Probably doesnt need a thread but I've struggled with photo editing forever and this helped a lot recently.

Download a linear profile for your camera, and when loaded into LR, select it and boost exposure by 0.7, and now you're in a much cleaner slate for editing, and are seeing something extremely close to what the camera saw when it took the picture. Also the sliders dont fuck with each other nearly as much.

Its weird how much the Adobe profiles can absolutely nuke the dynamic range and colors on certain pictures, or why this would be "standard" on professional grade software.

its a snapshit, but all I did was white balance, +1.00 exposure and + 20 saturation and I'm miles closer to what I'd consider an acceptable picture. if youre retarded like me and never understood lightroom, maybe this helps a little.

nothing looks better or worse here

truly not all photos benefit from editing

>>4446559 (OP)
I think most people already just load in profiles for their camera. Also, the before in this case looks better than the after.

>>4446564
its not so much about better or worse, its that adobe is already "editing" your pictures on import by a pretty huge degree whether you know it or not, this is just a way around that. you can do as you like.

>>4446559 (OP)
I use the linear response profile curve often in C1, same idea
https://www.captureone.com/blog/take-full-control-of-the-tone-mapping-by-using-a-linear-film-curve

Men of culture use brightness not exposhit.

>>4446559 (OP)
you could have gotten better results by just using a CPL filter... lmao

>>4446559 (OP)
What do you mean "download a linear profile" what kind of retarded faggot KEK shit is this?
Is the linear scene referred rendering not something that's easy to get in Adobaby software?

You get this if you just disable the meme modules in darktable like filmic/etc and go scene referred. Do people using Adobe really have to go "download" something for this? Lmao.

>>4446559 (OP)
>professional grade software
it isn't.

>>4446668
Explains why no professionals at all ever use it

>>4446562
These look the same

>>4446669
cope

>>4446559 (OP)
Why fuck around in post instead of shooting with one stop more light? Have you really never considered learning to take better photos?

>>4446669
>Explains why no professionals at all ever use it
True. They don't. They use capture one.

>>4446684
The bigger issue is his pictures look legit worse in the after than before.

>>4446669
The serious ones rarely do

Adobe is like microsoft. The pay off schools to baby duck people into their shit. Capture one is like apple. Vastly superior, but lacks shit dumb children want like AI noise reduction (buy a better camera), AI generated image content (sell your camera), and video games.

>>4446691
Facts.
Adobe are child predators preying on kids in the school system. It's disgusting. They groom kids into using their shit software and then they grow up and have to pay for it, being milked, because they were taught to use software that they can never own.

It's a giant fucking scam and should be illegal but Adobe pays big money to lobbyists and the department of education to ensure their software is part of the curriculum.

>>4446691
Darktable is like android. Works on even the best machines and is widely used by professionals but man children poseur "artist" jewish nepo babies hate it

>>4446698
You sound like a pajeet. No one uses android except poor people. Even in countries that get the android icon on the market share meme map, the upper crust is all in on apple devices for their superior security and design.

Darktable is shit. Nothing freetards make belongs outside of a programming or server environment. It pales in comparison to capture one, which isnt even that expensive. You will now proceed to do what EVERY freetard manchild does, and decry its superiority for only addressing "skill issues" and pretend reading the arch wiki to compile your photos from source makes you smart.

>>4446712
>You sound like a pajeet. No one uses android except poor people
There are android phones that cost three or more times as much as the newest iPhone. You have never talked to a rich person Ranjeesh.

>>4446717
There are also tacky watches that cost more than a rolex or omega, but the only people wearing them are oil rich/crime rich arabs and slavs, and maybe some terminally tasteless chinese.

>inb4 tech billionaires
Nerd has no taste. More at 11. Even with his money elon can't hold down a main bitch for more than a week.

>>4446718
iphones are notoriously cheap garbage that get destroyed by dropping them in puddle
I use sony phone

>>4446722
Yeah it’s a nice enough copy of the real thing. If you’re going to get an imitation iPhone you might ass well go with a sorny.

>>4446717
I know. I’ve seen them. They look like power rangers toys. They go to the same market that buys purple lambos. Lottery winners and the newly rich future poor in general.

>>4446559 (OP)
nigga never heard about ETTR

>we in the "upper crust" use iphones and lightroom
Sent from my inner city shared rental flat.

I sincerely wish you get to see the world some day and develop perspective on your situation

>>4446986
the inner city ghetto of NYC where you pay a jewish landlord to live around blacks is the upper crust you filthy fucking poor

>>4446983
What does ETTR have to do with li ear profiles?

