I understand its use. Some people just want useful advice for field work, others are having an academic discussion. What matters for each scenario can be different.
Technical discussions can get very heated and quibbling over the finest distinctions is the norm. A lot of the time, those quibbles are irrelevant for field use. If you are out there approximating everything to the nearest stop, who cares about things that affect the sixth decimal place.
The problem, of course, is context. Exactly when are the quibbles material for field use? That can get tricky. And if the discussion is not relevant to field use and is in the academic domain, of course the sixth decimal place is important!
Really, no. I'm picking holes in what you said, not how it was said.
Of course it is in disagreement. What is 'the meaning' if it isn't what is conveyed by the words? You can't expect people to understand what you meant to say if you can't say it.
But the sloppiness and imprecision results in me not knowing what you mean, apparently. Because I ascribe the meaning that the words convey to me - and then you tell me that's not what you meant. I think we're back to the same issue. Precise use of language engenders precise thinking, and usuallyimprecise use of the language is a consequence of imprecise thinking.
ETTR stands for 'Expose To The Right'. Yours would be 'EAHAYD'. But if you mean 'maximise exposure subject to working and pictorial constraints', then yes - I'd go with that, but it doesn't carry with it what you were saying about raising ISO being 'lying to yourself'.
'Fixing noise in post' doesn't solve the problem, it just changes the exposure at which you need to make the decision. To my mind, you take the picture closest to you want to take, and noise is often not the highest priority in that regard. Like most things in photography, it's a judgment call - there are no simple rules. That's why understanding how the thing works helps you make those judgments.
Bill's DR charts don't speak to that issue, except as they affect headroom, which is the point of how I'm suggesting you operate your camera if you have to boost ISO. His charts definitely show the loss in DR associated with cranking up the ISO though. But his charts don't address how you should set ISO to optimize noise and headroom.
Once again, you have created a false choice. That charts aren't pointless, but they don't speak directly to the question to which you're trying to apply them. In many light-limited situations, you're better off operating at a low ISO and not trying for ETTR.
the whole advantage of mirrorless is wysiwyg it leaves optical view finder for dead. my cameras are always set to "settings effect on" and off for studio work. i use it that much i have a button assigned to switch it on and off.
Nailing the shot without changing settings rules the day in my world and for everybody else in my world.
Like I said, some of us know the theory, others don't. Collectively many don't care don't care.
That's why I had a #1 and #2.
Your #3 is simply a slower way, so it's not even a starter. You are still valuing a couple of seconds to optimise light on the sensor that we don't have in the real world.
Literally a millisecond can be the difference between somebody having their eyes open, or the right pose. Never mind 2 seconds faffing about with settings!!!!!!!
I can just see myself on the film set: "Ooh, can we take that shot again, I didn't quite maximise the light on my sensor the first time"
ALL that matters is nailing the shot. The decisive moment. Literally nothing else matters for folk like us. It never did and it never will.
Mischaracterisation again. No-one is talking about things that only affect the sixth decimal place. No-one is quibbling over 'finest distinctions' - just very broad ones about what people actually mean. And it's interesting that we seem to have come to a point where the very basic concepts that have underpinned photography for over 100 years are apparently 'irrelevant for field use'.
Bob, your writing, although carrying the scent of precision, is quite confusing for me. You keep mixing up points in the same paragraph. I find myself torn in multiple directions at the same time. I can't quite shake of this feeling I'm being toyed with. As you seem to think my concepts are wrong, please make this simple for me:
Start with an empty post and write down a numbered list of the conceptual errors you think I have (errors that make a practical difference to bringing home the photo). Don't quibble, stick to material things like "if you do that your photos will have 200% more noise that if you do this".
My real concern is not entertaining myself on a discussion forum, but reassuring myself I have an acceptable exposure strategy for field work. There is a lot of flexibility because many differences are small and just get lost in the general mishmash of incompetence. I'm focused on material errors, not minutiae, I'm not bothered with being 1/3rd of a stop imprecise with my settings but it would be nice to be sure I'm heading in the right direction. Within a stop or two would be good 😁
There is no WYSIWYG in a EVF when you are shooting raw. None.
If you insist on using zebras
If you insist on using zebras @109+, switch to bw to make them more accurate :)
The word "effectively" is important here. What I mean is that if ISO was like swapping in a faster film, the meter would reflect this by changing shutter and aperture settings for correct exposure at the higher ISO. But because ISO doesn't actually change the sensitivity of the sensor, but does tell the meter to change the shutter/aperture, the net result is effective underexposure.
If you're talking about the gamma curves that must be applied to get you to a color space like Adobe RGB, they don't affect the brightness of the values near clipping, since they are compensated for before the image is printed or displayed.
