11-03-2011, 10:00 AM
(This post was last modified: 11-03-2011, 01:49 PM by Brightcolours.)
Exposure to the right is a reaction to the strange exposure to the LEFT, the very odd idea to avoid "clipped highlights"at all cost, resulting in under exposing images.
The idea behind it is that:
1. RAW has more room to recover "highlights" as shown in histograms than people realize, and
2. The information density at the left is MUCH lower than the information density at the right.
With 2, when you do adjustments ETTL can more easily result in banding/posterization (banding in the right sense of the term, nothing to do with noise patterns).
If you use a RAW converter which shifts the hue to a noticeable extent when adjusting "exposure", it will show with ETTL too. Of course, a correct exposure is preferable to ETTL or ETTR.
What I find a bit silly, is to bring ISO up like done in the articles. When one would ETTR, it is not about noise levels, but rather because one does not know the correct exposure and then the information density on the right has the preference. Not because one is struggling to get a suitable exposure time.
The article "against" ETTR with that night shot is silly. As if ETTR would mean, shoot the night scene as if it was a well lit scene, then bring it back. Ridiculous.
Another point: If one notices a hue shift, it will be shift with all hues... Not hard to shift it back in PP.
Anyway, ETTR was a reaction to the mantra of ETTL which was evangelized for years on at least internet fora, to protect highlights at all cost. And ETTR has PP advantages. But when possible, I think it is best to just nail the exposure. Which then means exposing on mid tones, not histogram.
The idea behind it is that:
1. RAW has more room to recover "highlights" as shown in histograms than people realize, and
2. The information density at the left is MUCH lower than the information density at the right.
With 2, when you do adjustments ETTL can more easily result in banding/posterization (banding in the right sense of the term, nothing to do with noise patterns).
If you use a RAW converter which shifts the hue to a noticeable extent when adjusting "exposure", it will show with ETTL too. Of course, a correct exposure is preferable to ETTL or ETTR.
What I find a bit silly, is to bring ISO up like done in the articles. When one would ETTR, it is not about noise levels, but rather because one does not know the correct exposure and then the information density on the right has the preference. Not because one is struggling to get a suitable exposure time.
The article "against" ETTR with that night shot is silly. As if ETTR would mean, shoot the night scene as if it was a well lit scene, then bring it back. Ridiculous.
Another point: If one notices a hue shift, it will be shift with all hues... Not hard to shift it back in PP.
Anyway, ETTR was a reaction to the mantra of ETTL which was evangelized for years on at least internet fora, to protect highlights at all cost. And ETTR has PP advantages. But when possible, I think it is best to just nail the exposure. Which then means exposing on mid tones, not histogram.