Thread 4450154

I don't get what spot metering is or what the histogram is supposed to tell me

>>4450154 (OP)
see the camera lens differences?
that's why.

>>4450154 (OP)
google more you fucking retard

>>4450154 (OP)
think of the different metering modes as putting a board over a window. the different metering modes would be like putting different kinds of holes in that board to let light through (or measure it in the camera's case). spot metering would be a small hole at any spot you choose (in most modern cameras). Center weighted puts a hole in the middle and subsequently smaller holes around the center one to a certain range(or the whole sensor in many modern cameras). evaluative metering works like center weighted, but it follows your focus point (so would maybe make more sense to call it something like spot-weighted or what have you)

>>4450162
So why would I do that instead of having it meter the entire image?

>>4450163
for example say someone is standing in front of a bright light, and you cannot have them move. if you use a metering mode that looks at the whole frame, the bright light is going to skew your exposures, and tthe subject will be too dark. so you can spot meter just on your subject instead, and have them exposed correctly, at the expense of the background blowing out. things like that.

>>4450166
wtf that's like magic

>>4450166
>you can only have a correctly exposed subject or a correctly exposed background during midday/blue hour
I-I swear I enjoy having no dynamic range! I-it’s challenging and stimulates my creativity! BAKA!

>>4450183
but that's not at all what i said or even implied you schizophrenic kook

>>4450186
I mean it's technically true but any real camera made after 2013 won't blow out the background unless its at iso 800+

>>4450186
I wasn’t even trying to argue with you…

>don't even try to argue with someone
>still somehow get in an argument
Such is life on the Chan

>>4450200
what tone would you describe your initial post as if not some kind of mockery or petulance?

>>4450154 (OP)
Metering is the camera determins how bright or dark to suggest settings
The metering modes decide how the camera calculates that by choosing what or what isn't included or what parts of the frame to bias towards
Spot metering tells the camera to look at the focus point and judge based on that (or look at the center point only on many older cameras)
You can do photography 100% of the time without ever changing metering modes, you just need to understand the limitations of a given mode and make adjustments
Like >>4450166 could get the same exposure in any metering mode + exposure compensation

>>4450154 (OP)
Histograms show you the amount of pixels that fit into that specific tonal value. If I take a photo of a blackboard, the histogram would be a big lump at the left side because everything is nearly black (technically a whole bunch of shades of gray). Actual photos are more complex and using the histogram can tell you how bright or dark your image is being recorded as, without relying on ambigious things like your LCD screen or your settings. All the pixels that are on the left most edge (and only the edge itself) are completely black, and everything on the far right edge is completely white. Normally that means you've crushed the blacks and cooked the highlights until they have no actual detail; just black and white. It is generally good to avoid this. This is why the "perfect exposure" has a wide lump focused reasonably well in the center of the histogram, and nothing touches the edges.

But, if you have true black in your scene (say, a night shot with fuck all lighting) or light sources (the sun, a lamp, reflections off shiny surfaces) you *should* have some part of the histogram showing some pixels in either of those values.
The center of a histogram is 18% middle gray, which if you use evaluative or center weighted metering, is what the camera is going to try and aim for. The reason we sometimes want spot metering is that the camera will try to expose for the whole image, which is sometimes not possible (limit of DR) or not what we want (see >>4450166).

Spot metering lets you meter for a very small region at the center of your shot, which you can aim at different areas and get given different EV values. So you can feel free to focus on the important parts of the image you wish to nail exposure on. This is a very handy technique combined with the 'Zone System', where you can roughly tell what EV value a given surface should have and test your exposure by pointing at different parts of the image instead of trusting the camera software.
>pic rel

>>4450154 (OP)
Most histograms are generated from the mini jpeg preview and can be safely disregarded. Just use a full frame/medium format camera and know you can overexpose 2-3 stops past the point where something is visibly turning white and recover that in raw, and 4-6 stops past the point where something is visibly turning black.

>>4450256
Easy. Don't shoot jpeg and set picture to neutral

>>4450299
>he doesn't know about uniwb
just buy a large sensor so you dont have to guess as accurately its that easy

buy the nerds favorite camera so you dont actually have to be a nerd

>>4450253
Fucking BASED post fren. Too many people blindly believe clipping highlights or crushing blacks is some deadly sin of photography because they blindly follow the histogram or similar things. Irrelevant detail can go into the extreme zones without issue if that's what it takes to put the relevant part of the picture at the center zones. Can you imagine Adams worrying about how the crosses in Moonrise, Hernandez, NM have blown highlights? These nerds, the histogram talibans probably would.

