing from the histogram being based on jpeg. And one can expose with more light than by just judging the histogram. One can also see which parts are at or just above the limit and then reduce exposure so the zebras disappear. By doing this, the headroom in the raw file (to recover highlight in post) is being spent and will not be available during post processing. But that is part of the game of (real) ETTR, and works fine when done accurately.
Jordan, could you please do a video of using ProRes on an iPhone and Motioncam raw video on an Android? In my experience it's vastly superior shooting dng
Finaly some real knowledge about ETTR. For me correct exposure depends on a zilion different criteria, among them the dynamic range of the sensor (film anyone?) and the dynamic range in the subject. A very grey subject will present you with a lot of exposure latitude (=not that critical) while the high dynamic range subject you showed makes a correct exposure impossible, choices will have to be made, as you do. IMHO the biggest danger with digital sensors is blown 'highlights' (read = bright elements in the picture), a problem that we do not see with film, a good reason to use film for certain subjects or styles, as the movie industry and some photographers do. Great video, but more like the start of something pretty vital for photography? IMHO this is much more important and basic then, let's say, burst rate or auto focus etc. Automated ETTR would have to allow for some user input, as it would have to allow for some differences between 'development' software in the way these programs treat the raw files. Not simple I think
FWIW , you can add the Ricoh GRiii to the list of cameras that have a Hightlight Weighted Metering mode. I use it when appropriate and it works perfectly.
Imho with sensors getting more and more iso invariant exposing to the left is the way to go with raw. You can get much more oit of dark and mid tones (up to 5 EV) than recover blown out areas
I mean, Chris specifically said "don't expose to the right so far that you blow your highlights." In my experience--unless blowing the highlights--a picture almost always looks better overexposed and darkened in post than underexposed and brightened, even on newer sensors.
Great rundown, Chris! One other consideration, with respect to blown highlights, is that no ink (generic term) is deposited in those areas when you print (I'm old school and don't think a photo exists until it's been printed). Whether or not this is detrimental to the image depends on a host of variables, including overall tonal range and paper used.
Regardless of if you use ETTR or some other exposure technique (exposure bracketing, etc) I think it's important that the photographer understand how their sensor "sees" and works. not necessarily on a technical level, but more so on RAW capture vs what they see on the histogram and the light meter. For example, I have found on my NIkon Z cameras, in most metering modes, even spot metering, I can usually "over expose" by about 2/3 of a stop and still retain detail in the highlights that are useable, since the histogram is being generated by the embedded JPEG even though the exposure meter may say 2/3 of a stop over exposed. If you know this, and you know how to read a histogram, then you can maximize your exposures (and by that, I mean capture as much data as you can). Obviously if the scene is dark, like a night shot, ETTR may not be a wise choice as the scene will have a lot of dark tones. But on the other hand, my other take is that with certain genres, ETTR can be useful and the extra data you get can sometimes be thrown away in post (like shadow detail you may not need) but you'll have it if you do. One caveat I think with ETTR is that if your highlights are too bright (but not blown out) and you want them decreased in post, you will often times run into the "gray highlight" issue where highlights turn grayish if you decrease them too much, so that is one caveat with ETTR and other methods that biased towards the highlights. But I guess it may be better in most cases to have highlight detail( and shadow detail) you may not need later ,and can "discard" later in post processing.
One thing we should conside,r and help a lot, is that a typical sensor normally gets 2 times as much shadow than highlights. Ok this is a VERY big simplification (every sensor is a bit different and some get more DR than others and there are a lot of other factors), but it works to think that you can basically recover 4stops of shadow to 2 stops of highlights. So overexposing by 1 to 1.5 stops is normally ok. But it highly depends on your scene, of course, and your sensor, so you should test it out thoroughly to know what are it's limits actually.
Excellent suggestion! I tested it today and you're right. I shot based on what the histogram showed as you suggested. The monitor showed part of the photo way over exposed, but when I ran the file through Luminar Neo HDR, it evened it all out. The bright part which was a window that in camera was washed out, now was very clear after the software processing. I have to say though, that I shot in dark places before where the software did not have problem recovering all the details, but the image was very noisy.
I expose to the right whenever it's possible. And I did one test with ISO. I exposed a subject with ISO 1600 and to have a " good" exposure I selected a certain apperture and speed. The I set ISO at 200 and with same apperture and speed values. Of course it was underexposed. Then, in Lightroom I raised exposure until it was similar to the exposure of the ISO 1600 picture. The noise was worse on the ISO 200 picture with exposure raised in post production than on the ISO 1600 picture! So, in some situations it is better to raise the iso to get the speed we want than to underexpose!
On my Sony A7III, there's a "highlights" metering mode that does exactly what you think. It's great when you have a shot with lots of dynamic range but you want to prioritise the highlights, like night street photography in a city, where you might have a bright neon sign illuminating your subject but the rest of the frame is quite dark.
@@nikilragav You should be able to find it by scrolling through the metering modes, however you've configured that on your camera. From memory, it's the last option in the list.
Always wondered about this since learning how to expose slog3. Where many people say to overexpose up to +2.0 and using zebras with 70 IRE and then bring down the exposure in post. Where as I've learned to underexpose photos a tad especially when lowering the ISO and then recover the shadows in post especially to retain any information in the highlights, depending on the sensor and the lower ISO from underexposing, the noise has been acceptable (for me).
