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.
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.
If that makes you feel better sure. Will the question be aimed at theory on a tripod or for jobbing/wedding and the like? The latter are largely not on forums like this.
Previously, I used base ISO only. Then one day it dawned on me that a noisy shot that is sharp is better than a smooth shot that has unwanted motion blur or camera shake, so I switched to using auto-ISO. Then because of the mega threads on ISO and exposure, I changed my mind again and decided to keep the camera on base ISO and ETTR. When the light is too low to pull that off, I'm just going to set whatever aperture and shutter speed I need and ignore correct exposure. Just underexpose if that is the only option and brighten/lighten/raise midtones (whatever the official terminology is) in post. Jim said that might sometimes not be perfectly optimal as a strategy but it will do. I was happy.
I think what you are doing is OK.
Wonderful, I will look forward to enjoying the jet black view in my EVF after employing that amazing strategy, unless I want to disable live view (which I don't want to).
Maybe I'm old fashioned, but I like to use the EVF to frame things, rather than looking at a jet black view.
Here is someone who didn't read carefully what I am recommending. I did mention the limits of what pushes in posts should be contemplated.
@DavidMillier has written:Previously, I used base ISO only. Then one day it dawned on me that a noisy shot that is sharp is better than a smooth shot that has unwanted motion blur or camera shake, so I switched to using auto-ISO. Then because of the mega threads on ISO and exposure, I changed my mind again and decided to keep the camera on base ISO and ETTR. When the light is too low to pull that off, I'm just going to set whatever aperture and shutter speed I need and ignore correct exposure. Just underexpose if that is the only option and brighten/lighten/raise midtones (whatever the official terminology is) in post. Jim said that might sometimes not be perfectly optimal as a strategy but it will do. I was happy.
I think what you are doing is OK.
Phew, thank you. Second guessing myself so much, my head is rotating!
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.
Some want knowledge and understanding of the issues so that they can apply it in fieldwork when they see fit.
@DavidMillier has written:So raising the ISO is effectively underexposure.
At same scene lighting, f-stop and shutter speed, raising -- or lowering -- ISO does not affect exposure.
I'm wondering why that was said. While that is true for the same scene lighting, f-stop and shutter speed, it does not account for most cameras which change f-stop and/or shutter speed according to the ISO setting. Therefore, ISO affects the exposure by which I mean lx.s at the sensor.
@DavidMillier has written:Bob, your writing, although carrying the scent of precision, is quite confusing for me. You keep mixing up points in the same paragraph.
Example please. I think I addressed what you said point by point, and so far as I can see didn't mix up any points.
Here's one:
Well, if you thought that 'ETTR' is 'correct', then that's a given that anything less is 'under', isn't it? Still I would say that ETTR is a means to an end, not an end in itself. Most ETTR techniques I have seen will not maximise exposure - if maximising exposure is what you're aiming at. And of course there are always constraints to how large an exposure you can have, so what about those? If the exposure you're calling 'ETTR' at base ISO causes you to get camera shake and insufficient DOF for your subject, is it still the 'correct exposure'? If it isn't, then a smaller exposure would be 'correct' in those circumstances, wouldn't it? And if raising the ISO caused less noise, that would be an improvement rather than 'lying to yourself', is it not?
I have no idea of what the crux of this para is or how it relates to my previous one sentence. It's a melange of thoughts and ideas that seem to have little direct relevance to the text you responded to.
This is Jims article i copied and pasted
Without attribution. Don't do that again, please.
@BurnImage has written:It's much more interesting than reading theory or being spoken down to by other photographers
You realise that you've been doing a not inconsiderable amount of 'talking down' in this thread?
Really? I've been providing real world settings and asking how they might be improved. I've yet to receive an answer, just some cherry picked replies that ALWAYS revert to the theory.
Alas that's where we are at. Bob you are to be commended for allowing these threads to go on, but your personal bias towards tech answers vs practical suggestions still comes across loud and clear.
To you, anyone asking a question or challenging these threads is "talking down", whereas those continuing to prove their tech prowess are never "talking down". They are Gods who can do no wrong.
It's no wonder its an ageing demographic on places like this!!
@JohnMoyer has written:One thing I am still a little puzzled about is how the gamma curve (or curves) impact the values near clipping and how this might be predicted from a raw histogram.
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.
Thanks.
When choosing an exposure and if I have time I am guessing how I might use the data in the image to create an image for display. I have greater dynamic range in the camera than in the eventual display.
I usually use JPEG and sRGB because it works on nearly every display. I can in post processing compress a larger dynamic range so that it will fit into the JPEG and display on a device that knows sRGB. I do not see how any histogram available to me in the camera would help me get a better photo of the bird before it moves. For a landscape that is not moving, then I can take time to try various exposures.