Tl;dr: Don't use spot metering unless you want your pics to look funky

>>4450154 (OP)
honestly at this point after 1.5 years I just place it on evaluative metering when using AV or TV and use exposure compensation with the wheel OR complete manual. These metering modes are just shit and mean nothing when using Live View and optical view finder has always been a guessing game.

>>4450154 (OP)
be careful anon, spot metering will focus all light on a single spot (thus the name) and if not used properly it could damage your lens aperture and sensor if used repeatedly, please read your camera and lens manufacturer to check for compatibility.

>>4450213
it was avant garde shitpostery

>>4450943
try not pointing your camera directly at the sun, that's usually a good idea in general

>>4450154 (OP)
Metering is for fuckken nerds. Hipshot that shit like the Hindenburg or you’re just a faffing cooont

>>4451606
>a good idea

No.

>>4450325
>Too many people blindly believe clipping highlights or crushing blacks is some deadly sin of photography because they blindly follow the histogram or similar things.
Or that no clipping means that the photo isn't overexposed.

>>4450253
Thanks for this post. I’ve been using the EV bar all wrong. I might print and laminate that chart so I can always have it with me until it sinks in. So far, I’ve taken every photo trying to expose everything at 0 which just makes everything a middle grey. Time to take photos with actual whites and actual blacks…

>>4450253
I did some research on this graph. Turns out it’s something Ansel Adams and Fred Archer devised. Adams’ books “The Negative” and “Examples: The Making of 40 Photographs” explain more of the theory behind the zone system and discuss how he used it in practice while metering for his exposures.

>>4451740
It doesn't really, if you understand the zone system.

this is now a thread on metering. hopefully this is useful for someone.

This was an explanation of Ansel Adams' and Fred Archer's zone system by Fred Picker. He taught this metering technique to his students so they would be able to take the photos they wanted without technical issues limiting their creative ability.

>>4451919
Good contrib anon. Actual useful info that can help people better understand metering in general.

For digital, it's better to think of the zone system as a concept in post processing. Just ETTR, or do HDR if there's too much dynamic range. Clipping is pointless if you are shooting a camera with halfway decent DR.

>>4451700
>Hipshot that shit like the Hindenburg
1.21 Niggawats. One of the most reproduced images of all time (+ how many Zeppelin I albums sold?) and it was taken from the hip like point & shoot snapshit.

>I wonder if he used a flash tho
OHHH SHIT AND JESUS

>>4451942
I’m curious how one would meter for flash with this zone system.

>>4452167
Film isnt like digital you can miss by five stops and it looks awesome

>>4452205
That's where GN value comes into play. Flashes are given rating for their expected power and distance to subject, so you'd be doing some math - especially if shooting above ISO 100 or at different powers.

>>4452209
That was heaps helpful, thanks. Thinking I might write the guide numbers for each ISO stop on my pop-up flash because the math is painful.

>>4450253
After actually putting the Zone System to work in the field, I'm convinced this should be the stickied image. It's the most helpful, practical advice for exposure I've ever come across. I'll never meter or expose my shots the same way again.

>>4452800
I've been telling people about it for a while but rather than give it a shot they'd call me names, their loss. People here don't want to learn anything but what the next trendy conspicuous consumption is.

>>4450253
I've always thought the Roman numerals make it more difficult to understand.

>>4452800
Its actually useless on modern cameras

>>4452816
it's actually not

>>4452820
It is. ETTR just don’t clip. There you go, zone system.

Digital does not blow out to white gracefully like film. And it all has exposure preview b

>>4452810
>American education
Meanwhile we have two whole alphabets lel

>>4452800
Just learn how to use a histogram

>>4452823
>>4452833
The zone system is useful to know but not mandatory for digital. The theory can be used to make judgements based on available light and exposing for the correct elements.
ETTR is a more straightforward system to use at the time but requires you to do some sort of post-processing or you risk things looking overexposed, so you're just offloading the work for later.

It's almost like knowing how to use multiple tools to help you can be beneficial overall.

>>4450154 (OP)
expose to the right without clipping highlights is what it's telling you

>>4452837
Helpful for beginners to learn how to expose properly sure (unless you have an RP)
>so you're just offloading the work
ETTR is about SNR, not perfect exposure

How's your first few months of photography going?

>>4452863
>How's your first few months of photography going?
Being a sardonic fuckwit to people joining the board is sure to drive up engagement and save the board from the sub-100 user gearfaggotry.
It's useful info period. Several anons have thanked clueless because they found it useful and didn't know. Everyone has to learn somewhere.