Referencing Jonathan Tr comment "that he used to underexpose slide film to not blow out highlights"... The common exposure approach to slide film and digital is they are both positive media - expose for the highlights and develop for the shadows. This is consistent with Ansel Adams' approach when exposing negative film: exposure of the shadows and develop for the highlights... "the more thing change, the more they stay the same"... or ... "the more we learn the more we understand!" I've written a book (The Optimum Digital Exposure] that explains the benefit of [ETTR} and defines "the optimum digital exposure" - "place the brightest part of your scene to be 99% brightness in your software"... I even explain how to achieve it for your camera - ONWARD
Very good video, guys, thank you. While we're making a list for the manufacturers, I would like a bracketing option that would automatically choose the two exposures that minimize brightest highlights and darkest shadows and then lets me choose how many exposures to capture between the two outer limits. For example, if we're using aperture priority, a bracket set could automatically start with 1/60 at f4.0 to preserve details in the shadows and 1/500 at f4.0 to keep the highlights from blowing out. Then I can tell the camera to also shoot two or more images to split the difference equally. If I ask for one image to split the difference, then the camera would automatically pick 1/180 (or some such speed) at f4.0 for the third shot of three. If I ask for two images to split the difference, then it would automatically pick 1/125 and 1/250 at f4.0 for the third and fourth shots of four. Please, folks, tell me if such a set-up is already available.
Great video ! Many of us would love to have more videos like this one. Maybe next time a video about how to properly expose vlog ? That would be fantastic ! Thanks.
Are you saying it’s not worth ETTR if f it requires raising the ISO? It’s only worthwhile if achieved by opening the aperture or slowing the shutter speed? I assumed it was still better to get as much brightness from the scene even if it required raising the ISO.
Fuji cameras have something close to a RAW histogram. You can turn off film Sim preview then the EVF and histogram is much close to the RAW than the output JPEG.
I always expose a little more to the right, kind of like ETTR+, because I know that the Raw file will be able to handle it. Each camera and sensor vary so it takes some experimenting with how much further right you can go, but until we get a RAW histogram, that's my work around.
I come from a film background....does the characteristic curve respond in a straight line fashion to changes in exposure? Film, generally does not, with a toe and a shoulder on the curve. The reason I ask is with film , I often want to exposure such that the contrast is highest at the most important element of the photo, and I'll do that even if it means some decreased shadow contrast and increased noise. My worry with ETTR is that you might be giving up some contrast where you'd want it at the gain of lower noise. Some portrait photographers, such as Felix Kunze, expose significantly less than many people would, and they expand the contrast in post. These files tend to have a different look than ETTR ones.
Great video! I'm an old guy that was used to shooting slide film and underexposing to not let the slides blow out highlights. This is good to consider for digital sensors.
Jonathan... the common exposure approach here is slide film and digital are both positive media - expose for the highlights and develop for the shadows. This is consistent with Ansel Adams' approach when exposing negative film - exposure of the shadows and develop for the highlights... "the more thing change, the more they stay the same"... or ... "the more we learn the more we understand!" I've written a book (The Optimum Digital Exposure] that explains the benefit of [ETTR} and defines optimum exposure - "place the brightest part of your scene to be 99% brightness in your software"... I even explain how to achieve it for your camera.
Just saw the breaking news from Fro Knows . Just want to say thank you DP review for guiding me back in 2012 when getting my first dslr back then (canon 6d ) thank you
I'm very interested in this because I've often tried to expose to the LEFT. Here's why: If I'm shooting in a less-than-super-bright situation, and/or at super-high shutter speeds, and I don't have the world's fastest glass, then my auto ISO is going to spike and introduce noise (the very thing you're trying to reduce with ETTR). My logic had always been that exposing to the LEFT keeps ISO down to create a less noisy RAW image that can be brightened if needed. Do I have it all wrong?
I've been doing the same thing and it seems to work quite well as long as you don't underexpose too much. On full frame, I can underexpose up to about 3 stops at base ISO, but on m4/3, for example, it's much more limited. I think ETTR makes more sense when you can actually sacrifice some of the highlights so as to preserve more midtones and shadows, if I understand correctly.
My old Sony a6500 has a highlight metering mode that, guess what, protects highlights. It seems working fine for me without the need to see the histogram that obscures the frame. I suppose most cameras would have such metering option these days.
When I take sunrise pics at the beach I try to do ettr, then the histogram is all completely on one side in post with no blacks at all. The raw is extremely white & hazy (but highlights not clipped) I have a very hard time processing my photos when they are like that. 😩I wish I could find a video with processing examples.
When you are pointing at a bright sky - wouldn't adding an ND filter and then raising the exposure bring up the low end while lowering the highlights? ETTR in that case it seems to me that the amount of stops is just too spread apart and using a means to shrink that ratio would help in retaining detail. In the studio situation, for the moody look, I think that people need to light to the lower ISO to move middle grey and have more stops below from native then bring up the light to the desired skin values. I'm not a photographer though, I'm just a colorist for video that gets all kinds of noisey video sent to me.