>>4446999
>...when loaded into LR, select it and boost exposure by 0.7, and now you're in a much cleaner slate for editing
ETTR helps preserve darker tonal ranges by avoiding the higher noise that often acompanies them, which leads to a better position for editing.

>>4446983
If anything it seems ETTR shots would benefit the most from this technique.

>>4447000
ETTR is an exposure technique
Linear profiles are just a a flatter curve applied to that raw data in post. The raising exposure isn't a correction for underexposure like can happen when shooting ETTR, it's a correction for the flatter curve applied
If anything ETTR shooting arguably makes linear profiles less important
One affects how the RAW file is captured, the other is just how that RAW data is interpreted

>>4447007
ETTR can get you washed out highlights even after exposure correction, so maybe this flatter curve could work for it. I'll try it out some time even though I don't really need ETTR because I don't care about the lower zones much in most of my work.

>>4447080
Why is everything you post disinfo?

No, ETTR does not change colors or reduce saturation. If your camera is not clipping because its a shit canon sensor, and your raw processor was made by someone whose time is worth money, exposure correction is applied before other transforms and standard exposure and +1 exposure -1 in post look the SAME, with a stop less noise in the latter case.

Who am I kidding, of course the 1: tripfag 2: moon landing denier 3: equivalence coper posts straight disinfo.
>"my work"
Faggot you have no work. Your crowning achievement is focusing on a leaf.

>>4447086
he uses a shit canon sensor and darktable and unironically has no idea how good people with jobs have it lol

he even believes in "equivalence" because he never leaves the house and isn't aware that most ff users shoot at iso 100 from dawn to dusk

>>4447080
If you are overexposing, you aren't doing ETTR properly

>>4447086
>No, ETTR does not change colors or reduce saturation
Not in my (admittedly limited) experience
I see your aggravated post was just meant to shill NASA points though.
>>4447087
I use a Canon but don't use darktable and usually recommend people they pirate instead, nice try though.
>>4447096
ETTR IS OVEREXPOSURE. The idea is you expose as much as you can before clipping.

>>4447101
Your experience is limited because you're a retard. Why do you give advice if all you know is some bullshit you read on a retards blog once?

This is how ETTR works:
Digital cameras count photons, that's it. Each pixel is a photon counter.
They can only count so many (clipping). Lower photon counts have more impactful noise.
When you ETTR, you expose just until clipping, which reduces the impact of noise.
Say this is exposure compensation +2 in camera
Which is then -2 in post

all ETTR does is point the camera at say, 50 photons, and leave it open a bit more so it gets 100 photons
Because light is inherently uncertain the 50 photon exposure is (asspull numbers) 50 with an error margin +/- 10., and the 100 photon exposure is 100 +/- 5.
Reducing exposure in post looks at the raw data and says "pretend this value is half before creating the image" so you get 50 +/- 2.

If you are shooting raw with a competently made camera, and a raw developer programmed by someone whose time was worth money, the colors only change insofar as they are less impacted by noise.

If you experienced otherwise you did something wrong (you think "equivalence" makes medium format pointless and actually believe equivalence includes ISO, which it plainly does not, so this is likely) or your camera/software is junk that does not produce good raws or process them properly.

>>4447101
The moon landing is an undeniable fact. There are ~75mp negatives, shot with tack sharp zeiss lenses, using special radiation and dust proofed hasselblads to show for it.

Faking these would require convincing digital manipulation that was beyond the simple, robust technology they were using back then. These cameras would have shown any studio fakery easily. Ironically as technology became more advanced it became less suited for use in space and now the retards can't get shit to work because even crew modules for docking with the ISS run bloated javashit.

>>4447107
>Faking these would require convincing digital manipulation
No, just a damn good studio

>tfw when believe in the moon landing but vehemently detest "programmers whose time is worth something" schizo and all his takes
Almost makes me want to be the doubles advocate but Ill just enjoy the thread from the sideline

>>4447103
Too bad you're right about this but still deny equivalency

>>4447103
>Your experience is limited because you're a retard
My experience is limited because I haven't needed to do ETTR bs.
>When you ETTR, you expose just until clipping, which reduces the impact of noise.
You're just agreeing with me.
>If you are shooting raw with a competently made camera, and a raw developer programmed by someone whose time was worth money, the colors only change insofar as they are less impacted by noise.
Wrong, because they use curves that implicitly boost exposure from midtones to highlights before you get to touch any slider. They're meant to get you closer to the final image from the get-go assuming your desired image is similar to a SOOC JPEG.
>and actually believe equivalence includes ISO, which it plainly does not
It does.
>>4447107
lol, called it
>>4447111
This

>>4447101
>ETTR IS OVEREXPOSURE
>You're just agreeing with me
Is it possible to have clipping highlights without overexposing?