If you want to be pedantic, ETTR is for shadow SNR with minimal effects on mid-tones and highlights. You're assumed to be making further adjustments, but most beginners are shooting sooc jpeg and not RAW + a workflow. Zone metering has its place even if you're going to be all high and mighty over it.

>>4452871
>It's almost like knowing how to use multiple tools to help you can be beneficial overall.
Can dish it out but not take it huh?

>>4452871
>It's useful info period.
For shooting film, which works by increasing density through exposure, but also, messes with color as you overexpose more, and blows out gracefully instead of fucking up colors in "half-blow out" (one clipped channel) and creating weird shifts and artefacts.

ETTR is for digital, because ETTR has *NO* effect on midtones and highlights outside of the effects of reduced noise (more accuracy), but overexposing enough to clip just one or two channels does.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clipping_(photography)

>>4452878
>ETTR is for digital, because ETTR has *NO* effect on midtones and highlights outside of the effects of reduced noise (more accuracy), but overexposing enough to clip just one or two channels does.
Wrong.

>>4452874
Errr, I wasn't that anon, anon. But like, knowing how shit works IS useful? That's the statement and it's not wrong, even if worded poorly.
You're calling him a noob in a condescending tone.
Not exactly the same shit.

>>4452881
No... it's very much right.

We had this argument already. You lost on all counts.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LacsIpstyfc
https://photographylife.com/exposing-to-the-right-explained

The only way colors change is by getting less noisy and more accurate.

Here's a newbie who had the same problem as you but without being aggressively wrong
https://www.mu-43.com/threads/color-shift-with-ettr-developing.80124/
Notice very shit cameras are so touchy with ETTR it's basically pointless

At this point we can safely assume everything cANON posts is purposeful disinfo.

>>4452889
he’s the other pee in a pod along with cine(zoo)fag

Another thread devolves into arguing. Sad :(

>>4452896
cANON posts disinfo and then gets btfo and never takes the L

he should kill himself along with cinefag the bestiality fetishist (cinefag is probably or actually definitely the one calling other anons zoophiles he is obsessed with dog dick)

>>4452885
You're right, knowing how to use a histogram is useful

>>4452886
Alec's relative already proved you wrong, WITH PICS:
https://www.joaquinbaldwin.com/blogs/posts/expose-to-the-right-ettr-isnt-always-right

>>4453068
The lightroom histogram is not the raw histogram. You can clip a channel in the raw and still have a non-clipped histogram in lightroom.

ETTR only doesn't work when you don't know what you're doing. Proper ETTR is:
1: bracket in half stops because literally no camera supports raw histograms
2: look at actual RAW histograms, not conversion/preview histograms in the editor, using rawdigger or fastrawviewer
3: delete anything with a clipped channel

>>4453073
>1: bracket in half stops because literally no camera supports raw histograms
It's called uniWB or default white balance in Sony's case.
Slight overexposure works but when you get to the true edge of clipping things start falling apart fast. I've tested it myself. Also certain colors are more vulnerable than others, probably a function of the transmittance of CFA colors.

>>4450154 (OP)
Is there some setting that just replicates what I see with my eyes?

>>4453073
>1: bracket in half stops because literally no camera supports raw histograms
Pointless step, it should take one day of playing around with a given camera to get an idea of how the in-camera histogram translates to the actual file
>2: look at actual RAW histograms, not conversion/preview histograms in the editor, using rawdigger or fastrawviewer
Also pointless, see above, you don't need to see the actual "RAW histogram", you just experience using a given camera to know how a certain histogram will translate to the actual file

>>4453076
>The edge of clipping
No, clipping period. If it doesn't clip (all 14 bits filled from the noise floor to the top) it's not losing color info.
>Certain colors are more vulnerable
Because you clip certain channels first.

>>4453084
Maybe YOU don't, but cANON clearly needs to look at his actual raws lmao

>>4453085
Some of my cameras run ML, I've used its features to make sure there's no blown channels before and lo and behold, colors still wash out. It makes sense because forcing things into zone 9 compresses their dynamic range.

>>4453088
ETTR does not work for video. If your stills raws are not linear (log gammas are non-linear) your camera is below standard.

>>4453090
some (all) of his cameras are ancient shit rebels of the kind where the shadows in the raw start out lighter than they would with a modern machine so yeah, shit cameras are so touchy ettr is pointless with them. ettr is for people who can afford nice cameras, like the nikon d610.

