I’m an amateur photographer. I’ve read about “exposing to the right” several times, and I can say, very proudly, that I came to your same conclusions just from experience. Great video, as usual.
As a musician, it's Interesting to hear the audio analogy. I never really consciously thought about how similar light exposure would be to audio levels. Interesting stuff, and good video!
Just brought to mind the issue of poor signal to noise ratio in recordings made at too low a level, and also the advice to record sound at the highest possible level which avoids clipping, which is analagous to ETTR in photography. But as we conclude from your interesting video ‐ don't go too close to the limit! Thank you for your thoughts. Philip
The information on this video is correct... for a camera with ISO invariance (like the Nikon you are using with a Sony sensor). It's not the same if the camera has a different sensor technology. Historically (as this may change) Canon cameras benefit a lot from ETTR shooting as long as you don't clip the highlights. With a scene that does not demand all the dynamic range of the sensor (think a winter and snow scene), you will get much more adjustment latitude (cleaner final image) if the histogram is more to the right, even if the picture looks "too bright" out of the camera. For ISO invariant cameras (Nikon, Sony, Fuji...), it's the same to brighten the image in the RAW development than increasing the ISO in the camera, so it makes sense to underexpose a little to protect the highlights.
ISO invariance (which is now fairly standard on most cameras) does make it even more unnecessary, the point I'm trying to make is that the small improvement one might observe from an extra stop in shadows isn't worth the potential offsetting negative effect. While I appreciate that a knowledgeable photographer understands how to properly expose an image - which sometimes includes a histogram that's shifted to the right, this is information that can easily lead novices to unwanted results.
Thank you. I learned photography from an online instructor and now friend who taught expose to the left. Recently I have been doing watching a lot of TH-cam videos and so many say ETTR.
I am sure that ETTR has its suitable application as all techniques do, but I haven't run into them. Thank you for making such clear and straightforward videos
Very informative as always. I think that what most “expose to the right” advocates forget to mention is that there are times when it won’t give you more useful information. It is those times that will require post-processing, and you could have had just as good result straight out of the camera.
I think the issue is that a lot of people advocate for it without understanding what they're trying to solve. The point of it is that you shouldn't have a lot of empty space at the right-hand side of the histogram unless you need to use the image directly out of the camera. So, having images like the ones in the video where there's a clear end to the histogram data that's nowhere near the right edge would be wrong. You'd want to up the exposure to get the edge as close to the right as practical, and then darken the image in the computer for use. You definitely can take it a step further and allow a few of the highlights to be blown, but due to modern technology that's not as useful as it was decades ago when I got my first dSLR. A modern dslr has probably 12 or even 14 bits worth of levels available for recording colors in each channel, there's little point in allowing highlights to be blown in situations like that. Properly applied, exposing to the right shouldn't result in lost detail in the highlights or those compressed clouds. If anything, you should have better detail in the clouds as there'd be more possible values to use to record their subtleties.
@@SmallSpoonBrigade WHile I agree that on recent model cameras there's some ability to recover highlights from a RAW file, the final image often has little benefit from a ETTR technique.
I mentioned this on a photography FB page once and it caused a bit of histogram hysteria ‘nope you must expose to the right especially for landscape ..’ . I take your stance on exposure and that’s what they didn’t like, maybe I didn’t explain as eloquently as you. Anyway, I’ve closed my FB account now, not for the reason above I might add! I’m with you on this topic.
I tried the whole ETTR thing several years ago. And while it sounds good in theory and the math checks out I came to the same conclusion as you. No matter how hard I tried I could see no meaningful difference and this was with a camera from 2008. My preferred strategy mostly is to try to get the exposure I want in camera and then make small adjustments. Sometimes I will expose for the highlights and then adjust the shadows. I highly recommend the book “Understanding Exposure” by Bryan Peterson to anyone who would like to learn more about exposure and how it relates to their photography.
I never understood expose to the right except for that time I accidentally wandered into a leather bar. But, personally, I prefer under exposing a stop or two in video. No recovering that sheen on my forehead. Perfectly exposed video.
Ah, as Frankie Howerd used to say as he pranced onto the stage "Ewww - Nothing in its right place tonight". Yes, I also find that colours are slightly improved with a slight underexposure. ETTR is, of course, a stills technique.
Absolutely Brilliant!! the whimsical smile has me subscribed. I slightly shoot to the right, knowing my camera's histogram is based on the JPG output so when I bring my RAW file into LR, the histogram is the RAW output, thus more latitude with highlights and shadows adjustments.
Thanks, I appreciate whimsical, your kind words and your subscription. I meant to debunk the term for photographers who might consider it sage advice - clearly, your thinking is beyond this glib catchphrase.
Great Video. On my D850, I have the bottom front button mapped to the highlight meter mode. In sunny16 conditions, I will hold that down and adjust the meter to 0-1/3 over. When I let go of the button the meter will read like its under exposed, but the photos come out nearly perfect every time. I LOVE your meter mantra, "you're not a slave to the meter". 🤠
Spot on Maarten, I've always found that exposing to the right usually flattens the colour depth somehow, leaving the colour palette lacking contrast and integrity that cannot be got back by editing the raw file. I do agree about getting a correctly exposed jpeg if possible as a lot of the time this is more thank good enough and usually better than I could do editing a raw file. This applies to both my fujifilm xt2 and Ricoh grii cameras and isnt brand specific as it has applied to past cameras that I have owned such as Lumix, Nikon and Olympus. Thanks for a really good video. Cheers Ian.
Thanks Maarten, another well paced, informative piece. The ETTR vids have been on my mind. I loved the final advice, I will keep shooting until the battery runs out (memory card takes a bit longer).
Good tips. I'm still learning how to set the exposure and what buttons to use to do so on my camera. Sometimes I get it right, sometimes I get it wrong but with practice I am getting better! Thanks for sharing.
That's great. Thanks for letting me be part of your learning journey. I appreciate your kind words. If I may - don't be intimidated by the controls - the camera is prepared to do a lot of stuff for you with auto settings - take advantage of those.
I second that. I understand the why and I have seen for myself it indeed works, but as you say, at the cost what? It clearly helps when you are photographing a 12 stop dynamic scene. But how many people do that? As these cameras continue to get better at recovering shadow detail I can’t help but think this concept is already losing steam. The you for also making me reconsider. I will be doing my own tests with my own kind of images.
ETTR has it's uses, and yes, it's not meant to be used for every photograph or camera. The key is to understand your camrea (I believe it used to be for Canon's you would expose to the left, whereas with Nikons, to the right to protect highlight details). Second, I see that some people talk about blowing the highlights. Since the histogram is based on the JPEG, the RAW is a bit more foregiving (so even if you do clip slightly (although no clipping is preferred - turn on clipping/highlight warning) but I still observe the histogram and the highlight warning before moving onto the next shot, and usually I'll do two ETTRs, one that's pretty close to the right, and one that's toned back a bit, maybe 1/3 of a stop, just to be safe (although I have had more luck with ETTR as some cameras will tend to underexpose images even though the light-meters regardless of mode, may indicate a good exposure... my Fuji did this, would always underexpose by 1/3 of a stop most of the time; over exposing slightly helped result in a better quality image). Of course if you're shooting in JPEG then ETTR isn't as practical because it is a processed image (you can adjust later, but you lose some of the information). The reason that ETTR is pushed and widely adopted is that it holds more highlight detail than a normal exposure, both in the highlights and shadow areas). And many go by the mindset of "you can always throw away data you don't need, but it's hard -- if not impossible -- to get back data you never had, like in the shadows and darks/blacks). So let's say if you did ETTR which resulted in a 2-stop over exposure, I have found that if I had taken a regular exposure (where the exposure meter reads 0 -- so "perfect" exposure) and then did ETTR, I had more flexibility with ETTR. Yes the shadows and blacks look more gray, and herpahs the highlights look overblown, but once I decreased the exposure a bit (by almost 2 stops) I felt the ETTR image retained better quality than the regular exposure. Again, though, ETTR is not feasible for everything and it should be used with a bit of caution. It may take a few shots to figure out where you are (even if you use a live-histogram on the EVF/LCD) and I'd say find where highlights tend to clip, and then back off another 1/3 of a stop to be safe, even though, like I said, the RAW is more foregiving and if the histogram shows a tiny bit of clipping (which is based on the JPEG) you may not have actaully clipped the highlights in the RAW, but just to be safe. The reason this is pushed a lot is that there is more image data stored on the right-half of the histogram, than there is on the left. I would suggest people read this article and decide for themselves: photographylife.com/exposing-to-the-right-explained
Well, yes. However, my video was produced for those who might be confused or wondering if they should practice this technique. My thesis was that most modern cameras, and most novice photographers will not benefit. This is mostly aptly summarized in the second paragraph: "This is not for beginners ..." Many find the techniques of exposure to be needlessly complex and off-putting. I intended to provide a simple answer, with demonstration.
It’s backwards Nikons expose for highlights which is exposing to the left. ETTR literally means to bias the histogram on the right side meaning the majority of the information is in the middle to the right near pure white. As long as whites aren’t above 240 they aren’t clipped and the highlight clipping alert is for the JPEG not the RAW file.
Hi Maarten, just found your channel and although I am principally a video rather than a stills shooter, I found this so clear and helpful that I instantly subscribed. Looking forward to enjoying more of your videos here!
I greatly appreciate this video. After learning of the ETTR approach, when I applied it in practice I found that the images produced were almost always over-exposed for my purposes and tastes. I like rich shadows and good contrast in images more than I care about "proper exposure". For that reason I don't really think about it unless I'm in an HDR scenario, where I'm having to choose what to preserve because the camera simply can't get everything. My general rule is "keep the bulk of the histogram away from both extremes unless it's what I'm going for. Also, FWIW, I find my XT3 tends to expose things a little "hot" for my personal tastes, so unless I'm in full manual I usually have exposure compensation bumped down 1/3.
I agree, and not just about rich shadows - I find even skies have a better hue when slightly under- exposed. I agree with you about the X-T3, I think the X-trans sensor can be a little too contrasty. I usually turn the highlight down and shadow up.
I think most of the issue with the rule is that people get it wrong. The point of it is that you shouldn't have a bunch of flat space on the right-hand side with no pixels being recorded there, you should expose towards the right to keep that as small as possible and then darken it up during conversion later if that's too bright for you. That should result in the most possible detail at any level of brightness without harming the highlights. If you've got a spike at the right and a bunch of empty space in the middle, you're basically stuck either accepting it, or HDR with bracketed shots. Obviously, if for any reason you need to have the images directly out of the camera, then the rule should just be junked almost entirely as it's not relevant.