Will DPRTV content still be available on RUclips after they close down the site? I hope it is possible to keep this incredibly useful content online for longer. Also, hope Chris & Jordan keep doing this elsewhere. 😭
The sole aim that Amazon has is to destroy our cultural heritage. There’s way too much evidence on the site as to how mankind lived in the 1st quarter of XXI. This shall not pass to the future generations because look outside now.
![Seungmin "그렇게, 천천히, 우리(As we are)" | [Stray Kids : SKZ-PLAYER]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/kAzmhLHePqU/mqdefault.jpg)
In England they use ETTL.
Sounds Canon to me
🤣🤣🤣 I laughed hard really hard! Nice one 💯
Nice one 😂
Nicely done
Don’t. 😂
More tutorials like this, please! Excellent explanation and well illustrated.
Back in the film days, we used to call this 'exposing for shadows and developing for highlights'. We would overexpose the film and under-develop it to get a great tonal range in the negatives used for printing.
I’ve been waiting for a raw histogram for ages. Closest thing I have found on my Nikon is to use the flat profile. It shows more of what you are capturing.
All the pictures one sees on the screen are jpegs.
Or actually waveforms. Histograms are obsolete in my opinion. Waveforms tell you exactly which spot in the frame is overexposed while histograms leave you guessing.
@@professionalpotato4764 I think that Waveforms will tell you what at what points horizontally are overexposed, but I don't think it tells you vertically. False color representations are more useful for that, although the readout is coarser.
Yes, I don't expect to see this any time soon - all displayable info seems to be derived from jpeg. There is a general technique called 'UniWB' where you carefully tweak the jpeg settings so that the clipping/crushing indicators actually reflect the RAW data more accurately (ideally with zebras in stills mode, but histogram if that's not available). It may be worth looking into to see if there is a 'recipe' for your camera since obviously it varies from body to body. Also obviously, it renders the jpeg unusable.
Unfortunatelly flat profile makes Nikon mirrorless autofocus very inaccurate (and subject recognition very poor), while punching up sharpening (with Standard profile, or increased contrast) dramatically improves autofocus accuracy and subject recognition as well. And also makes histogram even more “wide”, showing that your higlights are clipped, which is false. So if anyone have workaround for sharp liveview and accurate histogram, please let me know :)
Welcome back Chris Niccolls! This is DPReview TV viewers. We appreciate your wonderful videos :)
“When you have the opportunity “ - we’ll said . Having my formative years shooting film cameras without photoshop left us with having to plan for the final shot, so ETTR was a must - you had to nail the shot and make sure your photo lab exposed and printed your shot correctly .
I had a highly decorated pro photographer come see me once after getting his prints from me that I though he messed up with . Once he showed/explained his method and I saw the results - ETTR - wow, we were both very happy .
Great explanation and use of a real example . Well done :)
Film is the opposite of digital.
@@bngr_bngr how so?
@@Willymaze negative film is exposed to the left.
Pros usually shot chrome, wedding and maybe some fashion shot neg
@@look9005 we always shot negative film for weddings. Chrome’s exposure latitude is to narrow for a fast pace event like a wedding. Then their was the cost of chrome and processing. Plus back in the day pro labs were setup for fast turn around times for negs.
Love this video, but I do have an objection! In defence of iso...High iso gets labelled as noisy and Chris has implied this by demanding an increase in actual light. I’d love a follow up video showing nine controlled light exposures where aperture, shutter speed and iso are all adjusted 1 stop at a time. Ie three batches of three, where 2 parameters are unchanged. This will show that an increase in iso “adds” less noise than reducing aperture or shutter speed 1 stop. In other words, use iso to capture a better, fuller exposure, but don’t get lazy and rely on a high iso when it IS possible to lower the shutter speed or open the aperture without impacting your vision of the photo.
Nikon (maybe others?) has a super handy mode called Highlight-Weighted Metering, which does a great job at preserving highlights. It’s ideal for stage events, but really for any scene with extreme range.
Leica Q2 Monochrom also has that feature. It's a great tool, especially with that sensor which needs to have highlights carefully managed.
Panasonic also has this, but in my experience it's mostly useless - it often underexposes so much that it's almost impossible to bring up the shadows without a lot of noise even at base ISO.
The more recent Sony alpha7 series full-frame bodies (maybe some of the crop sensor bodies?) under Metering Mode have the option of "Highlight" which "Measures the brightness while emphasizing the highlighted area on the screen. This mode is suitable for shooting the subject while avoiding overexposure." Note that if the D-Range Optimizer is also set to On, "... the brightness and the contrast will be corrected automatically by dividing the image into small areas and analyzing the contrast of light and shadow. Make settings based on the shooting circumstances."
I usually still have to turn the exposure compensation to -1 ~ -2 when I shoot anything involving the moon if I want any details on the surface of the moon.
canon has effectively that, they call it 'highlight priority"
On the fujifilm cameras that I own I turn the picture effect preview setting to off when shooting raw and ettr. This give me a closer idea how far I can go with the exposure because of its flatter tone curve.