>>4453090
ML isn't only for video. In fact it has an ETTR plug in for stills.
>>4453091
ETTR is even less relevant to cameras with nearly zero electronic noise.
As for the d610 calling it nice is fair, calling it fancy is something I'd object to.

>>4453094
Sounds more like your janky camera linux has problems created by one of its "improvements" because ETTR works fine for everyone else as long as none of the raw channels clip, unless they have a very old or low end camera.

>>4453095
I don't really use that plug in, just saying it's there as an example of its still photography utilities. I do use time lapse a lot though.
I provided you with examples and there's more if you look for them. My personal theory is that it has to do with crosstalk. I've observed it with filtered flashes in real life, the brighter the light the stronger the filter needs to be to make a difference.

>>4453095
Also you've talked about doing +1 comp, that's mild overexposure not ETTR.

>>4453073
and the zone system works by looking at the thing you’re taking a photograph of, not the back of your camera

>>4453098
+1 is ETTR for your shitbox

>>4453097
It was a pretty shit example. I bet there was a channel clipped in the raw.

>>4453090
>ETTR does not work for video
Care to elaborate? It's pretty standard from my experience.

>>4453100
You argue in bad faith.

>>4453083
the zone system is designed for that

>>4453106
It,'s funny because the whole point of LOG is getting most footage as highlights to then pull down in post.

>>4453106
If you ETTRd in one scene and couldn't ETTR as much in another the colors might change, because log crams the actual sensor DR into fewer bits than the sensor needs, and depending on the actual gamma the upper range could be compressed more or less

In stills with decent equipment (not old canons) that doesn't happen. Sensors need 14.5 bits to contain their whole DR and raws don't fall short by enough for there to be a perceptible difference.

>>4453112
When you do extreme ETTR you're cutting the DR from below.

>>4453113
Uh, no. The DR isn't cut unless a channel clips.

Try using a camera that isn't junk and check the actual raw histogram before you get confused again.

>>4453115
https://chromasoft.blogspot.com/2009/09/why-expose-to-right-is-just-plain-wrong.html

>>4453122
That's a dishonest article

>>4453112
To the extent that is true, that comes from a difference in exposure, independent of ETTR

>>4453122
>ettr by raising the iso
>look they’re the same
>starts bringing in a shitty canons baked in raw noise reduction
oh my god, a retarded photographer.

not only is this stupid the one small part that isnt was predicted in the dead sea scrolls
>ettr doesnt work with shitty canons that cook their raws
and
> in Capture One, the curve is applied before the tone curve, while in Adobe products such as Lightroom, the curve is applied after. So Lightroom shows a shift in brightness with changes in Exposure setting, Capture One doesn't.
i remember someone saying ettr worked fine in capture one and they called lightroom shit

the capture one ettr is a straight improvement and the lightroom one is fucked for excuses detailed in the article. ok. do not use lightroom. problem solved. capture one is better.

>>4452886
https://photographylife.com/exposing-to-the-right-explained
>The above photos show why there is so much controversy behind ETTR. Yes, there are differences in the images above — the crop on the left is certainly noisier than the one on the right — but this is a 100% crop. If the images above are four inches (10 cm) wide on your screen, they would be crops from a six-foot wide print (about two meters).
>In fact, the differences between the images are all but invisible on a print that is less than two feet wide. For many photographers, the image quality gains simply are not worth the hassle of exposing to the right.

>>4452886
>There are a few ways to determine the proper ETTR exposure and still avoid blowing out the highlights. One way to do so is to look at the photo’s histogram when reviewing the image in-camera. Your goal is to take the brightest photo possible that does not push too far to the right of the histogram, as shown below.
>Unfortunately, the histogram on your camera is not as accurate as it looks. Current cameras are incapable of showing the RAW histogram of an image, even if you shoot in RAW (which you should, if you use ETTR). Instead, the histogram is based on the processed JPEG image that is embedded into RAW files. This means that although the camera might indicate that you have pushed your exposure too far, there is potentially more headroom for recovery in post-processing.

>>4453152
Every now and them a boomer insists a print has to be 2-5 feet wide for some distance to show but then after you actually print your own photos, you realize it's false. It only works out with absurd enforced viewing distances and assumes a person with coke bottle glasses tier FOV who literally can not move their head but still has to look at the whole photo without moving their body.

>>4452886
>Using the JPEG embedded in a RAW file certainly isn’t the perfect method of judging exposure, whether you use a histogram or blinkies [but] it still leads to better exposure than blindly using the matrix meter without any compensation.
Using the Zone System is another way to implement compensation into your exposures. Unless your camera can display a RAW histogram, neither the histogram nor highlight clipping indicators are giving you 100% accuracy because they are based on the embedded JPEG’s histogram which is not identical to the RAW histogram.