I agree. I’ve tried using this theory of ETTR numerous times but it never really worked for me since I shoot a lot of animal portraits and over exposed highlights on fur can ruin the image. But the highlight weighted metering feature usually under exposes too much too. It pays to get to know how your camera handles different lighting situations and adjust accordingly. Thanks for another informative video!
Thank you Maarten. You have a good way of explaining things. Just a few days ago I was thinking of just this topic. But since I am an electronics engineer, my eqvivalent comparison with the sound is the transistor. If you push the volume/gain you will get clippings that you cannot recover later. Whereas the low volume/gain you could adjust it later, with only (some?) noice as a defect. Just like you said with distorsion! So I was a bit supprised that just saw your video about this topic. I hope that you are all well - take care and stay safe!
Thanks - yes, it is the effect of any digital amplifier and applies to both sound and images. Digital signal paths tend to accumulate less noise than analog ones. Thanks for your kind thoughts and wishes - same to you. Stay safe!
There is a hype on the internet telling you (telling me) to ETTR... expose to the right, I watched nearly 25 videos about this so I decided to give a try myself and I don't just like it at all, I think in some cases, doing ETTR using exposure compensation +1/3, +2/3 or one full stop is killing the highlights and I lost some important details, mostly in the sky and white clouds. I tried this "technique" on my Z6, D610, D750, FUJI X-PRO2 and X-T3, even on my Canon 5D MKIII and finally I decided NOT to use this recommandation anymore. I am doing mostly the opposite, I tend to under expose my pictures -0.3 or -0.7 stops, particularly with the D750, all the other cameras I have are ok. Thanks for the useful information and I am happy not to be alone ! ;-) Regards.
Exposing to the right doesn't always mean adding more exposure. Sometimes the camera's autoexposure likes to overexpose the sky, so I have to decrease the exposure, but the histogram is still to the right.
The ETTR technique must be applied in some situations, it is not always valid, but above all captain if you need to work the shot with a good margin of work in closing the lights ... having said that I realize that this technique has no values " fixed ", my personal experience, but always used / combined with a" zebra "detection function during the shot for clipping and" burning "the last useful details. For example with Sony A7r3, Sony A9 this technique is very usable without losing "zebra" details at 109+ on the scale to be applied and excellent results are obtained. But it should always be considered whether to look for the limit or act in post, they always talk about RAW shots.
In my very limited experience (less than 2 years) I've found I lose ability to "repair" over exposed highlights much more than under exposed shadows. I'm constantly surprised when I have an under exposed image in post that I can recover info in the shadows. Cameras these days have amazing dynamic range. Even the less than top of the line models, like my X-T100. As always, enjoyed the video Maarten.
The gamma curve when shooting in RAW does provide a slight advantage when shooting to the right. But, never so much that you clip the highlights, so the direction to the right is subtle. That said, exposing to the right gives up dynamic range (potentially). The only time I actually do this is when an HDR (3-shot+) is not practical and I need to get detail in the shadows that I otherwise would not be able to achieve. Bottom line, what you refer to as the "correct" exposure is almost always the best choice. Nice presentation Maarten.
I normally start with overexposure + 1.3 EV (set in custom settings). In the viewfinder I have overexposed pixels converted to intense orange and underexposed converted to intense blue. So it is easy to avoid overexposure - just rotate the dial to the left until almost all orange dissapears and that's it. This technique significanlty reduces noise especially when using smaller sensors and when printing very large. Of course exposure time or aperture should be changed - not ISO. For small prints or internet: just forget it.
Thank you. Even on topics I thought I knew all about, watching your videos teaches me something new or something I had not thought about before. If I’m shooting a landscape scene, I’ll often expose 1 stop to the left, so that I can recover more detail and toning in the sky. But I always shoot in RAW. Another trick I do on my Nikon is to have the default meter mode as matrix but have a function key set to switch to spot metering. This is useful in high contrast situations where I can double check the localised exposure in the darker parts of the image by just pressing the function key. Often matrix say ok as an average but double checking with spot says too dark where my subject is.. Anyway, thanks again
Clearly you are a photographer with skills and understanding beyond anything that a phrase like "expose to the right" offers. Thanks for the kind words.
Probably, like many others, I’ve read and watched lots about ETTR and experimented quite a bit too. Shooting more wildlife than anything else and doing so mostly in manual with auto ISO, I am always riding my exposure compensation but I agree with you in that I’m more prone to blow highlights if overcooking my exposye, than to be unable to recover details from shadows in slightly darker images. Great video and very useful. Thanks.
super video again! I realised that from old school film i’d rather underexpose to recover later in the lab. Well there is no longer a lab but still find it better to stay on the left. However I nearly always do JPG and RAW. Thanks again, Johannes
The more bits per channel you've got, the less benefit you get from ETTR. A JPG is 8bits per channel a raw file is typically anywhere from 10 to 14bits per channel, meaning that you've got multiple stops worth of values still being recorded. As long as you don't underexpose by more than that, you should still get better images than you'd get properly exposing the image with a JPG. ETTR is really mainly useful these days for contrasty scenes where you care about the shadow detail and can't bracket or use HDR. If you have to have one exposure that covers it, ETTR is going to give you the best hope in many cases of covering everything properly.
Like on Audio, the important thing is to capture the maximum latitude of the signal, filling the Istogram from right to left. The weaknesses of your sensor also have to be factored: a Nikon D750 will struggle a lot recovering highlights and will be more comfortable pushing the shadow, while a m43 sensor will much more eagerly give you back detail in bright area then in the dark ones. Truly amazing sensors, like on Alexa cameras would probably benefit from a perfectly exposed image because of the huge dynamic range that it enjoys
Thanks. And like audio, it's better to slightly under-record a digital signal than to risk the artifacts of going over the peak levels into distortion. And, yes, of course, but I'm pretty sure my audience doesn't include many Alexa owners.
Dear Maarten, Another wonderfully explained video. I agree with what you're saying especially since you can shoot a jpeg and a RAW image at the same time. Moreover, testing each camera with a chip chart, like the one you use, is really important to gain confidence in the decision one winds up making. 'Hope you are still doing well!
Hi Maarten. I think you have glossed over the key reason for ETTR. By pushing the luminosity histogram to the brighter end of the range you are encoding a larger number of dark tones by virtue of how binary image encoding works. The number of digital steps that can be used to represent what is actually a continuous (analogue) gradation of tones is higher at the brighter, right hand end of the tonal scale than at the darker end. As a consequence of ETTR, the image file has a larger number of tones with which to work when manipulating the file in post processing. This theoretically gives you more flexibility in adjusting tonality before things like posterisation start to mar the image. This phenomenon is why videographers us log profiles routinely. Log profiles transpose darker tonal values to the right side of the luminosity scale although they do this in a non linear way rather than the linear process used when you ETTR. And they also shift the brighter tones to the left to capture greater dynamic range. It actually makes a difference in many high dynamic range scenes. A detailed explanation of how this works albeit in the contect of logarithmic video encoding can be found here www.bhphotovideo.com/explora/video/tips-and-solutions/understanding-log-format-recording. Cheers.
I don't believe I did gloss over this, as I mentioned that as the rationale for using this technique at the beginning of the video. I also demonstrated that, unless the difference is dramatic, there was no difference in the quality of shadow areas using modern sensors. I think you're mistaken about Log for video - exposing Log recordings to the right will lead to disaster. It is important to keep the log recording centred on the histogram and away from 100% on the waveform, otherwise it will not be possible to recover either the shadow or highlight tones, particularly if you're using LUTs to decompress. The B&H article you provided does not address the issue of how to properly expose when shooting Log, but I can attest to the effect with actual examples. Here's how I explain it, using Nikon's N-Log: th-cam.com/video/hZZlc8GaFbg/w-d-xo.html
Thank you so much for this video. ETTR to me has an emotional aspect as well. Michael Reichmann, RIP, coined the term many years ago when he founded and ran the luminous landscape. I got to know Michael through his website, blogs and videos, and was lucky to travel with him to Antarctica. I will have to admit that ETTR made sense to me back then, and I have used it extensively. That said, over time I started to ”properly” expose my photos especially when I’m sharing JPGs OOC with friends and family. Typically those files transfer to your phone or iPad in a much smaller format that does not lend itself to dynamic range recovery, I found myself sharing truly overexposed photos with others when I ETTRed. I wonder if when MR came up with ETTR, if most cameras had a more limited dynamic range than current cameras, and sharing was done through Lightroom and other computer platforms after the RAW files have been “developed” which gave time to recover those highlights and open up those shadows. Todays video opened up the shadows of my memories remembering fondly a friend and mentor and of course learning a thing or 2. Thank you so much, please stay safe and keep on sharing.
Thanks for sharing your memories and thoughts. It clearly is a technique that had more value in the past. It was also a pleasure to read your kind words and wishes. Stay safe in these challenging times.
Well done as always Maarten! Thank you for your insight and your ability to teach a hobbyist, like myself, in a very straightforward and entertaining way!
Your videos are always so well thought out, well produced, and full of great info. Although I think I may know the subject I will watch every minute of your videos and I always pick up a nuget or two. Thanks. Cheers.
Your videos are always informative. I have noticed with my Fuji xt2 if I expose more in camera than raise the exposure in Lightroom the image is much cleaner. If the subject is already illuminated there is not as much noise but if the subject is in shadow and I raise the exposure or increase shadows the noise comes in fast. I am under the impression that a full frame camera would give cleaner results but I have not tried one side by side to compare. Thank you for the video Martin.
Hmmm - not sure that was my experience. Particularly with X-trans sensors, there always seems to be lots of information and Lightroom retrieves a stop and sometimes more without adding noise. Thanks for the kind words.
Thanks Maarten. I appreciate the effort that you've put into this video. Anyone who watches this will have some homework to do, even if they've done it before.
Great video as usual. I love having these tutorials available. If you can do more, i think a lot of folks would appreciate learning how to shoot better / be more confident rather than drooling over the next hot camera or lens. Well done!
So this is why a waveform monitor function is really handy instead of the histogram. You can easily see the overexposed parts and adjust your image accordingly to protect highlights. The Panasonic S1H have this function for stills as well 😄
Very informative video. Thank you. But I think most of the youtube review advise about ETTR are use for video especially shooting in Log mode. Then you bring it to the software and turn the shadow area back down to get more details and less noise. The problem is they don't mention in the video that this is only good if you are recording log video.