After 14 years after i first got into photgraphy and 1001 videos, i finally understand what really is ETTR and it's application. Thanks, chris and dpreview for making this episode. 😊
As some others have pointed out, it would be great if camera manufacturers would give us the option of a histogram that truly represented the raw range, but in lieu of that I keep my picture profile (Nikon) set to ‘Flat’. I tested every standard profile and ‘Flat’ came closest.
same, i set my picture profile to ‘Flat’ as well, it’s great for post processing and would highly recommend it, im glad other people agree :)
On the other hand people will then get cocky and start pushing *that* histogram :D
That was great. I had thought I understood this, but I had not realised that it involves letting in "more actual light", rather than playing with ISO settings. Thanks for a very helpful video.
This was really useful. No one else has explained about adjusting your aperture and shutter speed, not your ISO.
Great explanation of ETTR. I’ve always been a fan of your content since getting into digital photography 10 years ago. I’m going to miss DP Review. RIP
This was very well researched, well balanced, and well presented. Way to go!
Thanks for the information. You and Jordan are now the faces of Dpreview.
Good tutorial. I think the basic understanding of the exposure triangle: Shutter Speed, Aperture, and ISO is suitable for practical daily use when shooting. As we advance in skill it helps to go deeper and understand that ISO is not increasing the amount of light but amplifying it in the camera after capture. ISO is in fact a post-processing tool even though we choose it prior to the shot. It is also good to understand that a high ISO doesn't increase noise, rather less light increases noise and a higher ISO reveals the noise. I agree that a histogram giving us the true dynamic range of the camera would be helpful, I test my cameras by pushing them to the right by 1/3 stops and then viewing the shots in LR to see where the whites are acually clipped. In the case of my current camera I can go 2 stop to the right and still maintain details. Keep up the good work.
What you have said is true for cameras that are ISO invariant, but that is often not the case, or at least not exactly the case. The signal amplification at high iso is at least partially an analog process, analog to digital converters are not always perfectly linear, and even raw files don't always store absolutely everything. If I shoot at 200 and raise to 1600 in post, I get slightly more noise and messed up white ballance in that noise compared to shooting at 1600 in the first place. One stop of ISO correction in post is essentially not noticeable, but at 3, 4, or 5 stops it is definitely better to change the ISO in camera.
@@seth094978 in my comment I said we choose the ISO prior to the shot. Regardless, we are not increasing the amount of light, we are amplifying the light we have. It is a “post processing” feature done “pre-post.” Actually adding light can only be done with slower shutter, wider aperture or external light source. That being said, as bird photographer, my only choice is to set the camera to auto ISO and let it go where ever it needs. 😎🤙
This has a perfect analogy to recording music. For example when you record a guitar, you want it loud and full of high frequencies. It often sounds nasty and annoying. However, when you start editing and work it in the mix with other instruments, you have the ability to shape it by removing signal because you had such a high signal-to-noise ratio. If you hadn't had much level and high frequencies, you'd just be introducing noise and making the mix sound worse. Basically you want to have all the necessary signal (in terms of level and quality) needed for the end product there from the beginning, you only want to remove extra signal instead of trying to make something that you don't have. And you often find that those originally nasty high frequencies can be invaluable in giving the song some air and making the guitar audible in its own space, and it sits just fine there in the actual mix.
And to be fair it just makes everything so much easier if your original material is good quality and you don't have to do any tricks to get what you want and avoid creating problems.
This is why you'd want to have histogram visible easily and not behind multiple menus.
You are incredibly well-spoken and informative - THANKS!
Highlight, lowlight, Chris looks good in any light!
A very well explained video, thanks!
I am currently a digital camera user. This was a good explanation and obviously works well as far as not blowing out highlights and easily bringing back shadow detail with digital. It got me to reflect amusingly back to my time in the darkroom when I was a die hard fan of Ansel Adams zone system while exposing my film. Back then it was all about exposing for the shadows and developing the film to place the highlights. Similar results, just 180 degrees opposite while using a different medium.
A very good perspective. Exposing to the right had very different implications with film. It’s not so relevant in the digital age. My priority now is keep as much highlight detail as possible while not making the shadows so dark that they will look noisy after being lifted in post.
You talked about manufacturers providing an option to push the exposure for you "automatically" based on the meter. Olympus has a function that sort of accomplishes that. "Exposure Shift" in the menu allows you to either push the exposure or pull it by up to 1 stop in 1/6 stop increments. Not a complete solution, but at least it is there for those who want it.
Basically all cameras have manual exposure compensation that can be adjusted between -3 and +3 stops with an increment of 1/3 stops
@@jonnanieminen8848 Absolutely true. What Chris was referencing and what I'm referencing is biasing the meter's suggested started value without any exposure compensation.
Yeah, totally these kind of videos are game changers. Thank you Chris.Those details make the our work Better and more efficient.
Very well explained. Your articulating skill is amazing, Chris!
Absolutely brilliant video!
Good info.
You also mention that manufacturers should give an ETTR option and better histograms towards raw files. In the end, we have cameras that decide for us, and post-processing programs suggest the best solutions so we all have perfect pictures but no longer need to think. For wildlife, we may need a camera with eye focusing that is connected to a tripod whereby the camera controls its movements for even better results.