>>4453153
My R50 shows histograms based on the picture style. If this is the norm or not, I know not. But, I was under the impression that since I shoot with the Neutral style, the histogram should be free of any fucky wucky bullshit.
Is there anyone who has confirmed or disproven this? If so, fuckin Canon jeeze.

>>4453152
>there's no benefit to something better since good enough already
Is always a cope
>Still, there are clear differences between the two exposures above. Photographers worry so much about capturing optimum data in the first place, and exposing to the right undeniably does improve the resulting image. In this scene, there was only a difference of 1.3 EV between the metered exposure and the ETTR exposure — in scenes where this difference is greater, the improvement from the ETTR shot will also be more obvious. And, if you ever print large or use an older-generation camera, these differences start to become more relevant.
So you just omitted next paragraph
>We want our RAW files to contain as much data as they can, giving us more legroom to recover data in post-processing. If you are a landscape or studio photographer, especially, you should have enough time to bracket your photos in an attempt to get the ideal ETTR exposure. And if you have the time to implement ETTR, why not do so?
and the conclusion

>>4453158
That's what every camera does. Neutral is closer but raw still has more information than can fit in an 8 bit jpeg so the histogram will always clip early.

Despite over 15 years of the majority of people outside of fast turnaround journalism shooting raw, the only camera manufacturer to include anything anywhere near a reliable raw overexposure indicator was sony, and it's only by cranking their jpeg derived blinkies threshhold all the way up. It doesn't actually indicate if a single channel in the raw is clipping or not, it's just a rough guess.

>>4453157
>neither the histogram nor highlight clipping indicators are giving you 100% accuracy
Good thing 100% accuracy is just a red herring

>>4453166
>you must stand your mandatory 7ft away see no difference at all

>>4452886
Point five in the first article you linked explains an alternative method to using ETTR aside from chimping the histogram or clipping indicators (which the author admits are subpar if your camera cannot display RAW histogram info). What is the alternative method? The Zone System in all but name.
>First, change your metering mode to spot metering, then find the brightest part of the scene that has to retain detail. If you test your camera beforehand, you will know the amount that you can increase exposure compensation by and still be able to recover information from this area in post-processing. For example, with my Nikon D800E, I can increase exposure at least by +2.3 EV above the spot meter’s recommendation for the brightest part of the image.
>If you use this method, you don’t need to rely on the less-than-accurate histogram in your camera, although it puts more weight on your personal ability to judge the brightest part of a scene.
Judging the brightest part of the scene for yourself and compensating for it by “overexposing” the spot you’re focussing on is Zone System theory, except the author of this article comes to a different conclusion about implementing it: dial in your exposure compensation to the brightest setting possible without clipping highlights then use your spot meter to set the brightest part of your scene at 0EV.

>>4452886
>As discussed above, the histogram that you see on the back of the camera is not technically accurate — oftentimes, a highlight that your histogram shows as pure white can actually be recovered in post-processing. If you can’t trust the histogram, it becomes much more difficult to know if your ETTR exposure is ideal until you open the photo on your computer.
>Compounding the issue, modern cameras have several “picture control” options for JPEG shooters (or “Picture Styles” for Canon cameras). Since the camera’s histogram is based off of the JPEG preview, each of the different picture controls will show a different histogram, even when you are shooting RAW. Plus, your white balance setting will also affect the histogram you see, even though the white balance setting does not affect a RAW file in a destructive way. The complicated part is that none of these histograms is actually the same as the RAW histogram — the one that you actually want to see.

>>4453165
Fuck. I don't see why you'd have a histogram if it wasn't accurate. The people using one are not the people shooting jpeg.

>>4453168
>a + 2 = 5
>It's IMPOSSIBLE to know what 'a' could possibly ever be
You don't need exposure indicators to be 100% accurate to the actual data captured, to have an accurate idea of the actual data captured.