NO! Exposing Log video to the right can lead to disaster. The only safe way to expose Log is with a waveform, and even then, keep it under 90. The higher ISOs of Log settings will always raise darker areas, you don't need to increase exposure to do that.
Great video Maarten! I wish this was available when I started in photography quite a few years ago, you would´ve saved me from a few headaches and missed shots. Thank you for sharing and keep up the good work! Stay safe!
Another competent video. I need to try to remember to evaluate the histogram more often. Still, I shoot raw and am mostly quite happy with the results when processed. Difficult lighting situations would benefit from bracketing, though. Thanks again.
Competent! Exactly what I was going for. Right, bracketing can be useful - but if your camera has a dynamic range extension tool, or HDR, those can be useful too.
Using the RGB Histogram you can get the best exposure. If you clip a color channel you will see it. Because sometimes the luminous histogram shows a proper exposure but colors can be clipped. If color is clipped on the right close down. If color is clipped on left you must open. Get it right in camera with RAW and adjust nothing like white balance in post. In post your adding or subtracting nothing but the gain. Exposing to the right properly executed is the only way to go.
As anyone with a bit of experience with digital cameras will tell you, digital sensors are better at storing shadow data(in not exactly sure of the reason), and thus it is better to expose for the highlights than the shadows as the shadows are easier to recover in post later. ETTR is outdated unless you shoot in certain log formats. Thank you for your work Mr. Heilbronn!
Not sure I agree. If you approach the right while shooting in Log, you're sure to end up with a file that's difficult if not impossible to correct. Thanks for the kind words.
Good exploration of a tricky subject, Maarten. To me, the takeaway is this: despite any arguments for exposing to the right, the big danger with digital imaging is still blowing the whites. I'm also guessing that the results might vary from camera to camera: older sensors may not handle the extremes as well as newer ones, on either side of the histogram.
Thanks, always nice to read comments from an authoritative source. Yes, older and smaller sensors will likely be even more sensitive to both noise and overexposure. Best to get the exposure right in camera.
Spot on. Even with a M43, I feel the benefits are limited and Topaz Denoise has been helpful in cleaning noise. My method is expose to the right... exposure. Bird photography, I guess I expose to the right because you usually have to expose about one stop brighter or greater to get the details of the birds. However, use the method of always exposing to the right with a swan or the background is darker than the bird, you risk blowing out the details.
Just my observations. I used to expose to the right as a matter of course however with the improved dynamic range of the newer sensors have pulled back away from this method. There are times that are scene dependant where I'll either under or overexpose a touch to get the image I want. The key for me is understanding WHY I'm doing something over blindly following any so called rule.
Thank you for this! I kept hearing ETTR and then 'sculpt' the light down for contrast. I sort of believed the shadow-detail recovery aspect of that advice, which you have largely debunked here, perhaps it was truer for sensors 15 years ago. What I never believed was that I could retain colour in, say, a sunset by making it almost white and trying to recover the highlights in post, and your video shows this is the case even on cameras with better dynamic range than mine. Cheers from Ottawa
Always nice to know I've helped improve your work. Thanks for the kind words, please say hi to my friends in Ottawa if you can do that safely, including Julie, Justin and Sophie.
Very interesting...I can agree in a lot of ways with you! With Great Herons, I prefer to shoot a little to the left actually due to their shiny feathers...with experimentation in Lightroom I’ve learned that with most things I like to try to shoot middle or middle left now as much as I can...
Right, that is, of course, one of the issues - it's generic advice that doesn't apply to all situations. And any photographer with experience already knows the best approach to a scene. Thanks for commenting.
In landscape photography I always try to find a mix between not-to-bright-sky and not-to-dark-rest :) It's easy to correct a RAW in lightroom by bringing down the highlights and increasing the shadows.
Good approach, but hopefully I've shown you that you're better to under-expose as it's easier (within range anyway) to increase shadows than to save a blown out highlight.
@@MaartenHeilbron yes, you did :) not sure if my comment was understandable. Often underexpose a bit to avoid blown out highlights and "save" the sky. Shadows are easy to increase in lightroom
A very useful video. I shoot RAW and often shoot at -1/3 EV and it works well for me. I shoot RAW and honestly don’t understand the fascination with straight of out camera jpegs. Lightroom does a great job with RAW files and it need not take long.
I seem to have replied without recognizing your avatar - as always, nice to hear from you, hope you're doing well, stay safe in these trying times. The same people who are fixated on out of camera JPEGs are likely the same who select cameras based on their "colour science" without understanding that there are a huge range of in camera and post adjustments that can be made easily to create a colour reproduction that corresponds to personal preference. My practice, which seems similar to yours, is to make those adjustments, if/when they are needed, in Lightroom - which is great to address any number of flaws.
Finally!! A sensible soul to debunk the overplayed “ETTR” mythology. In digital photography (unlike film photography) the overexposed range is where the greatest danger lies in destroying the detail in your images. By definition, anything exposed beyond 0dBFS (full-scale) has NO more capacity to record anything, and is by definition unrecoverable, yes even shooting raw. To continue the audio analogy, this is what we call "clipping" and the digital medium's ability to record any level above this abruptly falls to zero at full-scale. This is in contrast to the response of analog film, which compresses gently at both ends of the dynamic range, in what we describe as the log d/e curve. ETTR might be a working method that works for certain people, under certain circumstances, shooting certain types of photography, but as a general rule it will not be helpful for any given photographer. It is better to have some noise in shadows than to have blown-out highlights that cannot be recovered.
This is the first time I hear a photographer critically discuss ETTR. There a lots of videos out there by videographers, for them ETTR has become the holy grail. Now there are two main differences between photographers and videographers at this time: 1. photographers can easily shoot in RAW, whereas it is technically challenging, costly and time-consuming to shoot RAW videos. Second, the available light in a video may abruptly change, especially if filming outdoors, whereas a photographer has excellent control over the exposure most of the time (wildlife photography when the subject is tracked and the background may change quickly whilst doing so may be an exception). Now the problem with 8bit or 10 bit video is the limited quantization range for grey levels. ETTR on 8 bit is particularly difficult with video without overblowing the sky. Now to compensate for this, a log profile is recommended, which compresses the brightness information (the quantization steps are larger).
I'm not aware of any videographers (even those using log settings) who suggest or recommend ETTR. I certainly (maybe you got that from this video) do not. Expose properly for the scene, particularly for faces. However, no rule, recommendation or tool (like histogram, waveform, etc) supercedes your creative instinct in service of the story you're telling and the mood you're creating (particularly for video). Any tehcnique that demands or requires you to make adjustments in post, particularly in low bit-rate, low bit-depth recordings is less desireable than a setting you can create in camera.
Good examples. While exposing to the right can produce technically better results, whether the improvement is worth the effort can certainly be a different matter. One correction -- to double audio volume, you increase by 6dB, not 3. To cut volume by half, you reduce by 6dB as well.
Consider me sub'd. This is a very interesting topic Maarten, and one that resonates with me...particularly your comparison with audio. I have played with audio for many years now (live music and recording). On the other hand, with my photography I only really started to consider histograms and purposely over/under exposing in the past year or two, and it's been (and continues to be) a revelation. Your comparison with audio levels is good I think, and this is how I am guided with regards to exposing 'to the right'. When recording audio or simply using microphones etc, the aim for me has always been to have the highest possible signal through the path - until the final mix down. This is done to provide the greatest capture of detail (if it's digital, for example, then you may as well be using all of the bits that you can!), and the lowest comparative noise (after all, if your audio signal is only marginally higher than the noise floor, it's going to sound ugly). Of course, the quality of the equipment used helps a lot, and I think this is analogous to the quality of the camera equipment you are using in photography. Pushing the limits on audio can result in compression of the signal though, even before clipping. This could result in a loss of detail (though can be desirable) in terms of variance in the level, and I wonder if this also happens with sensors. I also wonder, will it happen more so with one sensor than another? I shoot with a Pentax KP and an Olympus E-M5ii. I have observed, quite recently, that the Pentax is much better at recovering details from the shadows - as everybody tells you when you shoot micro four-thirds - and if you push those whites too high, you will lose tone and detail as you have said. As a result, I try to be careful just how much I push those highlights if I want to retain any ability to bring back the colours and smooth tonality in those areas of the exposure. I was shooting the same way with my E-M5ii, when an Olympus rep told me that those cameras are quite good at recovering blown out portions of the shot. Well...I started pushing things a little more with the Olympus and - wow - yes it does indeed recover the highlights well...much better than my Pentax KP can. So, is this some un known and unsung advantage (finally) of smaller photosensor sites inherent with micro four-thirds...or maybe just the underlying electronics. I wondered if the different sensors simply 'compress' the highlights differently as clipping is approached? Maybe it's simply down to the histogram information each camera presents, and my interpretation of that! Either way, this has resulted in me approaching the exposure a little differently in each camera - the Olympus now goes hard right sometimes (maybe often, but not always), whereas with the Pentax I am a little less worried about losing the shadows (I expose to the right, but...gently?). Not sure I agree that there is no analogue for aperture and shutter speed in recording. If you get a little abstract, then maybe distance to subject, and microphone type and placement can be thrown into the mix as a replacement for aperture/shutter (moving closer to your target with a camera doesn't necessarily make the shadows brighter, but with a microphone, it will certainly increase the sound level vs noise floor)! Ok, it's a stretch. I suppose you could consider that audio recording is like using a bunch of prime lenses with fixed apertures! Thanks for the video!
Hello Maarten, thank you, for the analytic approach of this subject. Exposing to the right is/was popular with some older e.g. Canon camera's due to the limited dynamic range and noisy camera amplification. It was mostly needed if you wanted to push the shadows to the extreme in raw post processing. Raw processors have improved a lot since the last 15 years and are cleaner. Just reprocess some raw files of an older 5DII-7D or D300-D700 and you will notice a different, better, cleaner output. This technique has been exagerated in the last years on media platforms We are spoiled now with the mirrorless camera's who can display the histogram when taking the picture. I would suggest showing the RGB histogram as the luminance histogram, as it is possible you blow one of the channels and the colour information of that channel is not recoverable in post. Knowing your camera is the most important aspect of this technique. Experiment With the latest generation of camera's claiming in some cases claiming 14+ stops of dynamic range at base iso, I am of the opinion this technique is not needed anymore. With the current generation of camera technology we have the inverse of the famous Ansell Adams quote "expose for the shadows, develop for the highlights" to a more current "digital version" as "expose for the highlights, develop for the shadows". In high contrast scenes using Matrix or Evaluative metering I tend to underexpose by 1/3 or 2/3 of a stop if I have no time to do spot metering. You can still revert to exposure bracketting if you wanted to record the higher dynamic range of the picture. I noticed however that people are going away from that extreme HDR look.