If the end of the curve near darkest pixel values or brightest pixel values is compressed or stretched, it seems to me that there would be loss of information when it is quantized for display. Integer to float and back to integer.
If I put a greater dynamic range into the JPEG for display on a device, I have changed the scene that I remember seeing in a way that is sometimes pleasing to me and sometimes not.
If I photograph a Northern Cardinal in bright sunlight, I might need EV -2/3 to get detail of the feathers even if I increase the dynamic range in post processing. Yet, such a small number of pixels will have those very large red numbers that it will be hard to see in the histogram.
Thanks again.
@JimKasson has written:But his charts don't address how you should set ISO to optimize noise and headroom.
Some of his charts do.
True, but not the ones we were talking about.
@JimKasson has written: @BurnImage has written:No it doesn't have huge implications for those genres whatsoever. Folks in those genres can:
Know the theory and ignore it as they need to setup for nailing the shot.
or
Not know the theory and don't care anyway, as they need to setup for nailing the shot.
There is a third alternative: know the theory and use it to nail the shot.
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.
There are lots of ways to apply the theory. Some of then are a bit slower. Some are not.
@JimKasson has written: @DavidMillier has written:So raising the ISO is effectively underexposure.
At same scene lighting, f-stop and shutter speed, raising -- or lowering -- ISO does not affect exposure.
I'm wondering why that was said. While that is true for the same scene lighting, f-stop and shutter speed, it does not account for most cameras which change f-stop and/or shutter speed according to the ISO setting. Therefore, ISO affects the exposure by which I mean lx.s at the sensor.
There are modes in which that does happen. In the kind of cameras we're talking about, there are modes where it doesn't. It's important to keep the discussions of exposure and ISO separate, or we'll just go round in circles.
I can't see that I've mixed up any points there. I'll go through it.
@bobn2 has written:Example please. I think I addressed what you said point by point, and so far as I can see didn't mix up any points.
Here's one:
Quoted message:Well, if you thought that 'ETTR' is 'correct', then that's a given that anything less is 'under', isn't it?
OK, the context was that you'd said 'Correct exposure in my world is ETTR' and then 'Any exposure that is less than ETTR is underexposure'. So, isn't what I said correct and on-point. It's related to you own personal definition of 'correct exposure' - which, BTW, we later found that you don't follow.
Quoted message:Still I would say that ETTR is a means to an end, not an end in itself. Most ETTR techniques I have seen will not maximise exposure - if maximising exposure is what you're aiming at.
So, in my book 'ETTR' means the technique of adjusting exposure using the histogram, placing it 'to the right'. We later discovered that you use 'ETTR' differently, to mean 'expose as hot as you dare'. So, what we have here is us using different definitions for the same term and hence mis-communicating.
Quoted message:And of course there are always constraints to how large an exposure you can have, so what about those? If the exposure you're calling 'ETTR' at base ISO causes you to get camera shake and insufficient DOF for your subject, is it still the 'correct exposure'? If it isn't, then a smaller exposure would be 'correct' in those circumstances, wouldn't it? And if raising the ISO caused less noise, that would be an improvement rather than 'lying to yourself', is it not?
This is still on point, so far as I can see. It's asking whether you'd take into account factors such as motion blur and DOF when choosing exposure, because if you are taking those into account, surely they factor in which exposure is 'correct'. And then saying that a higher ISO might be advantageous in the circumstances where the 'correct exposure' is less than 'ETTR' at base ISO, according to those constraints.
@bobn2 has written: @DavidMillier has written:Ok, let's have a go at these.
Noise
1.
Noise is unwanted erroneous data. Ideally, there would be no noise, but the camera adds some (various sources, bucketed under the convenient term "read noise"), and light has a random quantum nature we call "shot noise".OK. I could quibble with some of that, but let's take that as a working definition, at least for now.
@DavidMillier has written:
- Shot noise can't avoided, read noise can be controlled to a degree. Modern cameras have good control over read noise.
Both can be controlled. Shot noise by controlling the number of photons incident on the sensor (which equates to exposure if we ignore sensor size). In the majority of cameras the ISO control offers some control over read noise, but not in a documented or standardised way - you need to investigate you camera to know how it works in this respect.
@DavidMillier has written:
- There is always some noise present
Yes
@DavidMillier has written:
- Noise isn't objectional if it is kept low compared to the desired data
I find that to be so simplistic as to be unhelpful. In the best of all possible worlds, the best SNR is the highest one. How much or which type of noise is 'objectionable' is dependent on so many factors - usage - viewing size - characteristic of the noise - artistic intent - whether the consequences of reducing the noise are more objectionable - and on and on.
@DavidMillier has written:
- The best way of controlling noise is to get more light on the sensor (controlled by level of ambient light, shutter and aperture settings).
That's the only way of increasing the shot noise SNR. It has no effect on read noise.