>>4447117
Yes, if the projected has a higher dynamic range than your medium can record. Hence why things like exposure stacking or ND filters are used.

>>4447117
>>4447118
The projected image I meant. But you can also overexpose without clipping highlights, and that's the idea behind ETTR.

>>4447116
hi

ettr does not desaturate colors

your camera is shit. good cameras raws do not have tone curves.

equivalence does not include iso because sensors are not all perfect examples of their technology and they have varying megapixel counts and different real sensitive areas

a gfx100s is strictly better than a full frame camera in all lighting scenarios even if it doeant have as wide of an aperture

full frame is better than micro four thirds period

hope this helps you navigate the challenging world of gear!
>the challenge: accepting that brands you hate make better cameras than you will ever be able to afford

>>4447125
>your camera is shit. good cameras raws do not have tone curves.
It's not the camera but the default lightroom profile you dense bastard
>equivalence does not include iso because sensors are not all perfect examples of their technology and they have varying megapixel counts and different real sensitive areas
Nobody said equivalence was exact, its simply close enough to look the same.
>a gfx100s is strictly better than a full frame camera in all lighting scenarios even if it doeant have as wide of an aperture
Strictly wrong.
>the challenge: accepting that brands you hate make better cameras than you will ever be able to afford
LOL, finally the shill shows his true face. The whole point of Fuji GFX is that it's crop medium format at a fraction of the price that one from a reputable brand costs.

>>4447129
hi

capture one does not apply curves before exposure. i am sorry you are stuck on lightroom.

equivalence often does not look the same at modest viewing sizes. bigger sensors are often dual gain and high resolution which improves color and detail rendition at all ISOs even in small 8x10s.

a gfx is better than a full frame camera in all lighting scenarios because its superior signal chain has less noticeable noise than an a7rv and its high resolution enables superior noise reduction when targeting ff sized outputs

and fujifilm is a reputable brand. they made hasselblads lenses before hasselblad died. hasselblad is currently chinese and disreputable.
the only other option is phase one.

fujifilm cameras are well loved and most people are happy with them. xtrans legitimately decreases moire by reducing the number of likely interference patterns and their lenses are great.

i hope this brings you one step closer to growing up!

>>4447133
Lightroom doesnt have this problem either. cANON is an idiot. Whatever he did wrong we may never know. It would be like asking a monkey what it ate for breakfast.

Maybe the DSLR he borrowed from his dad does some raw cooking

>>4447133
>capture one does not apply curves before exposure. i am sorry you are stuck on lightroom.
It does, it's the camera profile. We're not talking about the tone curve with sliders here. However, it gives you the choice of a linear conversion.
>>4447134
>Lightroom doesnt have this problem either
Again it does

>>4447118
So then is ETTR about preventing clipping or preventing over exposure?

>>4447125
>why yes, I've been doing photography for 3 months now

>>4447138
It doesnt. If your ETTR shots are fucked your camera (probably a d200 or micro four thirds) has fake raws.

>>4447158
ETTR reduces noise, mushiness, and color casts by filling the shadows with more information, without clipping the highlights. Just dont have a shit camera. Anything apsc or ff with a modern sony sensor is fine.

>>4447133
What do you think capture ones profiles do? They apply a curve, including linear

>>4447165
They dont apply a curve and THEN exposure. They apply exposure and then a curve so ETTR doesnt fuck the colors.

Its the brightness slider that’s post-curve exposure iirc

>>4447166
Are you thinking we're talking about the actual curve tool?
Both exposure correction based on RAW flags and a profile curve are applied before you even get to the actual tool adjustments

>>4447168
I’m talking about the base curve, and the exposure slider actually goes happens before it. The brightness slider after.

ETRR doesnt desaturate colors. It makes them more accurate. If your cope for inaccurate colors was to add more punch then maybe, but what you get is what the camera would have seen at a slightly lower ISO.

>>4447169
When people say profile curve, that's before all that
There are exposure adjustments a raw program makes based on the raw file separate from the actual exposure slider itself
The exposure and brightness differences aren't order of operation either, they make adjustments in different ways

Not that anon

>>4447169
What canon's problem is, is his shit camera. You can notice this more if you shoot gear that's ~13 years apart. The tone curve actually is baked into the raws of his rebel t2i.