This is presumably part of why he's recommending that you test it with your gear. Each model and sometimes individual camera, will have slightly different results and each photographer will definitely have different opinions about what's acceptable. Additionally, If you decide that you're going to print at lower than 240dpi you get averaging of pixel values to reduce the amount of noise. It's a trick I've used for years with scanning, where I scan above the actual resolution of the physical medium and then reduce that down to something that matches the detail in the scanned item.It greatly reduces the magnitude of the noise. One of the reasons that I stopped doing that was that my 5d4 has dual pixel raw and I can simply use HDR processing of the two sets of pixels if I really need that extra bit of detail that I might have lost by exposing at +0 EC.
In the Z6, you can choose TIFF as your output format, which has a wider range than a JPEG. This allows you to use the camera's presets and still have more latitude in post. The Z6II does not have this option. This avoids the major work increase involved with RAW images.
Not sure that makes sense - I think if you want to or need to make changes to your images afterwards, the RAW format provides much more potential for manipulation.
@@MaartenHeilbron 4 Sure. However, unless you do a lot of extra work, you can't apply the manufacturer's profiles in post. My objective is to spend as little time in post production that will deliver the desired results. I want to begin with an image that is approximately right. If the image requires a lot of manipulation to bring it into spec, a gross error was made at acquisition. As an experienced photographer, it's a lot easier for me to get exposure right in camera than it is to try to salvage a problematic image. I realize that this goes against the CW. I only wish that Nikon would provide a baked video image with a wider dynamic range, like a TIFF, so that I don't have to shoot with an external recorder.
using digital cameras you have more latitude underexposing images and pulling back the shadows. using film you can overexpose a few stops without losing too much detail. although overexposing on digital can get you a better look in particular scenarios, and saves you from too much post-processing
Hey Maarten, I generally only use ETTR with astrophotography when under heavy light polution. I have noticed marked reduction in noise using this method and can recover all the data as long as it isn't clipped. Can you touch on why I should not use ETTR for this style of photography and what other methods you would suggest? Obviously I could go to a darker area, but let's leave that as out of scope for this discussion as I am looking for an alternative to ETTR in my current bortle 6 location. (The reason I'm looking for an alternative is that ETTR images take far longer to post process than normally exposed images.) Please note that I still want the highest reduction of noise possible. My current equipment is a D750, 35mm f1.4 prime, star tracker and intervalometer. Current exposure settings are iso 6400, f2, 15s. I usually stack 400 lights, 150 darks, 100 flats, 100 dark flats, 100 bias. (About 2.75 hours of photography in one night starting at 11pm.) Thank you Ricky
Greetings,. Marten. I am writing on a different subject matter since you made a comparison with audio in the video. I am recording worship sessions for our church with my X-T3 and just last week on the X-T4. I used Rode wireless mic to record the audio. I have problems balancing the vocal with the music accompaniment that comprises a guitar and keyboard. How can I improve the overall audio quality especially the musical instruments? I used Premiere Pro's Multichannel Compressor currently. Do you have any videos on my subject matter? Much appreciated your time and energy to share your experience with us.
I believe that the “expose to the right” comes from people who can control their environment (portrait or wedding), nature and landscape, especially with the sky playing a factor, exposing to the left normally give a photo which will capture more information. I find that 1/3 or 2/3 to the left actually gives me more information in the shadows, and at the same time it might blow the sky. But this is almost a religious debate. Thank you for a very informative video.
I experienced that on cameras that become quiet noisy at higher isos, it is generally better to overexpose a little bit because in post processing you don't have to increase the exposure which would introduce much uglier noise. So e.g. under iso 1600 i underexpose a little bit so that all highlights are conserved, on higher isos i overexpose a little bit because it reduces the signal to noise ratio in post processing for me
Excellent video as usual. I have a question. How do you know if you shoot your exposures according to what you see in the viewfinder or monitor according to what you like, that when you get back home the picture is not under or over exposed? Because they say that that’s what the histogram is for. I set my exposure according to the histogram at 3/4 on a snowy day, then turned on my flash and took the shot. The background came out dark. I’m not sure why. Maybe you could tell me why? And also how to make sure that the monitor or if you find her gives you the exposure that you like when you look at them
On mirrorless cameras, what you see in the viewfinder before you take the picture should correspond to the image recorded. You could review them in the camera to make sure. The histogram is a tool to assist you with exposure, if you use it correctly. I don't understand "set ... the histogram at 3/4". However, it sounds as if the flash is either not needed or set incorrectly if those are the results.
Hi Maarten. Thank you I so enjoy your informative and considered views and reviews. So refreshing in this internet age which seems to be governed by sound bytes. I spent my early days in trying to expose to the right only to end up moving more to the left. As someone who tends to see in black and white rather than color I tend to go to the” dark side”. I am sure you would have been asked this before but if you have time ( and the inclination) would it be possible to do a video on the dark art of dynamic range and particularly as it relates to the Fuji X system. Please stay well and once again thank you for all the information. Regards from the Desert. Steve. Dubai.
Thanks for the very kind words. Good suggestion - let me think about what that might be - I tend to cover those issues in my reviews, but I think that would be worthwhile and useful. Please say hello to all my friends in Dubai - if you can do so safely.
I think this is one of those ideas that was more important decades ago when you only had either 8 or 10 bits worth of information to work with depending upon whether you were using JPG/TIFF or raw. (I don't think any cameras that supported TIFF files used more bits) With up to 14 bits to work with on some cameras, it makes sense to not expose as closely to the right as you risk blowing highlights or entire areas that you might care about, without gaining much in the shadows. That being said, these are relatively easy photos to take and the shadows aren't that dark and there's not that much detail to be had. If you had something more challenging, it might make a difference, especially if you've got people that are being backlit and for some reason you can't use a flash or have them stand with the light in a more convenient position relative to them.
You may be right, in 2022 cameras are less likely to show defects in low light areas. And that's partly the point I was making. Unless you intend to do a lot of post-processing, it's always better to expose to the correct than to expose to the right. Thanks for your interesting comments, you make good points.
Maarten is the best photo friend I never knew I needed in my life. Thanks, Mr. Heilbron! A true gentleman and a class production.
It was a pleasure to read your kind words, thanks very much.
LMAO! "Random, generic advice from strangers . . ." Maarten, you consistently nail that bone dry humor that I so thoroughly enjoy. Thanks! 😂
Always nice to know my regular viewers share my sense of humour. Thanks for commenting.
I’m an amateur photographer. I’ve read about “exposing to the right” several times, and I can say, very proudly, that I came to your same conclusions just from experience. Great video, as usual.
Good work, thanks for the real-life confirmation. And for your kind words.
As a musician, it's Interesting to hear the audio analogy. I never really consciously thought about how similar light exposure would be to audio levels. Interesting stuff, and good video!
Glad that diversion made it clearer for you, thanks for commenting.
Just brought to mind the issue of poor signal to noise ratio in recordings made at too low a level, and also the advice to record sound at the highest possible level which avoids clipping, which is analagous to ETTR in photography. But as we conclude from your interesting video ‐ don't go too close to the limit! Thank you for your thoughts. Philip
@@photonomist6345 Glad to be of assistance, thanks for the kind words.
Calm, clear and informative, maybe most informative presenter here.
I appreciate that! Thanks for taking the time to post your kind words.
The information on this video is correct... for a camera with ISO invariance (like the Nikon you are using with a Sony sensor). It's not the same if the camera has a different sensor technology.
Historically (as this may change) Canon cameras benefit a lot from ETTR shooting as long as you don't clip the highlights. With a scene that does not demand all the dynamic range of the sensor (think a winter and snow scene), you will get much more adjustment latitude (cleaner final image) if the histogram is more to the right, even if the picture looks "too bright" out of the camera.
For ISO invariant cameras (Nikon, Sony, Fuji...), it's the same to brighten the image in the RAW development than increasing the ISO in the camera, so it makes sense to underexpose a little to protect the highlights.
ISO invariance (which is now fairly standard on most cameras) does make it even more unnecessary, the point I'm trying to make is that the small improvement one might observe from an extra stop in shadows isn't worth the potential offsetting negative effect. While I appreciate that a knowledgeable photographer understands how to properly expose an image - which sometimes includes a histogram that's shifted to the right, this is information that can easily lead novices to unwanted results.
Maarten, you have the best photography videos. Thanks for your devotion to this art.
Wow, thank you! A pleasure to read your kind words.
Thank you. I learned photography from an online instructor and now friend who taught expose to the left. Recently I have been doing watching a lot of TH-cam videos and so many say ETTR.
Glad it was helpful! Expose to the right only if "right" has the meaning "correct". Thanks for commenting.
I am sure that ETTR has its suitable application as all techniques do, but I haven't run into them. Thank you for making such clear and straightforward videos
Oh - the "damning with faint praise" gambit. Thanks for adding your thoughts and your kind words.
Thank you so much for your kind generosity in sharing your wisdom.
It's really my pleasure, thanks for your kind words.
Best ETTR discussion on the net! Keep it rolling!
Thanks, it's nice to know that some viewers agree.
Very informative as always. I think that what most “expose to the right” advocates forget to mention is that there are times when it won’t give you more useful information. It is those times that will require post-processing, and you could have had just as good result straight out of the camera.
Exactly the point I was trying to make, thanks for the executive summary.
I think the issue is that a lot of people advocate for it without understanding what they're trying to solve. The point of it is that you shouldn't have a lot of empty space at the right-hand side of the histogram unless you need to use the image directly out of the camera. So, having images like the ones in the video where there's a clear end to the histogram data that's nowhere near the right edge would be wrong. You'd want to up the exposure to get the edge as close to the right as practical, and then darken the image in the computer for use.
You definitely can take it a step further and allow a few of the highlights to be blown, but due to modern technology that's not as useful as it was decades ago when I got my first dSLR. A modern dslr has probably 12 or even 14 bits worth of levels available for recording colors in each channel, there's little point in allowing highlights to be blown in situations like that.
Properly applied, exposing to the right shouldn't result in lost detail in the highlights or those compressed clouds. If anything, you should have better detail in the clouds as there'd be more possible values to use to record their subtleties.