I returned from smartphone to a camera, even a DSLR, because I wanted to make again more my own decisions so not all pictures are about perfect with a good smartphone, but I have to work for those pictures. Don't want everything or the fun will be gone
That was an interesting and balanced viewpoint on ETTR. However, I believe a more effective approach is to use spot metering and manual mode together, applying the zone system to the key parts of your scene. For example, if I spot meter from the brightest important part of my scene and then increase the exposure by 2 stops, I've correctly exposed to the right. This adjustment moves all other tones 2 stops to the right as well. Once you're practiced, using spot metering with manual mode is actually quick and efficient!
Thanks for covering this Chris.
I use histograms along with zebras in my Sony A7iii. By setting my zebra settings to 109 I can see specific areas of potential highlight blowouts in the photo and adjust to eliminate them or minimize them. This works very well when shooting RAW to keep the shadows without blowing out the highlights. I am referring to stills here.
I use zebra in the same way also on my a7iv and a7siii. Just go one tick on shutter or aperture less than clipping. Alternatively, since my camera has dual native ISOs, if I can pop up to the higher base ISO, I may try that
GREAT EXPOSURE TIPS! Thanks for this video...
Can’t believe this information is free
Oh man, DPReview is sooooo going to be missed - what a great video and explanation. Love(d) it.
Great explainer. It’s a great technique for landscape photography and other static subjects. The key is to bring your photo down in post… seems obvious but for some reason I had a mental block to bringing exposure down for many years.
You will lose some highligt tone recoverability if you expose to the right as is demonstrated here ruclips.net/video/gBZkF3JhZ8c/видео.html
I use the zebra when in trouble with the Sonys and it works very well to see where I went to far. Perhaps the noise in the shadows doesn't bother me much for two reasons: 1. the dark place of the image are general not as important. 2. if the noise makes trouble I run it through DXO anyway, which adds 2-3 stops to the dR.
I'm actually more concerned to loosed the impression the place conveyed to me and pretty much ignore ETTR by setting the exposure to match the picture. That may not be a good idea all the time.
Often the colours get smashed by ETTR. Usual the red comes first and gets crashed. A good ETTR would be to use all three colours. Do this will not really allow the ETTF because the red often get oversaturated and the picture is darker then the ETTR based on a simple brightness histogram.
One more thing to that would be the need to have y-axis in the histogram to be log of the amount of pixel per brigtness, so you don't overlook the smaller areas in the picture you not want to saturate.
Perhaps more important to me overall is that I will miss Chris and his team so much in the future. It is such a sad time to loose their inspirations and fun for all of us.
Even with all the Pentax bashing, the K-3 III has a sort of ETTR mode, at least for when you want to underexpose. It preserve most of the highlight, and if the shadow are too much pronounced, I just need to save as DNF, and boost them in post, instead of my usual JPEG format. Which I often overexpose, at least with wide angle, when the sky isn't the subject.
The Pentax Highlightweighted metering is doing the job so well, that I use it most of the time, and that I rarely override the metering (which I did a lot on the K-5).
Great tutorial so easy to understand. Cheers guys
I love that Sony already has a "Highlight priority" metering mode. I use it pretty much 90% of the time and have my exp-compensation set to +1ev. That way it usually exposes for the bright parts of my image when I use Aperture-Priority-Mode and still overexposes just so much that the image is not underexposed. About 1ev - 1.1/6ev overexposure also happens to be the leeway I have in my RAW files for recovery, so setting the compensation to +1ev in highlight priority metering usually results in a well lit image.
But I still want those RAW histogram options and more you talked about. Especially when I'm not in the studio with workhorse Sony and rather on my own hobby and holiday stuff with my personal Fuji.
Panasonic bodies offer highlight metering too.
Very well and simply explained. You guys rock! And yes, camera manufacturers, PLEASE give us histograms based on the raw files.
and RGB raw histograms at that. Can't capture accurate color without them.
Excellent! Thank you.
Better histograms: there is a trivial solution that might work on all modern digital cameras: take a picture with the lens cap on and use that dark frame to create a custom white balance. When using that custom white balance, the image will be mostly green, but the histogram should be exact.
I agree that an important argument against ETTR is risk management: clipped highlights will never be recovered while dark shadows can usually be recovered with some post-processing work. As Chris mentioned, multiple-exposures is a meaningful alternative, particularly when using a tripod. With cameras that don't combine self-timer and bracketed exposure (yes, manufacturers can make really bad design decisions), self-timer with multiple identical exposures is just as good in most situation as long as you use EFFTR (Expose Far From The Right) and enough images. Stacking identical exposures is a trivial post-processing operation that doesn't introduce any risk of unappealing HDR artefacts while reducing noise and opening up a lot of flexibility for shadow recovery.
This is one of the best videos maybe the best one all time dpreview
Ok, now we need a video focused version of this, please!
Zebras is an option to histograms that is not based on jpg, and some cameras do have an "expose for highlights" alternative (e.g., Sony). It does not work well in video, since it can change exposure dramatically depending on what light sources happen to be in the frame at any given moment.