@DavidMillier has written:ETTR i.e. allowing sufficient light on to the sensor to swamp the noise without letting so much in it saturates the sensor is one common technique used by photographers to minimise noise
That's not a definition of ETTR that I would subscribe to. As I said earlier, ETTR is a means to an end, not an end in itself. The end goal is to maximise exposure subject to your working and pictorial constraints. ETTR - that is increasing exposure until a displayed histogram shows that all the recorded exposures in the image are within the bounds of the histogram, but there is no free space 'to the right' - is one technique that can be used to achieve that goal, but there are others. One of the issues with ETTR is what the histogram actually represents. So far as I know, no present camera offers a raw histogram. There are hacks to try to get around that of various kinds, some more successful than others.
@DavidMillier has written:
- Boosting ISO does not get more light on the sensor, it merely makes the midtones less dark (careful avoidance of disputed terminology!)
Nor does it get less light on the sensor - so if the exposure is limited by working and pictorial constraints, boosting ISO is not an issue. And since on most cameras, at least over some of the ISO range, boosting ISO will reduce read noise, it's worthwhile in those cases.
Theres a question worth asking pure ETTR advocates. If you've set the slowest shutter speed that you can whilst avoiding shake, and you've set the widest aperture that you can, which will give sufficient DOF, and the meter shows 'underexposed' at base ISO, what will you do?
1. Take the photo at base ISO with that exposure?
2. Increase exposure and risk shake or insufficient DOF?
3. Increase the ISO?
4. Decide not to take the photo?
and why is your choice the right one?I feel I've done my bit.
I feel you are just picking in holes in the clarity of my writing and nothing you have said is in disagreement with what I've said (if you allow yourself to see past the loose words and concentrate on the meaning). This is a disagreement over writing style. I feel you are demanding an unrealistic standard. This is not a thesis, it's a chat. I'm happy with the sloppiness and imprecision as long as we both know what the other means.
Nothing you've said confirms any material conceptual error on my part, just picky points not really relevant for field use. I'm happy my concepts of exposure, noise, DR and ETTR are good enough for practical purposes.
Talking of picky, I'm not sure why you are picking on my use of the ETTR term, either. It's not a technical term, it's just shorthand for "expose as hot as you dare". One has to decide on some sort of exposure strategy. Mine is to point the camera at my subject, and use the preview histogram to maximise exposure, ignoring what that does to the look of the image on the screen. Collect as much light as I can without blowing essential highlights. Once I have the image, I check the post capture histogram just to be sure. That's all I mean by ETTR. I know the histogram is not a raw histogram, I know the same goes for zebras and the like, but you've got to use something and that's what I use.
To answer your last question, previously I would have taken the exposure at base ISO and reduced shutter speed and damn the consequences to dof and camera shake. Then I realised that you can fix noise in post but you can't fix camera shake, so I switched to an auto ISO strategy. Then I learned from the mega threads here that ISO is not what I thought of that so I have changed to leaving everything at base ISOm choosing whatever shutter and aperture I need and just accepting less light on the sensor (raising the midtones in post). Jim assures me that the read noise benefits of raising ISO in dim conditions are minor and I won't be leaving a lot on the table with this approach. It simplifies things a lot as I am currently using 6 cameras, too many things to remember.
I basically failed English at school. and so be it, it didnt stop me raising an academic daughter. but i also get tired of the anal correct terminology discussions.
@JimKasson has written: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.
Thanks.
When choosing an exposure and if I have time I am guessing how I might use the data in the image to create an image for display. I have greater dynamic range in the camera than in the eventual display.
I usually use JPEG and sRGB because it works on nearly every display. I can in post processing compress a larger dynamic range so that it will fit into the JPEG and display on a device that knows sRGB. I do not see how any histogram available to me in the camera would help me get a better photo of the bird before it moves. For a landscape that is not moving, then I can take time to try various exposures.
If the end of the curve near darkest pixel values or brightest pixel values is compressed or stretched, it seems to me that there would be loss of information when it is quantized for display. Integer to float and back to integer.
If I put a greater dynamic range into the JPEG for display on a device, I have changed the scene that I remember seeing in a way that is sometimes pleasing to me and sometimes not.
If I photograph a Northern Cardinal in bright sunlight, I might need EV -2/3 to get detail of the feathers even if I increase the dynamic range in post processing. Yet, such a small number of pixels will have those very large red numbers that it will be hard to see in the histogram.
Thanks again.
When you say you use JPEG and sRGB, do you mean that you have the camera write the JPEG files? Then my article doesn't apply to you.
Or are you saying your final form is an sRGB JPEG, and you shoot raw? In that case, what tone curve is applied in postproduction is entirely up to you.
i also get tired of the anal correct terminology discussions.
It's not a 'correct terminology discussion'. It's a 'do you understand the basics' discussion.