@@SmallSpoonBrigade WHile I agree that on recent model cameras there's some ability to recover highlights from a RAW file, the final image often has little benefit from a ETTR technique.
I generally expose a tad to the Left -- 1/3 stop under, to try to keep highlights decent. And speaking of analogies, hue is like pitch.
Good technique, I find that helps make colours just a little richer. Thanks, I'm sure there are more audio/photo analogues.
mattslaboratory Yep, me too.
I mentioned this on a photography FB page once and it caused a bit of histogram hysteria ‘nope you must expose to the right especially for landscape ..’ . I take your stance on exposure and that’s what they didn’t like, maybe I didn’t explain as eloquently as you. Anyway, I’ve closed my FB account now, not for the reason above I might add! I’m with you on this topic.
Sometimes it takes a while for people to shed their old bad habits. I'm off FB too, also not for the reasons you mentioned.
I tried the whole ETTR thing several years ago. And while it sounds good in theory and the math checks out I came to the same conclusion as you. No matter how hard I tried I could see no meaningful difference and this was with a camera from 2008. My preferred strategy mostly is to try to get the exposure I want in camera and then make small adjustments. Sometimes I will expose for the highlights and then adjust the shadows. I highly recommend the book “Understanding Exposure” by Bryan Peterson to anyone who would like to learn more about exposure and how it relates to their photography.
Thanks for sharing your experience and tips, appreciated.
Thank you Maarten. Amazing video with valuable information I never found anywhere else. Liked and subscribed.
Awesome, thank you! Always nice to know my videos are appreciated.
This helps a lot. Can't wait to try this out. So glad I came across this while bing watching your videos.
Always glad to know my videos are inspiring you to go out and take photos.
I never understood expose to the right except for that time I accidentally wandered into a leather bar. But, personally, I prefer under exposing a stop or two in video. No recovering that sheen on my forehead. Perfectly exposed video.
Ah, as Frankie Howerd used to say as he pranced onto the stage "Ewww - Nothing in its right place tonight". Yes, I also find that colours are slightly improved with a slight underexposure. ETTR is, of course, a stills technique.
Thanks Maarten for the important lesson on how to properly expose an image ! Scarboro
Glad it was helpful! Thanks for taking the time to comment - always nice to hear from my friends.
Thank you for another great teaching. Comparing to clipping in audio make it so clear.
You are welcome! Always nice to hear that an analogy makes the concept clearer.
Absolutely Brilliant!! the whimsical smile has me subscribed. I slightly shoot to the right, knowing my camera's histogram is based on the JPG output so when I bring my RAW file into LR, the histogram is the RAW output, thus more latitude with highlights and shadows adjustments.
Thanks, I appreciate whimsical, your kind words and your subscription. I meant to debunk the term for photographers who might consider it sage advice - clearly, your thinking is beyond this glib catchphrase.
Always refreshing and insightful listening to you.
Thanks! A pleasure to read your kind words.
Although this is a topic that I've seen many times, this is a solid explanation Marteen. Nice to see these kind of videos.
Glad you liked it! And thanks for stopping by to say so, appreciated.
Great Video. On my D850, I have the bottom front button mapped to the highlight meter mode. In sunny16 conditions, I will hold that down and adjust the meter to 0-1/3 over. When I let go of the button the meter will read like its under exposed, but the photos come out nearly perfect every time. I LOVE your meter mantra, "you're not a slave to the meter". 🤠
What a great suggestion, thanks! Also appreciate your kind words.
Spot on Maarten, I've always found that exposing to the right usually flattens the colour depth somehow, leaving the colour palette lacking contrast and integrity that cannot be got back by editing the raw file. I do agree about getting a correctly exposed jpeg if possible as a lot of the time this is more thank good enough and usually better than I could do editing a raw file. This applies to both my fujifilm xt2 and Ricoh grii cameras and isnt brand specific as it has applied to past cameras that I have owned such as Lumix, Nikon and Olympus. Thanks for a really good video. Cheers Ian.
Thanks, it was a pleasure to read your kind words - and I completely agree with your approach.
Thanks Maarten, another well paced, informative piece. The ETTR vids have been on my mind.
I loved the final advice, I will keep shooting until the battery runs out (memory card takes a bit longer).
A pleasure to read your kind words, thanks. In my case, it's often the memory card. Should buy bigger cards.
Good tips. I'm still learning how to set the exposure and what buttons to use to do so on my camera. Sometimes I get it right, sometimes I get it wrong but with practice I am getting better! Thanks for sharing.
That's great. Thanks for letting me be part of your learning journey. I appreciate your kind words. If I may - don't be intimidated by the controls - the camera is prepared to do a lot of stuff for you with auto settings - take advantage of those.
Thnx for making me reconsider Maarten.
Always happy to help.
I second that. I understand the why and I have seen for myself it indeed works, but as you say, at the cost what? It clearly helps when you are photographing a 12 stop dynamic scene. But how many people do that? As these cameras continue to get better at recovering shadow detail I can’t help but think this concept is already losing steam. The you for also making me reconsider. I will be doing my own tests with my own kind of images.
@@jiggyb21 Good plan - best to understand how your camera reacts to these settings.
ETTR has it's uses, and yes, it's not meant to be used for every photograph or camera. The key is to understand your camrea (I believe it used to be for Canon's you would expose to the left, whereas with Nikons, to the right to protect highlight details). Second, I see that some people talk about blowing the highlights. Since the histogram is based on the JPEG, the RAW is a bit more foregiving (so even if you do clip slightly (although no clipping is preferred - turn on clipping/highlight warning) but I still observe the histogram and the highlight warning before moving onto the next shot, and usually I'll do two ETTRs, one that's pretty close to the right, and one that's toned back a bit, maybe 1/3 of a stop, just to be safe (although I have had more luck with ETTR as some cameras will tend to underexpose images even though the light-meters regardless of mode, may indicate a good exposure... my Fuji did this, would always underexpose by 1/3 of a stop most of the time; over exposing slightly helped result in a better quality image). Of course if you're shooting in JPEG then ETTR isn't as practical because it is a processed image (you can adjust later, but you lose some of the information). The reason that ETTR is pushed and widely adopted is that it holds more highlight detail than a normal exposure, both in the highlights and shadow areas). And many go by the mindset of "you can always throw away data you don't need, but it's hard -- if not impossible -- to get back data you never had, like in the shadows and darks/blacks). So let's say if you did ETTR which resulted in a 2-stop over exposure, I have found that if I had taken a regular exposure (where the exposure meter reads 0 -- so "perfect" exposure) and then did ETTR, I had more flexibility with ETTR. Yes the shadows and blacks look more gray, and herpahs the highlights look overblown, but once I decreased the exposure a bit (by almost 2 stops) I felt the ETTR image retained better quality than the regular exposure. Again, though, ETTR is not feasible for everything and it should be used with a bit of caution. It may take a few shots to figure out where you are (even if you use a live-histogram on the EVF/LCD) and I'd say find where highlights tend to clip, and then back off another 1/3 of a stop to be safe, even though, like I said, the RAW is more foregiving and if the histogram shows a tiny bit of clipping (which is based on the JPEG) you may not have actaully clipped the highlights in the RAW, but just to be safe. The reason this is pushed a lot is that there is more image data stored on the right-half of the histogram, than there is on the left. I would suggest people read this article and decide for themselves: photographylife.com/exposing-to-the-right-explained
Well, yes. However, my video was produced for those who might be confused or wondering if they should practice this technique. My thesis was that most modern cameras, and most novice photographers will not benefit.
This is mostly aptly summarized in the second paragraph: "This is not for beginners ..."
Many find the techniques of exposure to be needlessly complex and off-putting. I intended to provide a simple answer, with demonstration.
It’s backwards Nikons expose for highlights which is exposing to the left. ETTR literally means to bias the histogram on the right side meaning the majority of the information is in the middle to the right near pure white. As long as whites aren’t above 240 they aren’t clipped and the highlight clipping alert is for the JPEG not the RAW file.
Indeed, I've been wondering about this for some time. Great topic and very well explained. You earned a sub!
Thanks, always nice to know that viewers appreciate my work enough to follow along.
Hi Maarten, just found your channel and although I am principally a video rather than a stills shooter, I found this so clear and helpful that I instantly subscribed. Looking forward to enjoying more of your videos here!
Thanks, always nice to hear I have a new fan. Thanks for subscribing.
I greatly appreciate this video. After learning of the ETTR approach, when I applied it in practice I found that the images produced were almost always over-exposed for my purposes and tastes. I like rich shadows and good contrast in images more than I care about "proper exposure".
For that reason I don't really think about it unless I'm in an HDR scenario, where I'm having to choose what to preserve because the camera simply can't get everything. My general rule is "keep the bulk of the histogram away from both extremes unless it's what I'm going for.
Also, FWIW, I find my XT3 tends to expose things a little "hot" for my personal tastes, so unless I'm in full manual I usually have exposure compensation bumped down 1/3.
I agree, and not just about rich shadows - I find even skies have a better hue when slightly under- exposed.
I agree with you about the X-T3, I think the X-trans sensor can be a little too contrasty. I usually turn the highlight down and shadow up.
I think most of the issue with the rule is that people get it wrong. The point of it is that you shouldn't have a bunch of flat space on the right-hand side with no pixels being recorded there, you should expose towards the right to keep that as small as possible and then darken it up during conversion later if that's too bright for you. That should result in the most possible detail at any level of brightness without harming the highlights. If you've got a spike at the right and a bunch of empty space in the middle, you're basically stuck either accepting it, or HDR with bracketed shots.
Obviously, if for any reason you need to have the images directly out of the camera, then the rule should just be junked almost entirely as it's not relevant.
@@SmallSpoonBrigade Thanks for sharing this insight.
I agree. I’ve tried using this theory of ETTR numerous times but it never really worked for me since I shoot a lot of animal portraits and over exposed highlights on fur can ruin the image. But the highlight weighted metering feature usually under exposes too much too. It pays to get to know how your camera handles different lighting situations and adjust accordingly. Thanks for another informative video!
Yes, always best to learn your camera and its specifics. Thanks for your kind words.
Thank you Maarten for this amazing tutorial lesson...
Glad you liked it! I appreciate your kind words, thanks.
Thank you Maarten. You have a good way of explaining things. Just a few days ago I was thinking of just this topic. But since I am an electronics engineer, my eqvivalent comparison with the sound is the transistor. If you push the volume/gain you will get clippings that you cannot recover later. Whereas the low volume/gain you could adjust it later, with only (some?) noice as a defect. Just like you said with distorsion! So I was a bit supprised that just saw your video about this topic.