On Sony at least the zebras are actually also based on the jpeg, that's why if you set it to 100 you can still recover from within the zebras. It's just that most people will set it to 107 or 109 to approximate the RAW instead of the jpeg. Also setting the exposure to hightlights doesn't actually ETTR while preserving highlights, I wish that was a setting but instead it just exposes for the highlights resulting in excessively underexposed photos with the brightest pixels being nowhere close to clipping. You can try to approximate ETTR by exposing for the highlights and setting a +2 or +3 exposure, but IME this isn't even as reliable as just using multi and checking your zebras.
@@alpacagurl92Thanks for the clarification. Perhaps the zebras it's more accurate for video since most of the time you are not recording raw anyways (it seems accurate). Yes I always use auto exposure with exposure compensation as well (in the spirit of ETTR), so when I use expose after highlights I always have it on +2 which is max for video. I use it in snowy landscapes mostly.
Really excellent, clear and thoughtful presentation - thank you Chris and Jordan and DPReview TV. (And to hell with Amazon for closing down DPReview - absolutely disgusting behaviour).
excellent video, thank you. Olympus cameras works very well with ETTR and can very well work with even over-exposed RAW files easily
On the topic on the manufactures. Leica and Ricoh has in their recent models highlight-weighted exposure modes.
Chris I don't think telling people to unsubscribe is how this thing works! haha
IMO: This is a great video. He hit on all the points I work through. I have used Auto ISO and ETTR to optimize my primary subject. Now I have to consider, going back to the basics. Please continue to release the types of videos. Not only are they very informative, but the presentation is very good.
Amazon, the owner of DPReview is cancelling and removing all dpreview content
Your camera reviews are excellent, your learning or explanation videos are over the top, keep them coming thank you 🎉😊
Great video, I would however be cautious about ‘letting some of these highlights go’, as depending on the lit surface sometimes they are part of the micro-texture reflections (e.g. sweaty skin or some reflective fabrics) or also the sensor will manage colors and Bayerian transformations differently in more or less lit photographs, with dramatically diverging results even using raw (color science can be complicated at the sensor-electronics level). That’s probably also why manufacturers don’t turn on an auto-ETTR option or try to have more readable base-histograms.
Also you will lose some highligt tone recoverability if you expose to the right as is demonstrated here ruclips.net/video/gBZkF3JhZ8c/видео.html
You're saying different debayering algos result in different recoverable highlights?
@nikilragav2193 Sort of, depending on how much the RGB elements are independently saturated by the microtexture reflections, you might e.g. lose some of the red micro-contrast and get some microtexture/hue/color distortion.
Excellent explanation. Thanks.
Good explanations. To be very pedantic, increasing exposure usually doesn't decrease the noise, but increase it. It's the signal-to-noise ratio that goes up. That's because in a Poisson process (that typically dominates over thermal noise) the noise goes like the square root of the mean (the exposure), so signal-to-noise ratio improves likes square root of the mean (x ^1 / x^0.5 = x^0.5).
I’ve never been clear on relative noise source contributions. What are the sources… photon counting statistics (Poisson), readout noise (exposure independent?), thermal noise (exposure independent, or proportional to integration time?)…What else? Is there some kind of A/D noise or amplification noise introduced? I don’t know what typically dominates.
Excellent content. (Everything was correct!). I would like to add that in my Sonys, a7R III and RX100 VII (and other Sonys of course) it is possible to set the Zebras level above 100, and when set to 109+ (the max), zebras match pretty well with the limit in the raw file. This gives some of the functionality that is missing from the histogram being based on jpeg. And one can expose with more light than by just judging the histogram. One can also see which parts are at or just above the limit and then reduce exposure so the zebras disappear. By doing this, the headroom in the raw file (to recover highlight in post) is being spent and will not be available during post processing. But that is part of the game of (real) ETTR, and works fine when done accurately.
I found that explanation really useful - many thanks for the clarity.
Nice reminder, thank you
Thank you Chris! Very useful!
Jordan, could you please do a video of using ProRes on an iPhone and Motioncam raw video on an Android? In my experience it's vastly superior shooting dng
Finally! Someone to properly explain this (without saying to increase the ISO). You could have also talked about UNIWB.
Finaly some real knowledge about ETTR. For me correct exposure depends on a zilion different criteria, among them the dynamic range of the sensor (film anyone?) and the dynamic range in the subject. A very grey subject will present you with a lot of exposure latitude (=not that critical) while the high dynamic range subject you showed makes a correct exposure impossible, choices will have to be made, as you do. IMHO the biggest danger with digital sensors is blown 'highlights' (read = bright elements in the picture), a problem that we do not see with film, a good reason to use film for certain subjects or styles, as the movie industry and some photographers do. Great video, but more like the start of something pretty vital for photography? IMHO this is much more important and basic then, let's say, burst rate or auto focus etc.
Automated ETTR would have to allow for some user input, as it would have to allow for some differences between 'development' software in the way these programs treat the raw files. Not simple I think
FWIW , you can add the Ricoh GRiii to the list of cameras that have a Hightlight Weighted Metering mode. I use it when appropriate and it works perfectly.
Imho with sensors getting more and more iso invariant exposing to the left is the way to go with raw. You can get much more oit of dark and mid tones (up to 5 EV) than recover blown out areas
I mean, Chris specifically said "don't expose to the right so far that you blow your highlights."