>>4452886
>If you aren’t shooting at your camera’s base ISO, ETTR is all but useless. For example, you wouldn’t want to shoot a scene at ISO 1600 and then decrease the exposure by one stop in Lightroom — it’s just as good to shoot the scene at ISO 800 in the first place, and that is less likely to blow out the highlights in your image anyway. The added noise from ISO 1600 would cancel out any benefits that come from darkening the photo in post-processing.
>With the extreme dynamic range capabilities of modern sensors, as well as a much lower amount of noise at base ISO, the value of ETTR is coming under scrutiny in the photographic community. Since it is so easy to recover shadows with modern cameras, isn’t it better to go with a “safer” exposure that is less likely to blow out the highlights? In many cases, yes. It is no longer an issue to increase an image’s brightness in post-processing by one or two stops, and few people print large enough to notice a substantial difference anyways.
All this is ignoring the fact that you will have to use something like the Zone System anyway when you later bring down your ETTR RAWs in post-processing, as >>4452837 pointed out. It’s a measure for placing values in an image. It is relevant to digital photography. The growing low-light capability and dynamic range of modern sensors, however, leaves a question mark on ETTR’s relevance to photography.

>>4453169
>Judging the brightest part of the scene for yourself and compensating for it by “overexposing” the spot you’re focusing on is Zone System theory
That's still just ETTR. Is it really the zone system if you're only ever caring about one "zone" and explicitly ignoring the rest?

>>4452886
https://www.mu-43.com/threads/color-shift-with-ettr-developing.80124/
>If one or more channels are blown you'll see color shifts when you adjust the exposure.
>ETTR only works if you don't actually overexpose any of the channels.
This thread is ten years old, by the way. See my comment again about the stronger capabilities of modern digital camera sensors for low-light situations and their higher dynamic range. Of course, it’s still relevant to anyone shooting on yesteryear’s gear with the ETTR approach.
>You have demonstrated the Achilles's of ETTR: push it too far and one of the color channels will clip before the others and part of that channel's color will be lost. In this case you clipped the blue channel and things turned pink. 4/3 sensor cameras aren't that great beyond 1 stop of recovery. 2 stops may work ok for FF sensors, not these. A little shadow noise looks much better than pink skys. Try that ETTR stuff on people sometime and see how great it works for blowing out the red channel.
The OP’s comment points out the superiority of the Zone System: you actually visualise your placement of tones when you expose the image.
>yeah, I read a lot about this method but am finding it's not worth it, at least for my taste.
>For me It makes it harder to visualize the potential pictures and I was already finding that the camera evf nor the histogram was accurate enough to show clipped highlights in the raw file. This channel clipping issue just makes it worse...

>>4453179
Yes, the author of that article is tarded.
>It’s a measure for placing values in an image.
True, so can be histograms, waveforms, false color, etc. Does your camera have a built in zone system exposure tool instead of those? I didn't know that was a thing.
>leaves a question mark on ETTR’s relevance to photography
so
>there's no benefit to something better since good enough already

>>4453181
>Is it really the zone system if you're only ever caring about one "zone" and explicitly ignoring the rest?
Yes.
>>4451919
>We can place only one value and all other values then fall on their related zones in accordance with the amount of light they reflect.

>>4452886
>There are some things, like a light source in the frame or reflections from metal or water (often called "specular reflections" which are going to clip no matter what, and if you try to reduce your exposure to avoid clipping that sort of highlight you're going to end up underexposing the things you're interested in severely.
Therefore, compensating the exposure of the subject is more important in scenes with specular highlights. The Zone System will help a photographer do this. I’ve experienced this myself while exposing images ETTR-style: all my highlights were detailed and the rest of the image was pure black. That’s not what I want.

>>4453185
>all spot metering is zone system
Nah

You are misrepresenting that quote. It's talking about how if you appropriately place a subject on the right zone, everything else falls into place for a "proper" exposure. But that's after you've done the initial deciding of what goes to which zone. It's like saying if you expose well, everything is exposed well.

In this case with ETTR, they are only caring about one zone for the purposes of determining initial exposure, which might leave others in various levels of overexposure.

>>4452886
>ETTR was a way of coping with the crummy S/N ratio of 1999 sensors in 1999.

>>4453190
You weren't doing ETTR correctly lol

>>4453068
A decent article demonstrating that, even though you might get an exposure without highlight clipping while exposing everything as far to the right as possible, you may end up with the image you did not intend to take nor see.

>>4453195
Yes, I was.

>>4453200
Nope lol
You should post the example and explain how the zone system helped

>>4453129
no, it isn’t

Oh duh, should have just used the zone system!

>>4453182
There is no zone X on digital. Going past ETRR fucks up colors. And there are actually up to 14 zones under zone "not clipped", but if it’s green, it’s a zone higher. And all of those zones need to be mapped to a curve to fit them into a medium that could have up to 12 zones or less than 8.