I hope that you are all well - take care and stay safe!
Thanks - yes, it is the effect of any digital amplifier and applies to both sound and images. Digital signal paths tend to accumulate less noise than analog ones. Thanks for your kind thoughts and wishes - same to you. Stay safe!
There is a hype on the internet telling you (telling me) to ETTR... expose to the right, I watched nearly 25 videos about this so I decided to give a try myself and I don't just like it at all, I think in some cases, doing ETTR using exposure compensation +1/3, +2/3 or one full stop is killing the highlights and I lost some important details, mostly in the sky and white clouds. I tried this "technique" on my Z6, D610, D750, FUJI X-PRO2 and X-T3, even on my Canon 5D MKIII and finally I decided NOT to use this recommandation anymore. I am doing mostly the opposite, I tend to under expose my pictures -0.3 or -0.7 stops, particularly with the D750, all the other cameras I have are ok. Thanks for the useful information and I am happy not to be alone ! ;-) Regards.
Thanks for the confirmation. It takes time to figure out that it's questionable advice.
Exposing to the right doesn't always mean adding more exposure. Sometimes the camera's autoexposure likes to overexpose the sky, so I have to decrease the exposure, but the histogram is still to the right.
@@Verdoux007 Yes, for anyone who's actually experienced enough the term is effectively meaningless.
The ETTR technique must be applied in some situations, it is not always valid, but above all captain if you need to work the shot with a good margin of work in closing the lights ... having said that I realize that this technique has no values " fixed ", my personal experience, but always used / combined with a" zebra "detection function during the shot for clipping and" burning "the last useful details. For example with Sony A7r3, Sony A9 this technique is very usable without losing "zebra" details at 109+ on the scale to be applied and excellent results are obtained. But it should always be considered whether to look for the limit or act in post, they always talk about RAW shots.
@@PierGiorgioZuccaro Thanks for adding your thoughts, appreciated.
Sir, I always learn something from you. Thank you.
Thanks very kind, thanks for taking the time to comment.
In my very limited experience (less than 2 years) I've found I lose ability to "repair" over exposed highlights much more than under exposed shadows. I'm constantly surprised when I have an under exposed image in post that I can recover info in the shadows. Cameras these days have amazing dynamic range. Even the less than top of the line models, like my X-T100.
As always, enjoyed the video Maarten.
Thanks for your kind words, always appreciated. And nice to hear that you've put in the trial and error to discover how to best expose your images.
The gamma curve when shooting in RAW does provide a slight advantage when shooting to the right. But, never so much that you clip the highlights, so the direction to the right is subtle. That said, exposing to the right gives up dynamic range (potentially). The only time I actually do this is when an HDR (3-shot+) is not practical and I need to get detail in the shadows that I otherwise would not be able to achieve. Bottom line, what you refer to as the "correct" exposure is almost always the best choice. Nice presentation Maarten.
Thanks for your kind words, and the additional thoughts about your technique.
I normally start with overexposure + 1.3 EV (set in custom settings). In the viewfinder I have overexposed pixels converted to intense orange and underexposed converted to intense blue. So it is easy to avoid overexposure - just rotate the dial to the left until almost all orange dissapears and that's it. This technique significanlty reduces noise especially when using smaller sensors and when printing very large. Of course exposure time or aperture should be changed - not ISO. For small prints or internet: just forget it.
Thanks for sharing your exposure details.
Big fan here. I have blown highlights on more than one occasion, thanks for the informative video. I will expose to the wrong for here on out.
hehe, thanks for the kind words and the chuckle. Always nice to hear from an appreciative viewer.
This is really very interesting - and brilliantly explained!
Glad you think so! Thanks for taking the time to comment.
Thank you. Even on topics I thought I knew all about, watching your videos teaches me something new or something I had not thought about before. If I’m shooting a landscape scene, I’ll often expose 1 stop to the left, so that I can recover more detail and toning in the sky. But I always shoot in RAW. Another trick I do on my Nikon is to have the default meter mode as matrix but have a function key set to switch to spot metering. This is useful in high contrast situations where I can double check the localised exposure in the darker parts of the image by just pressing the function key. Often matrix say ok as an average but double checking with spot says too dark where my subject is.. Anyway, thanks again
Clearly you are a photographer with skills and understanding beyond anything that a phrase like "expose to the right" offers. Thanks for the kind words.
Excellent video Maarten I always gain watching your work.
Many thanks! So nice to hear from an appreciative viewer.
Probably, like many others, I’ve read and watched lots about ETTR and experimented quite a bit too. Shooting more wildlife than anything else and doing so mostly in manual with auto ISO, I am always riding my exposure compensation but I agree with you in that I’m more prone to blow highlights if overcooking my exposye, than to be unable to recover details from shadows in slightly darker images. Great video and very useful. Thanks.
Glad to hear that you've seen this in real life shooting, thanks for adding your observations.
super video again! I realised that from old school film i’d rather underexpose to recover later in the lab. Well there is no longer a lab but still find it better to stay on the left. However I nearly always do JPG and RAW. Thanks again, Johannes
Thanks for the kind words, yes, I believe with modern sensors that's a very valid approach.
The more bits per channel you've got, the less benefit you get from ETTR. A JPG is 8bits per channel a raw file is typically anywhere from 10 to 14bits per channel, meaning that you've got multiple stops worth of values still being recorded. As long as you don't underexpose by more than that, you should still get better images than you'd get properly exposing the image with a JPG.
ETTR is really mainly useful these days for contrasty scenes where you care about the shadow detail and can't bracket or use HDR. If you have to have one exposure that covers it, ETTR is going to give you the best hope in many cases of covering everything properly.
@@SmallSpoonBrigade Thanks for the reminder that getting the right exposure can be more useful than exposing to the right.
Like on Audio, the important thing is to capture the maximum latitude of the signal, filling the Istogram from right to left. The weaknesses of your sensor also have to be factored: a Nikon D750 will struggle a lot recovering highlights and will be more comfortable pushing the shadow, while a m43 sensor will much more eagerly give you back detail in bright area then in the dark ones.
Truly amazing sensors, like on Alexa cameras would probably benefit from a perfectly exposed image because of the huge dynamic range that it enjoys
Thanks. And like audio, it's better to slightly under-record a digital signal than to risk the artifacts of going over the peak levels into distortion.
And, yes, of course, but I'm pretty sure my audience doesn't include many Alexa owners.
Dear Maarten, Another wonderfully explained video. I agree with what you're saying especially since you can shoot a jpeg and a RAW image at the same time. Moreover, testing each camera with a chip chart, like the one you use, is really important to gain confidence in the decision one winds up making. 'Hope you are still doing well!
Nice to see your comments, thanks! We are still well, thankfully - and thanks for your wishes. Same to you - stay safe.
You make such lovely videos. Very educational and well put together.
Thank you very much! How kind of you to comment.
Thanks a lot for the interesting content and the inspiring presentation style
That's very kind, thanks for commenting.
Hi Maarten. I think you have glossed over the key reason for ETTR. By pushing the luminosity histogram to the brighter end of the range you are encoding a larger number of dark tones by virtue of how binary image encoding works. The number of digital steps that can be used to represent what is actually a continuous (analogue) gradation of tones is higher at the brighter, right hand end of the tonal scale than at the darker end. As a consequence of ETTR, the image file has a larger number of tones with which to work when manipulating the file in post processing. This theoretically gives you more flexibility in adjusting tonality before things like posterisation start to mar the image. This phenomenon is why videographers us log profiles routinely. Log profiles transpose darker tonal values to the right side of the luminosity scale although they do this in a non linear way rather than the linear process used when you ETTR. And they also shift the brighter tones to the left to capture greater dynamic range. It actually makes a difference in many high dynamic range scenes. A detailed explanation of how this works albeit in the contect of logarithmic video encoding can be found here www.bhphotovideo.com/explora/video/tips-and-solutions/understanding-log-format-recording. Cheers.
I don't believe I did gloss over this, as I mentioned that as the rationale for using this technique at the beginning of the video. I also demonstrated that, unless the difference is dramatic, there was no difference in the quality of shadow areas using modern sensors.
I think you're mistaken about Log for video - exposing Log recordings to the right will lead to disaster. It is important to keep the log recording centred on the histogram and away from 100% on the waveform, otherwise it will not be possible to recover either the shadow or highlight tones, particularly if you're using LUTs to decompress.
The B&H article you provided does not address the issue of how to properly expose when shooting Log, but I can attest to the effect with actual examples. Here's how I explain it, using Nikon's N-Log: th-cam.com/video/hZZlc8GaFbg/w-d-xo.html
you can go believe in church
@@magicfields101 Why so rude?
ist a simple Statement. you iterpretin it as rude but ist about knowing not believing.
@@magicfields101 If you'd take the time to fully express your thoughts we would be able to better understand your intentions.
Thank you so much for this video. ETTR to me has an emotional aspect as well. Michael Reichmann, RIP, coined the term many years ago when he founded and ran the luminous landscape. I got to know Michael through his website, blogs and videos, and was lucky to travel with him to Antarctica. I will have to admit that ETTR made sense to me back then, and I have used it extensively. That said, over time I started to ”properly” expose my photos especially when I’m sharing JPGs OOC with friends and family. Typically those files transfer to your phone or iPad in a much smaller format that does not lend itself to dynamic range recovery, I found myself sharing truly overexposed photos with others when I ETTRed. I wonder if when MR came up with ETTR, if most cameras had a more limited dynamic range than current cameras, and sharing was done through Lightroom and other computer platforms after the RAW files have been “developed” which gave time to recover those highlights and open up those shadows. Todays video opened up the shadows of my memories remembering fondly a friend and mentor and of course learning a thing or 2. Thank you so much, please stay safe and keep on sharing.
Thanks for sharing your memories and thoughts. It clearly is a technique that had more value in the past. It was also a pleasure to read your kind words and wishes. Stay safe in these challenging times.
Thank you Maarten.
My pleasure! Thanks for taking the time to comment.
Well done as always Maarten! Thank you for your insight and your ability to teach a hobbyist, like myself, in a very straightforward and entertaining way!
Thanks, a real pleasure to read your kind words.
So well balanced. Thank you for this.
You're so welcome! Thanks for your kind words.
Your videos are always so well thought out, well produced, and full of great info. Although I think I may know the subject I will watch every minute of your videos and I always pick up a nuget or two. Thanks. Cheers.
Wow, thank you! I appreciate the kind words.