>>4447163
ETTR is pretty much overkill if your sensor isn't noisy in the shadows.
>>4447158
Like the anon above said, it reduces noise by maxing out the exposure. You then have to dial it down in post.
>>4447166
Yes they do apply a curve. And a color matrix at that, because every camera has a slightly different CFA.
>>4447168
This
>>4447169
The profile curve is part of how the program interprets the RAW file.

>>4447200
Your problem is Dunning-Kruger syndrome. You're uber confident that the curve isn't applied before the sliders even though you don't even understand what curve we're talking about.

>>4447222
With modern sony sensors, curves are not applied before any sliders. I have literally never had saturation issues with ETTR on my A7RIII. I can expose +/- 0, and +2 then -2, and get the same image with less noise, and no other changes.

I'm sorry about your vintage SLR shit but mirrorless is objectively superior and DSLRs are super shit here. Then again, even phones have already surpassed the quality of a D850+24mm f1.8 G (the sharpest landscape setup on SLRs) unless you go full turbo autist, ISO 64 mirror lockup tripod shooting, and swap your nikkor lens for a zeiss.

>>4447223
>With modern sony sensors, curves are not applied before any sliders.
If no curves were applied your photos would look just wrong.

>>4447225
he doesn't seem to understand that the camera applies the so-called "colour science" to the raw images. it's like saying the filmstock doesn't have a curve inherent, which as we know is kind of an impossibility. the capture will be affected by the medium it is impossible to do it otherwise.

ETTR doesn't desaturate colors, but if you have noisy shadows, your editor will render them with extra contrast by default to hide some of the shittiness. This is an automatic default, but you can just add the contrast and crush some blacks on an ETTR image.

If you believe this fake contrast is somehow an improvement you would love micro four thirds.

>>4447228
It's not so much the camera as it is the translation of the data to a picture by the RAW converter. Some cameras do bake in noise reduction and things like that (like the infamous Sony star eater) but this is besides that. Every camera has a color filter array and in order to go from the readings of each subpixel to a picture one has to translate and demosaic that data.

>>4447228
Raws do not contain color science retard. They contain per-pixel photon counts, plus some of the unused pixels for determining dark current noise and the metadata.

If your raw has a curve applied your camera is super shit and writes them like that to make its dynamic range issues less obvious.

>>4447225
Wow, a graph of.. .you!

>>4447229
That's because an underexposed image is high contrast. More of the shadow detail falls below the noise floor and literally can't be brought out as an image. You can add contrast but you can't bring detail out that the camera never saw.

>>4447232
>Raws do not contain color science retard.
right, this explains why if you reproduce the same scene with the same settings and the same lens on different camera bodies the raws won't be perfect replicas. surely if we're capturing pure photos the results would be exactly the same across bodies and sensors. explain why it isnt.

everything cANON says is a lie

just do the opposite of what he says
>moon: landed on
>fuji and sony make great cameras
>ignore DSLRs. they're worse and less honest about reality. mirrorless has better image quality and is more fun to use.
>always ETTR and lower the ISO if you can
>equivalence doesn't matter in real life. you dont have to use the same settings as a shittier camera.

>>4447233
>if you reproduce the same scene with the same settings and the same lens on different camera bodies the raws won't be perfect replicas
With the same lens (which dramatically filter color), yes, they will be basically the same. Niggas shoot with a color checker without even using the same lens and convince you they have canon colors, and then you find out they used a sony. This happens a lot.

>>4447229
Funny that you mention MFT, because the ISO mislabeling some MFT cameras do is basically a hidden ETTR in order to make the sensor seem cleaner.
Take for example the Olympus OM-D E-M1 Mark II, its ISO 200 is actually ISO 83.

>>4447238
Sorry I thought you said ETTR made things look worse by desaturating the colors or something, because you got negative film mixed up with digital or are 14 and clueless but have a huge ego

>>4447236
every retard that replies to name fags get what they deserve. This doesn't need to be said

>>4447240
I didn't say ETTR by itself desaturated things, I said ETTR can look desaturated without the help of a linear profile because the RAW converter overshoots the highlights.

>>4447080
There it is

he said it washes out the highlights
nigga if it does pick one
1: you clipped a channel you didn't ETTR
2: your camera is just shit, like nikon d200 levels of shit
get a clue

>>4447242
>samefagging

>>4447243
>enter exposure slider box
>type -1
>hit enter
>highlights no longer washed out because its the same color just with less noise

monumental cope

>>4447244
It's neither of those, it's:
3: your RAW converter applied a curve that boosted the exposure in colors that didn't need any boosting.

>>4447251
See >>4447247

>>4447252
See >>4446586
What they change there is the profile that translates the RAW data BEFORE the curve tool.