In my experience--unless blowing the highlights--a picture almost always looks better overexposed and darkened in post than underexposed and brightened, even on newer sensors.
Great rundown, Chris!
One other consideration, with respect to blown highlights, is that no ink (generic term) is deposited in those areas when you print (I'm old school and don't think a photo exists until it's been printed). Whether or not this is detrimental to the image depends on a host of variables, including overall tonal range and paper used.
Regardless of if you use ETTR or some other exposure technique (exposure bracketing, etc) I think it's important that the photographer understand how their sensor "sees" and works. not necessarily on a technical level, but more so on RAW capture vs what they see on the histogram and the light meter. For example, I have found on my NIkon Z cameras, in most metering modes, even spot metering, I can usually "over expose" by about 2/3 of a stop and still retain detail in the highlights that are useable, since the histogram is being generated by the embedded JPEG even though the exposure meter may say 2/3 of a stop over exposed. If you know this, and you know how to read a histogram, then you can maximize your exposures (and by that, I mean capture as much data as you can). Obviously if the scene is dark, like a night shot, ETTR may not be a wise choice as the scene will have a lot of dark tones. But on the other hand, my other take is that with certain genres, ETTR can be useful and the extra data you get can sometimes be thrown away in post (like shadow detail you may not need) but you'll have it if you do. One caveat I think with ETTR is that if your highlights are too bright (but not blown out) and you want them decreased in post, you will often times run into the "gray highlight" issue where highlights turn grayish if you decrease them too much, so that is one caveat with ETTR and other methods that biased towards the highlights. But I guess it may be better in most cases to have highlight detail( and shadow detail) you may not need later ,and can "discard" later in post processing.
One thing we should conside,r and help a lot, is that a typical sensor normally gets 2 times as much shadow than highlights. Ok this is a VERY big simplification (every sensor is a bit different and some get more DR than others and there are a lot of other factors), but it works to think that you can basically recover 4stops of shadow to 2 stops of highlights. So overexposing by 1 to 1.5 stops is normally ok. But it highly depends on your scene, of course, and your sensor, so you should test it out thoroughly to know what are it's limits actually.
Nikons used to have a mode to expose by highlights. I really lack this in Sony
Excellent suggestion! I tested it today and you're right. I shot based on what the histogram showed as you suggested. The monitor showed part of the photo way over exposed, but when I ran the file through Luminar Neo HDR, it evened it all out. The bright part which was a window that in camera was washed out, now was very clear after the software processing. I have to say though, that I shot in dark places before where the software did not have problem recovering all the details, but the image was very noisy.
is this similar to highlight weighted metering? seems to give nice results when shooting clouds.
When is the review for Panasonic Lumix S5 ii coming?
Thank you, YES we need RAW Histograms in camera. Also: 1-degree spot metering to check specific areas of the scene.
I expose to the right whenever it's possible. And I did one test with ISO. I exposed a subject with ISO 1600 and to have a " good" exposure I selected a certain apperture and speed. The I set ISO at 200 and with same apperture and speed values. Of course it was underexposed. Then, in Lightroom I raised exposure until it was similar to the exposure of the ISO 1600 picture. The noise was worse on the ISO 200 picture with exposure raised in post production than on the ISO 1600 picture! So, in some situations it is better to raise the iso to get the speed we want than to underexpose!
Fully agree with you on the RAW file histograms in camera! Been wishing for that myself for some time already.
this is a great review of EttR, thanks!
also worth mentioning: some cameras have an RGB histogram option, really helps with getting EttR right
On my Sony A7III, there's a "highlights" metering mode that does exactly what you think. It's great when you have a shot with lots of dynamic range but you want to prioritise the highlights, like night street photography in a city, where you might have a bright neon sign illuminating your subject but the rest of the frame is quite dark.
Huh I've never seen that. Where is it in the menu?
@@nikilragav You should be able to find it by scrolling through the metering modes, however you've configured that on your camera. From memory, it's the last option in the list.
Always wondered about this since learning how to expose slog3. Where many people say to overexpose up to +2.0 and using zebras with 70 IRE and then bring down the exposure in post.
Where as I've learned to underexpose photos a tad especially when lowering the ISO and then recover the shadows in post especially to retain any information in the highlights, depending on the sensor and the lower ISO from underexposing, the noise has been acceptable (for me).
Referencing Jonathan Tr comment "that he used to underexpose slide film to not blow out highlights"...
The common exposure approach to slide film and digital is they are both positive media - expose for the highlights and develop for the shadows.
This is consistent with Ansel Adams' approach when exposing negative film: exposure of the shadows and develop for the highlights...
"the more thing change, the more they stay the same"... or ... "the more we learn the more we understand!"
I've written a book (The Optimum Digital Exposure] that explains the benefit of [ETTR} and defines "the optimum digital exposure" - "place the brightest part of your scene to be 99% brightness in your software"... I even explain how to achieve it for your camera - ONWARD
Very good video, guys, thank you. While we're making a list for the manufacturers, I would like a bracketing option that would automatically choose the two exposures that minimize brightest highlights and darkest shadows and then lets me choose how many exposures to capture between the two outer limits. For example, if we're using aperture priority, a bracket set could automatically start with 1/60 at f4.0 to preserve details in the shadows and 1/500 at f4.0 to keep the highlights from blowing out. Then I can tell the camera to also shoot two or more images to split the difference equally. If I ask for one image to split the difference, then the camera would automatically pick 1/180 (or some such speed) at f4.0 for the third shot of three. If I ask for two images to split the difference, then it would automatically pick 1/125 and 1/250 at f4.0 for the third and fourth shots of four. Please, folks, tell me if such a set-up is already available.