Your videos are always informative. I have noticed with my Fuji xt2 if I expose more in camera than raise the exposure in Lightroom the image is much cleaner. If the subject is already illuminated there is not as much noise but if the subject is in shadow and I raise the exposure or increase shadows the noise comes in fast. I am under the impression that a full frame camera would give cleaner results but I have not tried one side by side to compare. Thank you for the video Martin.
Hmmm - not sure that was my experience. Particularly with X-trans sensors, there always seems to be lots of information and Lightroom retrieves a stop and sometimes more without adding noise. Thanks for the kind words.
Thanks Maarten for your valuable insights.
Always my pleasure - and also a pleasure to read your kind words.
Thanks Maarten. I appreciate the effort that you've put into this video. Anyone who watches this will have some homework to do, even if they've done it before.
Thanks for that! Always nice to read that my videos are appreciated.
Another great one. I've had this debate a few times with others.
Thanks, it can be dependent on philosophy and equipment.
thanks Maarten, very interesting. I've always tended to underexpose my digital images and then lift the shadows in post to protect highlights.
Good plan, and thanks for your kind words.
Great video as usual. I love having these tutorials available. If you can do more, i think a lot of folks would appreciate learning how to shoot better / be more confident rather than drooling over the next hot camera or lens. Well done!
Thanks for the kind words - please feel free to suggest specific topics along with click-baity titles!
So this is why a waveform monitor function is really handy instead of the histogram. You can easily see the overexposed parts and adjust your image accordingly to protect highlights. The Panasonic S1H have this function for stills as well 😄
I completely agree.
Very informative video. Thank you. But I think most of the youtube review advise about ETTR are use for video especially shooting in Log mode. Then you bring it to the software and turn the shadow area back down to get more details and less noise. The problem is they don't mention in the video that this is only good if you are recording log video.
NO! Exposing Log video to the right can lead to disaster. The only safe way to expose Log is with a waveform, and even then, keep it under 90. The higher ISOs of Log settings will always raise darker areas, you don't need to increase exposure to do that.
Great video Maarten! I wish this was available when I started in photography quite a few years ago, you would´ve saved me from a few headaches and missed shots. Thank you for sharing and keep up the good work! Stay safe!
Sadly, there will always be missed shots - but we continue to learn and improve. Thanks for your kind words.
Thanks Maarten, loved the way you presented this.
Glad you enjoyed it, always nice to read kind words from my viewers.
Another competent video. I need to try to remember to evaluate the histogram more often. Still, I shoot raw and am mostly quite happy with the results when processed. Difficult lighting situations would benefit from bracketing, though. Thanks again.
Competent! Exactly what I was going for. Right, bracketing can be useful - but if your camera has a dynamic range extension tool, or HDR, those can be useful too.
Using the RGB Histogram you can get the best exposure. If you clip a color channel you will see it. Because sometimes the luminous histogram shows a proper exposure but colors can be clipped. If color is clipped on the right close down. If color is clipped on left you must open. Get it right in camera with RAW and adjust nothing like white balance in post.
In post your adding or subtracting nothing but the gain. Exposing to the right properly executed is the only way to go.
There are very few cameras that offer an RGB histogram while shooting.
Yes, like audio, a hot signal, but not too hot !! ... we could say a reasonably hot signal.... thanks for the excelllent video
Like Goldilocks - just hot enough.
Interesting video. Thank you for your time and work.
Glad to hear you think so, thanks for commenting.
As anyone with a bit of experience with digital cameras will tell you, digital sensors are better at storing shadow data(in not exactly sure of the reason), and thus it is better to expose for the highlights than the shadows as the shadows are easier to recover in post later. ETTR is outdated unless you shoot in certain log formats. Thank you for your work Mr. Heilbronn!
Not sure I agree. If you approach the right while shooting in Log, you're sure to end up with a file that's difficult if not impossible to correct. Thanks for the kind words.
The single most sympathetic person on TH-cam
I've always thought I put the "pathetic" in sympathetic. Thanks for your kind words.
Thanks always for all this great information Maarten!!!!! Always great to watch your videos!!!
It was a pleasure to read your kind words, thanks for commenting.
Good exploration of a tricky subject, Maarten. To me, the takeaway is this: despite any arguments for exposing to the right, the big danger with digital imaging is still blowing the whites. I'm also guessing that the results might vary from camera to camera: older sensors may not handle the extremes as well as newer ones, on either side of the histogram.
Thanks, always nice to read comments from an authoritative source. Yes, older and smaller sensors will likely be even more sensitive to both noise and overexposure. Best to get the exposure right in camera.
Spot on. Even with a M43, I feel the benefits are limited and Topaz Denoise has been helpful in cleaning noise. My method is expose to the right... exposure. Bird photography, I guess I expose to the right because you usually have to expose about one stop brighter or greater to get the details of the birds. However, use the method of always exposing to the right with a swan or the background is darker than the bird, you risk blowing out the details.
Oh, I like that! "Expose to the right exposure". Thanks for commenting.
Just my observations. I used to expose to the right as a matter of course however with the improved dynamic range of the newer sensors have pulled back away from this method. There are times that are scene dependant where I'll either under or overexpose a touch to get the image I want. The key for me is understanding WHY I'm doing something over blindly following any so called rule.
Very good. Understanding the why is always key to good practice.
Thank you for this! I kept hearing ETTR and then 'sculpt' the light down for contrast. I sort of believed the shadow-detail recovery aspect of that advice, which you have largely debunked here, perhaps it was truer for sensors 15 years ago. What I never believed was that I could retain colour in, say, a sunset by making it almost white and trying to recover the highlights in post, and your video shows this is the case even on cameras with better dynamic range than mine. Cheers from Ottawa
Always nice to know I've helped improve your work. Thanks for the kind words, please say hi to my friends in Ottawa if you can do that safely, including Julie, Justin and Sophie.
@@MaartenHeilbron :)
Very interesting...I can agree in a lot of ways with you! With Great Herons, I prefer to shoot a little to the left actually due to their shiny feathers...with experimentation in Lightroom I’ve learned that with most things I like to try to shoot middle or middle left now as much as I can...
Right, that is, of course, one of the issues - it's generic advice that doesn't apply to all situations. And any photographer with experience already knows the best approach to a scene. Thanks for commenting.
Maarten Heilbron no problem! Photography is one of the most difficult but rewarding hobbies when you get it right...
Marteen you are the best teacher by almost 3dB! From now on I will follow your advise instead of the Instagram... ehm Histogram
Thank you, I appreciate your kind words.
In landscape photography I always try to find a mix between not-to-bright-sky and not-to-dark-rest :)
It's easy to correct a RAW in lightroom by bringing down the highlights and increasing the shadows.
Good approach, but hopefully I've shown you that you're better to under-expose as it's easier (within range anyway) to increase shadows than to save a blown out highlight.
@@MaartenHeilbron yes, you did :) not sure if my comment was understandable. Often underexpose a bit to avoid blown out highlights and "save" the sky. Shadows are easy to increase in lightroom
@@patrick.991 Right you are.
I like the ISO/volume analogy!
Thanks - that's what it is, you are increasing the amplification of the signal from the sensor.
A very useful video. I shoot RAW and often shoot at -1/3 EV and it works well for me. I shoot RAW and honestly don’t understand the fascination with straight of out camera jpegs. Lightroom does a great job with RAW files and it need not take long.
It's always great to read that my videos are useful and appreciated, thanks for letting me know.
I seem to have replied without recognizing your avatar - as always, nice to hear from you, hope you're doing well, stay safe in these trying times.
The same people who are fixated on out of camera JPEGs are likely the same who select cameras based on their "colour science" without understanding that there are a huge range of in camera and post adjustments that can be made easily to create a colour reproduction that corresponds to personal preference.
My practice, which seems similar to yours, is to make those adjustments, if/when they are needed, in Lightroom - which is great to address any number of flaws.
Finally!! A sensible soul to debunk the overplayed “ETTR” mythology.
In digital photography (unlike film photography) the overexposed range is where the greatest danger lies in destroying the detail in your images. By definition, anything exposed beyond 0dBFS (full-scale) has NO more capacity to record anything, and is by definition unrecoverable, yes even shooting raw. To continue the audio analogy, this is what we call "clipping" and the digital medium's ability to record any level above this abruptly falls to zero at full-scale. This is in contrast to the response of analog film, which compresses gently at both ends of the dynamic range, in what we describe as the log d/e curve.
ETTR might be a working method that works for certain people, under certain circumstances, shooting certain types of photography, but as a general rule it will not be helpful for any given photographer.
It is better to have some noise in shadows than to have blown-out highlights that cannot be recovered.
How right you are. Thanks for adding more ammo to my statements.
This is the first time I hear a photographer critically discuss ETTR. There a lots of videos out there by videographers, for them ETTR has become the holy grail. Now there are two main differences between photographers and videographers at this time: 1. photographers can easily shoot in RAW, whereas it is technically challenging, costly and time-consuming to shoot RAW videos. Second, the available light in a video may abruptly change, especially if filming outdoors, whereas a photographer has excellent control over the exposure most of the time (wildlife photography when the subject is tracked and the background may change quickly whilst doing so may be an exception).
Now the problem with 8bit or 10 bit video is the limited quantization range for grey levels. ETTR on 8 bit is particularly difficult with video without overblowing the sky. Now to compensate for this, a log profile is recommended, which compresses the brightness information (the quantization steps are larger).
I'm not aware of any videographers (even those using log settings) who suggest or recommend ETTR. I certainly (maybe you got that from this video) do not. Expose properly for the scene, particularly for faces. However, no rule, recommendation or tool (like histogram, waveform, etc) supercedes your creative instinct in service of the story you're telling and the mood you're creating (particularly for video). Any tehcnique that demands or requires you to make adjustments in post, particularly in low bit-rate, low bit-depth recordings is less desireable than a setting you can create in camera.
Another excellent tutorial/analysis Maarten 👌
I appreciate your kind words, thanks for commenting.
Good examples. While exposing to the right can produce technically better results, whether the improvement is worth the effort can certainly be a different matter. One correction -- to double audio volume, you increase by 6dB, not 3. To cut volume by half, you reduce by 6dB as well.
Thanks for the kind words and the correction.
Consider me sub'd. This is a very interesting topic Maarten, and one that resonates with me...particularly your comparison with audio. I have played with audio for many years now (live music and recording). On the other hand, with my photography I only really started to consider histograms and purposely over/under exposing in the past year or two, and it's been (and continues to be) a revelation.