So i guess it is the zone system if the zone system were an abstract concept instead of a technique that ties specifically into darkroom printing, and had bayer related caveats

>>4453207
Zone X is clipped white

>>4453207
>There is no zone X on digital.
Yes, there is. It’s white.

>>4453206
This but unironically

>>4453208
Clipping white on digital looks turbo shit and leaves zero room for adjustment. Clipping on film looks fine and leaves room for adjustment. Clipped white on digital also usually comes with surrounding things changing color from just one or two channels clipping. This does not happen on film.
There is no zone X on digital. There is ETTR and finding the Nth stop where acceptable shadow detail stops at that ISO. Which at base ISO can be cut short if you don’t ETTR.

>>4453205
>ettr by raising the iso
Dishonest, alone should be enough to disregard
>ettr no work ISO 1600 on my Canon G10
Dishonest
>ettr make colors different
Dishonest, exposure differences makes colors different, independent of ettr

>>4453214
ETTR is maximizing exposure though

>>4453213
>Clipping white on digital looks turbo shit and leaves zero room for adjustment.
So we’re not talking about whether or not there is white on digital cameras. You admit there is, now you simply want to argue the white looks shit and responds poorly to adjustment. This is a great example of moving the goalposts so you can still score.

>>4453213
Zone I and X hold no detail, they're pure white or black. Extreme overexposure looks fucky on film too, not all dyes max out together until they do.

>>4453214
>admitting ETTR works great when you are already at base ISO and need a lower ISO
honest
>explaining test conditions
honest
>>4452823
>saying ETTR is better than the Zone System without explaining it is useless at high ISO
dishonest; unhelpful

>>4453216
it means you shouldnt use the zone system as an exposure guide. expose to the right and count stops downwards. do not clip anything or expose for it to be white. that’s not how raw files work.

also, don’t use lightroom

>>4453215
ISO is brightness, not exposure. The point of ETTR is to increase the actual exposure, not simply brightness.
If you consistently ETTR, you will consistently have the same colors.
If scenes are different enough that you'd have to ETTR differently, chances are you'd have expose them differently regardless of ETTR too. Or, if it's really that much of a concern, you can ETTR based of the safest exposure and still benefit (only even more marginally). If anything the difference in color comes from the better SNR.

>>4453218
>uh ettr is useless at high iso!
actually it isnt, that part is specific to each camera with stupid non-caveats like retaeds comparing forced baked in nr to no nr (applying nr to a worse signal is still worse than applying nr to a better signal) and you cant tell because you have to stand 7 feet away cope

>>4453218
It's dishonest to use a technique improperly and then say it doesn't work. Sure, it's both honest and dishonest.
Good thing that wasn't my comment!

>>4453219
That's exposing for the highlights, only relevant if the highlights are important. ETTR is about preserving shadows. ETTR is only useful if the scene's DR is smaller than your recording medium's, and even then the benefit is not without tradeoffs. For dark scenes on certain older sensors, ETTR might well work better as you raise the ISO. That's in the domain of low light photography.
>>4453220
>ISO is brightness, not exposure. The point of ETTR is to increase the actual exposure, not simply brightness.
True enough. You have a picture to take and open up the diaphragm or let the shutter stay open for longer. Yet sometimes you benefit from raising the ISO and then doing that. Rivers of words have been written about it, notably by Emil Martinec and Guillermo Lujik.
>If you consistently ETTR, you will consistently have the same colors.
I don't think anyone argued otherwise, the point is those colors are often worse than the ones with a balanced exposure.
>>4453221
If your sensor is basically isoless then ETTR is moot at high ISOs. If it's like older Canons then you clean up the picture raising the ISO up to certain values and staying within native ones.

>>4453229
>I don't think anyone argued otherwise
See >>4453112
>If you ETTRd in one scene and couldn't ETTR as much in another the colors might change

>the point is those colors are often worse than the ones with a balanced exposure.
Exposing more without clipping will only make colors better, not worse.

>>4453206
>I had a backlit subject and metered for the highlights, now my subject is too dark. How could this be happening to me?

>>4453272
On a digital camera you HAVE to expose for the highlights and use a low enough ISO that shadow DR encompasses the subject. Overexposure looks like shit. It's just not how you're meant to use a digital camera.

>>4453217
Do not expose for pure white on digital. It looks like shit. The fully clipped area gets jaggy and the partially clipped areas get color shifts.

>>4453229
>Sensor is basically ISOless
But even these have a shadow improvement of about a stop if you're more than 2 stops off from the desired brightness, and there are two base ISOs, not one, so raising the ISO has a use.