Great video ! Many of us would love to have more videos like this one. Maybe next time a video about how to properly expose vlog ? That would be fantastic ! Thanks.
Are you saying it’s not worth ETTR if f it requires raising the ISO? It’s only worthwhile if achieved by opening the aperture or slowing the shutter speed? I assumed it was still better to get as much brightness from the scene even if it required raising the ISO.
I never knew ... but now I know... I will test this new technique. Thanks Dpreview
Fuji cameras have something close to a RAW histogram. You can turn off film Sim preview then the EVF and histogram is much close to the RAW than the output JPEG.
Great stuff Chris. Very interesting and well put across.
I always expose a little more to the right, kind of like ETTR+, because I know that the Raw file will be able to handle it. Each camera and sensor vary so it takes some experimenting with how much further right you can go, but until we get a RAW histogram, that's my work around.
Any recommendations for studio and location mirrorless still photography ( if you can afford only one system). Studio - strobes, freezing action etc
Great video, great learnings! Thank you!
I come from a film background....does the characteristic curve respond in a straight line fashion to changes in exposure? Film, generally does not, with a toe and a shoulder on the curve. The reason I ask is with film , I often want to exposure such that the contrast is highest at the most important element of the photo, and I'll do that even if it means some decreased shadow contrast and increased noise. My worry with ETTR is that you might be giving up some contrast where you'd want it at the gain of lower noise. Some portrait photographers, such as Felix Kunze, expose significantly less than many people would, and they expand the contrast in post. These files tend to have a different look than ETTR ones.
VERY helpful - thanks!!
Great video! I'm an old guy that was used to shooting slide film and underexposing to not let the slides blow out highlights. This is good to consider for digital sensors.
Jonathan... the common exposure approach here is slide film and digital are both positive media - expose for the highlights and develop for the shadows.
This is consistent with Ansel Adams' approach when exposing negative film - exposure of the shadows and develop for the highlights...
"the more thing change, the more they stay the same"... or ... "the more we learn the more we understand!"
I've written a book (The Optimum Digital Exposure] that explains the benefit of [ETTR} and defines optimum exposure - "place the brightest part of your scene to be 99% brightness in your software"... I even explain how to achieve it for your camera.
Very interesting. Thanks!
Just saw the breaking news from Fro Knows . Just want to say thank you DP review for guiding me back in 2012 when getting my first dslr back then (canon 6d ) thank you
My S1R has highlight priority mode which does the latter example automatically. I presume it is on other Panasonic cameras.
I'm very interested in this because I've often tried to expose to the LEFT. Here's why:
If I'm shooting in a less-than-super-bright situation, and/or at super-high shutter speeds, and I don't have the world's fastest glass, then my auto ISO is going to spike and introduce noise (the very thing you're trying to reduce with ETTR).
My logic had always been that exposing to the LEFT keeps ISO down to create a less noisy RAW image that can be brightened if needed.
Do I have it all wrong?
I've been doing the same thing and it seems to work quite well as long as you don't underexpose too much. On full frame, I can underexpose up to about 3 stops at base ISO, but on m4/3, for example, it's much more limited.
I think ETTR makes more sense when you can actually sacrifice some of the highlights so as to preserve more midtones and shadows, if I understand correctly.
Thank you, guys. Great video.
I'm very curious about how does this relate to ISO Invariance. Is ETTR an old term for ISO invariant cameras?
My old Sony a6500 has a highlight metering mode that, guess what, protects highlights. It seems working fine for me without the need to see the histogram that obscures the frame. I suppose most cameras would have such metering option these days.
When I take sunrise pics at the beach I try to do ettr, then the histogram is all completely on one side in post with no blacks at all. The raw is extremely white & hazy (but highlights not clipped) I have a very hard time processing my photos when they are like that. 😩I wish I could find a video with processing examples.
Thank you very much!
When you are pointing at a bright sky - wouldn't adding an ND filter and then raising the exposure bring up the low end while lowering the highlights? ETTR in that case it seems to me that the amount of stops is just too spread apart and using a means to shrink that ratio would help in retaining detail. In the studio situation, for the moody look, I think that people need to light to the lower ISO to move middle grey and have more stops below from native then bring up the light to the desired skin values.
I'm not a photographer though, I'm just a colorist for video that gets all kinds of noisey video sent to me.
Will DPRTV content still be available on RUclips after they close down the site? I hope it is possible to keep this incredibly useful content online for longer.
Also, hope Chris & Jordan keep doing this elsewhere. 😭
The sole aim that Amazon has is to destroy our cultural heritage. There’s way too much evidence on the site as to how mankind lived in the 1st quarter of XXI. This shall not pass to the future generations because look outside now.
At last, a youtuber who understands it!
very well explained, i always expose to the left, but you're arguments are very valid