Your comparison with audio levels is good I think, and this is how I am guided with regards to exposing 'to the right'. When recording audio or simply using microphones etc, the aim for me has always been to have the highest possible signal through the path - until the final mix down. This is done to provide the greatest capture of detail (if it's digital, for example, then you may as well be using all of the bits that you can!), and the lowest comparative noise (after all, if your audio signal is only marginally higher than the noise floor, it's going to sound ugly). Of course, the quality of the equipment used helps a lot, and I think this is analogous to the quality of the camera equipment you are using in photography.
Pushing the limits on audio can result in compression of the signal though, even before clipping. This could result in a loss of detail (though can be desirable) in terms of variance in the level, and I wonder if this also happens with sensors. I also wonder, will it happen more so with one sensor than another?
I shoot with a Pentax KP and an Olympus E-M5ii. I have observed, quite recently, that the Pentax is much better at recovering details from the shadows - as everybody tells you when you shoot micro four-thirds - and if you push those whites too high, you will lose tone and detail as you have said. As a result, I try to be careful just how much I push those highlights if I want to retain any ability to bring back the colours and smooth tonality in those areas of the exposure. I was shooting the same way with my E-M5ii, when an Olympus rep told me that those cameras are quite good at recovering blown out portions of the shot. Well...I started pushing things a little more with the Olympus and - wow - yes it does indeed recover the highlights well...much better than my Pentax KP can.
So, is this some un known and unsung advantage (finally) of smaller photosensor sites inherent with micro four-thirds...or maybe just the underlying electronics. I wondered if the different sensors simply 'compress' the highlights differently as clipping is approached? Maybe it's simply down to the histogram information each camera presents, and my interpretation of that! Either way, this has resulted in me approaching the exposure a little differently in each camera - the Olympus now goes hard right sometimes (maybe often, but not always), whereas with the Pentax I am a little less worried about losing the shadows (I expose to the right, but...gently?).
Not sure I agree that there is no analogue for aperture and shutter speed in recording. If you get a little abstract, then maybe distance to subject, and microphone type and placement can be thrown into the mix as a replacement for aperture/shutter (moving closer to your target with a camera doesn't necessarily make the shadows brighter, but with a microphone, it will certainly increase the sound level vs noise floor)! Ok, it's a stretch. I suppose you could consider that audio recording is like using a bunch of prime lenses with fixed apertures!
Thanks for the video!
Thanks, and welcome to our humble and select group. Always nice to make a new friend.
Hello Maarten, thank you, for the analytic approach of this subject. Exposing to the right is/was popular with some older e.g. Canon camera's due to the limited dynamic range and noisy camera amplification. It was mostly needed if you wanted to push the shadows to the extreme in raw post processing. Raw processors have improved a lot since the last 15 years and are cleaner. Just reprocess some raw files of an older 5DII-7D or D300-D700 and you will notice a different, better, cleaner output.
This technique has been exagerated in the last years on media platforms
We are spoiled now with the mirrorless camera's who can display the histogram when taking the picture. I would suggest showing the RGB histogram as the luminance histogram, as it is possible you blow one of the channels and the colour information of that channel is not recoverable in post.
Knowing your camera is the most important aspect of this technique. Experiment
With the latest generation of camera's claiming in some cases claiming 14+ stops of dynamic range at base iso, I am of the opinion this technique is not needed anymore.
With the current generation of camera technology we have the inverse of the famous Ansell Adams quote "expose for the shadows, develop for the highlights" to a more current "digital version" as "expose for the highlights, develop for the shadows".
In high contrast scenes using Matrix or Evaluative metering I tend to underexpose by 1/3 or 2/3 of a stop if I have no time to do spot metering.
You can still revert to exposure bracketting if you wanted to record the higher dynamic range of the picture. I noticed however that people are going away from that extreme HDR look.
Yes, yes and yes. Thanks for your excellent and detailed comments.
This is presumably part of why he's recommending that you test it with your gear. Each model and sometimes individual camera, will have slightly different results and each photographer will definitely have different opinions about what's acceptable.
Additionally, If you decide that you're going to print at lower than 240dpi you get averaging of pixel values to reduce the amount of noise. It's a trick I've used for years with scanning, where I scan above the actual resolution of the physical medium and then reduce that down to something that matches the detail in the scanned item.It greatly reduces the magnitude of the noise.
One of the reasons that I stopped doing that was that my 5d4 has dual pixel raw and I can simply use HDR processing of the two sets of pixels if I really need that extra bit of detail that I might have lost by exposing at +0 EC.
In the Z6, you can choose TIFF as your output format, which has a wider range than a JPEG. This allows you to use the camera's presets and still have more latitude in post. The Z6II does not have this option. This avoids the major work increase involved with RAW images.
Not sure that makes sense - I think if you want to or need to make changes to your images afterwards, the RAW format provides much more potential for manipulation.
@@MaartenHeilbron 4 Sure. However, unless you do a lot of extra work, you can't apply the manufacturer's profiles in post. My objective is to spend as little time in post production that will deliver the desired results. I want to begin with an image that is approximately right. If the image requires a lot of manipulation to bring it into spec, a gross error was made at acquisition. As an experienced photographer, it's a lot easier for me to get exposure right in camera than it is to try to salvage a problematic image. I realize that this goes against the CW. I only wish that Nikon would provide a baked video image with a wider dynamic range, like a TIFF, so that I don't have to shoot with an external recorder.
@@4CardsMan Understood. Always nice to hear from someone who has a solid workflow.
using digital cameras you have more latitude underexposing images and pulling back the shadows. using film you can overexpose a few stops without losing too much detail. although overexposing on digital can get you a better look in particular scenarios, and saves you from too much post-processing
Thanks for taking the time to add your thoughts.
Hey Maarten,
I generally only use ETTR with astrophotography when under heavy light polution. I have noticed marked reduction in noise using this method and can recover all the data as long as it isn't clipped. Can you touch on why I should not use ETTR for this style of photography and what other methods you would suggest? Obviously I could go to a darker area, but let's leave that as out of scope for this discussion as I am looking for an alternative to ETTR in my current bortle 6 location. (The reason I'm looking for an alternative is that ETTR images take far longer to post process than normally exposed images.) Please note that I still want the highest reduction of noise possible. My current equipment is a D750, 35mm f1.4 prime, star tracker and intervalometer. Current exposure settings are iso 6400, f2, 15s. I usually stack 400 lights, 150 darks, 100 flats, 100 dark flats, 100 bias. (About 2.75 hours of photography in one night starting at 11pm.)
Thank you
Ricky
I have no reason to discourage you from using a technique that works. My comments are general in nature, and meant for novices.
Greetings,. Marten. I am writing on a different subject matter since you made a comparison with audio in the video. I am recording worship sessions for our church with my X-T3 and just last week on the X-T4. I used Rode wireless mic to record the audio. I have problems balancing the vocal with the music accompaniment that comprises a guitar and keyboard. How can I improve the overall audio quality especially the musical instruments? I used Premiere Pro's Multichannel Compressor currently. Do you have any videos on my subject matter? Much appreciated your time and energy to share your experience with us.
You should try using an external mixer.
Very informative video Maarten, thank you. Perhaps we should all just ETTM (middle) where possible?
Yes, absolutely. as another viewer said, "expose to the right exposure".
I believe that the “expose to the right” comes from people who can control their environment (portrait or wedding), nature and landscape, especially with the sky playing a factor, exposing to the left normally give a photo which will capture more information. I find that 1/3 or 2/3 to the left actually gives me more information in the shadows, and at the same time it might blow the sky. But this is almost a religious debate. Thank you for a very informative video.
Thanks for adding this helpful note. However, your expertise means that this rule doesn't really play in your practice.
I experienced that on cameras that become quiet noisy at higher isos, it is generally better to overexpose a little bit because in post processing you don't have to increase the exposure which would introduce much uglier noise. So e.g. under iso 1600 i underexpose a little bit so that all highlights are conserved, on higher isos i overexpose a little bit because it reduces the signal to noise ratio in post processing for me
Thanks for sharing your tips.
Excellent video as usual. I have a question. How do you know if you shoot your exposures according to what you see in the viewfinder or monitor according to what you like, that when you get back home the picture is not under or over exposed? Because they say that that’s what the histogram is for. I set my exposure according to the histogram at 3/4 on a snowy day, then turned on my flash and took the shot. The background came out dark. I’m not sure why. Maybe you could tell me why? And also how to make sure that the monitor or if you find her gives you the exposure that you like when you look at them
On mirrorless cameras, what you see in the viewfinder before you take the picture should correspond to the image recorded. You could review them in the camera to make sure.
The histogram is a tool to assist you with exposure, if you use it correctly. I don't understand "set ... the histogram at 3/4". However, it sounds as if the flash is either not needed or set incorrectly if those are the results.
Excellent tutorial as always. Thank you.
Glad you liked it! And glad you took the time to comment.
Excellent analysis.
Thanks, always nice to see that my viewers appreciate my work.
Hi Maarten. Thank you I so enjoy your informative and considered views and reviews. So refreshing in this internet age which seems to be governed by sound bytes. I spent my early days in trying to expose to the right only to end up moving more to the left. As someone who tends to see in black and white rather than color I tend to go to the” dark side”. I am sure you would have been asked this before but if you have time ( and the inclination) would it be possible to do a video on the dark art of dynamic range and particularly as it relates to the Fuji X system. Please stay well and once again thank you for all the information. Regards from the Desert. Steve. Dubai.
Thanks for the very kind words. Good suggestion - let me think about what that might be - I tend to cover those issues in my reviews, but I think that would be worthwhile and useful. Please say hello to all my friends in Dubai - if you can do so safely.
I think this is one of those ideas that was more important decades ago when you only had either 8 or 10 bits worth of information to work with depending upon whether you were using JPG/TIFF or raw. (I don't think any cameras that supported TIFF files used more bits) With up to 14 bits to work with on some cameras, it makes sense to not expose as closely to the right as you risk blowing highlights or entire areas that you might care about, without gaining much in the shadows.
That being said, these are relatively easy photos to take and the shadows aren't that dark and there's not that much detail to be had. If you had something more challenging, it might make a difference, especially if you've got people that are being backlit and for some reason you can't use a flash or have them stand with the light in a more convenient position relative to them.
You may be right, in 2022 cameras are less likely to show defects in low light areas. And that's partly the point I was making. Unless you intend to do a lot of post-processing, it's always better to expose to the correct than to expose to the right. Thanks for your interesting comments, you make good points.