>>4447254
I ETTR all the time and I have never needed a linear profile sorry. I just exposure -1, and then I'm done. it looks like a normally exposed image but with more accurate colors and less grain.

>>4447255
>1 stop
Sounds like your ETTR is mild at best

>>4447256
I just don't use GNDs, or excessively large sensors.

>>4447257
So? If you're barely overexposing one stop you're far from true ETTR. What does your histogram look like with uniWB applied? I'm pretty sure far from the limit.

>>4447258
Sir this is a micro four thirds board

>>4447255
>I have never needed a linear profile
Sure, but I'd be most people don't even know about them to begin with
It is a way to more easily get more out of the RAW though depending on how you make adjustments
Just think of it as a low contrast profile to begin grading with, kind of like log footage

>>4447262
You just made me realize cANON is actually a lost /vid/ poster who thinks stills raws work exactly like 12 bit video footage, and the curve is like selecting a gamma before recording

So. Cameras sensors are actually analog devices. They don't output a number they output a charge of stored energy from light hitting them. It's the following series of chips (analog-digital conversion and the encoding process) that does its best to cram the smooth analog voltage into a set number of digital squares.

stills are 14 bit or 16 bit so the raw itself is extremely linear, it's an absurd amount of precision and more than anyone really needs. the linear profile in a raw developer is just a "no adjustments made upon opening" checkbox. there's so much latitude in the raw file even if you don't use the linear curve, ETTR works like it should (lower exposure by the amount you overexposed). Video is always at least a little non-linear because it processes the real DR of the sensor to fit in 12 bits or less, so ETTR does make things look a little different there, even if a log gamma (which is still not perfectly linear because it needs to cram the 14-16 bit ADCs output into <12 bits) is used.

and this is why photographers get confused and argue about dynamic range, cameras with low dynamic range (ie: their raws are <14 bit, or their sensors are so noisy <14 bits of the raw are useful information) say DR doesn't matter, because in these applications the raw is a little non-linear like video and there appears to be enough dynamic range - until you edit.

>>4447274
The RAW is linear, but the processed data you work with in your editor is not unless you apply a linear profile.

>>4447276
ETTR works as it should with modern cameras and normal editors like capture one and lightroom. If your camera was set to +1 be -1 in the raw and it will look correct.

Maybe this is not true of a very shitty camera and it will look a little different.

>>4447274
Still sounds more like you're just confused
>the linear profile in a raw developer is just a "no adjustments made upon opening" checkbox
That's not true though, it's just a relatively flat curve profile applied to the RAW, and even C1 dev's acknowledge it's not actually linear and there still is some highlight protection

Who says DR doesn't matter?

>>4447276
This is why I asked >>4446999 because idiots like >>4447277 think they are directly related

>>4447279
>Who says DR doesn't matter?
idk micro four thirds users
>Well capture one's isn't linear
Again, even with defaults, if your camera isn't shit, if your raw was overexposed one stop, just lowering the exposure slider will make it look exactly as if it weren't (but with less noise). As long as you don't clip a channel, then the colors will get weird.
https://www.onlandscape.co.uk/2016/05/clipping-colour/
Maybe if your camera is shit, like nikon d200 levels of shit, then ETTR will break down a bit.

>>4447281
You don't need actual clipping for washed-out colors to occur. Hell, look at the image in the OP where there's little to no detail on the sheet metal before linearization. Something like that can also be seen with ETTR.

>>4447281
>if your raw was overexposed one stop, just lowering the exposure slider will make it look exactly as if it weren't
True (provided it didn't clip). That still doesn't have anything to do with a linear profile though.
ETTR and linear profiles are different things. ETTR is an exposure technique and linear profiles is a processing method.

>>4447284
Linear profiles seem to play nicer with ETTR than other profiles do though

>>4447283
Yes you do retard

>>4447285
True, I find they give much better control for processing, especially with highlights. They don't change exposure like ETTR does, if you clip at capture, linear profiles don't fix that. ETTR + linear profiles is ideal.

>>4447285
Works on my machine

>>4447286
The more intense the light the more bleeding into the other channels especially with weak CFAs. The more bleeding into the other channels the less intense the color looks.

>>4446562
The bottom one has better shadow detail.

Picrel is C1 Film Standard vs Linear profile
Linear profile has +1 exp, +29 contrast, +9 saturation relative to Film Standard profile
Look basically the same, can only really see differences flicking back and forth between the two

>>4447236
kek

>>4447638
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9HQfauGJaTs
The space broadcast camera was so shitty fast moving objects separated into their component colors