Olympus-OM
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [OM] IMG: More Experiments with ETTR

Subject: Re: [OM] IMG: More Experiments with ETTR
From: Moose <olymoose@xxxxxxxxx>
Date: Thu, 08 Sep 2011 22:45:37 -0700
On 9/8/2011 9:57 PM, Jim Nichols wrote:
> Moose,
>
> As I said, I am experimenting.  A friend on the LUG asked me for the RAW
> image of the first one, and he could do no better than I did with it.  He
> suggested I look at +.3, so I put it up in the gallery because that was the
> only way I could read all of the exif data.  I agree, from my simple
> experiments, "zero" begins to look better and better.
>
> I am confused by your definition of ETTR.  I thought that the purpose was to
> bias the histogram to the right because that allowed more pixels to be used
> in the shadow area.

Nope, as is so easy with stuff tossed about on the web, you've got it 
backwards. If you had read the Luminous Landscape 
article Chuck posted a link to, which is where the terminology started, you 
probably would have it correct.

ETTR started as people, especially pros and advanced amateurs just starting to 
use the first competent, affordable 
DSLRs, were learning the real differences between film and digital. The idea is 
that digital has two problems (both of 
which were worse back then):

1. Over expose just a little and the highlights blow. Well, that's not so 
different from slide film, we're used to that, 
so just underexpose enough to be sure.

2. Unlike slide film, though, digital gets all noisy, sometimes downright 
blotchy and ugly, in underexposed medium and 
deep shadows. Film lost tonal detail, but did so just by getting darker, not 
ugly.

The answer proposed was to use histograms, a new to most camera tool, to get 
the exposure to just kiss the right side, 
the highest possible exposure, for best shadows, without clipping the 
highlights. It's called expose to the right 
because you are only paying attention to the right side of the histogram, 
letting the left fall where it may.

As with John Hudson's suggestions that there is a better acronym and my 
comments on RAW-raw, there's no sense in arguing 
whether ETTR is a good acronym or not, it's entered the lexicon with a specific 
meaning.

> ...
> Is there a simple way to read the exif data in the RAW converter?  All I get
> is ISO, shutter speed, and aperture.  EV is not shown in my software.

Nope, seems ACR doesn't do that. PSE doesn't? Wait, yes it does.

I found this without looking very far, "in the *PSE7 Editor*, there's a 
possibility to see the current image EXIF data: 
*File=>File Info* and then */Camera Data 1/* or */Advanced /*(EXIF Properties)"

The only PSE I have is an old PSE2 on a laptop used now for other things. 
File=>File Info works on it. It doesn't show 
EV adjustments, but later versions of PSE may.

What do you use for looking through images to open in PSE? FastStone is what I 
use, set so it opens RAW files into 
ACR=>Photoshop. Hitting the 'i' key pops up a window with EXIF data, including 
EV. When viewing images full screen, 
running the mouse over to the right edge of the screen does the same thing.

The best, most through, EXIF viewer, also free, is exiftoolGUI. It shows things 
others don't. But what you are looking 
for now is basic.

Moose
-- 
_________________________________________________________________
Options: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/listinfo/olympus
Archives: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/private/olympus/
Themed Olympus Photo Exhibition: http://www.tope.nl/

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>
Sponsored by Tako
Impressum | Datenschutz