>>4453303
canon sensors are STILL doing the fucked up intermediate ISO thing

>>4453307
What the fuck is canon doing

>>4453303
Okay so enjoy your textured surface of the sun because it's the only thing you'll see in your pictures every time it makes an appearance if you're so scared of pure white.

>>4453309
Analog gain.

>>4453310
What a 6 stop DR statement. My camera isn't as shit as yours nor am I as bad at this as you. Using a point and shoot is different from using a good camera comprende?

If the sun was insanely against a fully backlit shadow foreground I'd use a GND, and still ETTR.

>>4453312
and noise reduction at every ISO to pretend they made their sensors better instead of worse

every "rule" of exposure sony, nikon, panasonic, and fuji users are familiar with just totally break down on cannot POS Rs. no wonder you don't think ETTR works, you've only used canons.

>>4453314
well, part of it is cANON just doesnt know what he's doing and barely posts photos because he has significant trouble escaping branchanon tier, and might actually be branchanon. only highly talented and intelligent photographers like dog hair negatives can do things like get a canon 5ds to have more dynamic range than a canon RP. if someone handed cANON dog hair negatives main digital setup, he wouldn't even be able to get an in focus, well exposed photo with it because he lacks a deep understanding of the technology underlying tonality and just confuses himself with rules of thumb like "equivalence" regardless of how they actually work with specific cameras.

>>4453313
>I'd use a GND
Now we're making progress. That is the correct approach.
Your six stop figure is ridiculous, not even 14 stops are enough to not have the sun clip and have details on the things in the shadow.

>>4453314
The cameras that benefit the most from ETTR are precisely old Canons like the 350D.

>>4453319
I see, you're photographing the eclipse and trying to get some lunar detail in.

My main camera has 15 stops of DR and I've never had issues with the sun in the frame other than green ghosts. But if I was going for absolutely zero shadow noise and a very bright foreground, i'd use a GND. ETTR works, the zone system doesn't because the zone system flat out says to expose for something to be white. On digital, this doesn't just make that thing white. It makes things that are nearly as bright the wrong color, because if a channel is clipped, it's not exposed to the right. It's exposed past the right.

If you are having trouble with ETTR and think it causes color shifts, 1: make sure your camera isn't cooking the raws like sony/canons are prone to 2: bracket and check your raw histograms to determine which one is actually well exposed
Comprende?

>>4453324
>My main camera has 15 stops of DR and I've never had issues with the sun in the frame other than green ghosts.
Me neither, but I never minded it clipping. I'm sure yours clips too.

>>4453324
>because the zone system flat out says to expose for something to be white
It doesn't. It says if something falls in zone X and you don't need it to be detailed (like the sun, a white disc) then so be it. You don't understand nuance and then get mad.

>>4453325
Nah. I don't use a shitty canon.

>>4453327
It's a digital camera. Stop clipping your highlights. It's not JUST the sun you're fucking up, it's the other color channels for the sky surrounding the sun.
https://discuss.pixls.us/t/photographers-stop-clipping-your-highlights/15207

>>4453328
The human eye is 20 stops and the sun fully saturates it. Tell me what you use that doesn't get saturated with the sun. It's okay to admit you were wrong.

>>4453331
Sounds like you have weak eyeballs.

>>4453332
(You)

>>4453332
>Here's a well-known fact about the human body and its capabilities
>"Skill issue"
Wot. Do you just have a hateboner for any tripfags?

>>4450154 (OP)
When someone points out >images(3).png, don't be so dense as to imply that they're upset over something so trivial as a filename.

This filename is only the most obvious manifestation of a phenomenon of low-effort shitposting that with each passing year is taking up ever greater board real estate. It's a fact that mobileposters are categorically incorrigible shitposters. They can't help it. Posting from a mobile device essentially precludes worthwhile posts because of the limitations of the device they're posting from. Nobody posting from a phone wants to hammer away on their tiny keyboard to fully articulate a post. It's a fucking chore to write out an actual post. Mobilefags also have less investment in what they post. Rarely do mobilefags have the time or patience to browse an entire thread before adding a response. The average mobilefag scrolls swiftly through the catalog until he finds a thread that catches his eye and can drop a quick line in, and not unusually, he just makes the thread himself, never consisting of a single paragraph in length. Anyone who has browsed /tv/ for any length of time can attest to how universally low-effort threads created with image.jpg are. This thread itself is a perfect example.

What it comes down to is whether or not you want /tv/ to be a chatroom for redditors to spam low-effort memes at their convenience or a board that can self-moderate its own content.