Exposing to the right

[ShootRaw]

You do not need a Handheld light meter to be accurate in M mode..Give me a break. In today's cameras.......Matrix metering is quite accurate..Pro's shoot in manual for a reason..Have you seen Jerry ghionis's work? He is one of many who shoot's in Manual on the big wedding day.No handheld meter is needed..It is not about zeroing out to the center for accurate exposure. that is just the starting point to you decide how many clicks to the left or right you need to go to get correct exposure..

 

[manaheim]

My suggestion to you... as a newbie... is to put your camera in aperture mode, possibly program mode (not Auto), and just worry about your compositions.

Shoot in manual when you realize that shooting in an automatic mode failed you.

Photography, and the artistry of photography, are INSANELY steep learning curves as it is. The last thing you need to do is overcomplicate them by throwing away perfectly useful tools that are available on your camera on day one.

that's THE THING. the twenty or so modes confuse me more than being in manual. :mrgreen:

So put it in P and let the camera do the work for now. P sets your aperture and your shutter automatically. The only thing it will not adjust is your ISO (which is FINE... for reasons not worth getting into quite yet.)

 

[Derrel]

Exposing to the right used to bring with it a very significant benefit with digital sensors that were made 10,12,13 years ago. If you're using a state of the art digital SLR with one of the new wide-dynamic range and rich-color, low-noise sensors, like say the new SONY-made sensors, oh in like, just for ONE single example, the Nikon D800, FAILING TO expose fully to the right has become in a practical sense, MUCH LESS of a deal-breaker than it used to be back when sensors were very much "sucky", as in the D100 days, or whatnot. Software has also become much,much better, within just the last few years, and it is much easier to get both shadow separation, and highlight control and placement, with a wide variety of exposure variations.

If you look around, you'll see that expose to the right articles on the web are often 10 years old....that was a different time. Please take very,very careful note of what I have written here. I'm not saying that ETTR offers no benefits, so please, save your keystrokes and skip the indignant and hoity-toity post-in-response (you know who you are). ETTR was once a cornerstone of good digital best practices...back when both sensors and software were in their infancy. That was a looooong time ago, speaking in sensor and software terms.

 

[bribrius]

Manual is only more accurate if you use an incident light meter to take your meter reading and dial in the exposure based on that and not based on the in-camera meter -- and especially if you're taking multiple meter readings (highlight readings, shadow readings) and then using an exposure which does not clip or blow the range of the camera. You could put your camera into spot metering mode then look for the brightest point and darkest point you can find in the scene, meter those separately, then find the middle exposure -- although matrix or evaluative metering mode will try to do this for you anyway.

Otherwise consider this:

You activate the meter in your camera while on Manual mode. You see an arrow through the viewfinder which indicates if you are over-exposed or under-exposed. You adjust ISO, shutter, and aperture until the arrow points to the "0" ... indicating a correct exposure for the amount of light the camera metered.

OR

In any of the semi-auto-modes you select either the aperture (possibly used to control the depth of field of the shot) or shutter (to control the motion of the shot) priority and dial in what you need... then the camera meters the scene and automatically sets the complementary parts of the exposure to provide a correct exposure for the amount of light the camera metered.

Now think about this... in BOTH scenarios... the final exposure was based on producing a correct exposure for the amount of light the camera metered. Neither is "more accurate" then the other.

This is why I say the ONLY time it would actually be MORE accurate is if you use an incident meter, because an incident meter is checking for the amount of light falling on the subject you care about and NOT using the amount of light being reflected off the subject you care about. Incident meters are thus more accurate -- but they are more cumbersome and if the shot you're taking is a "landscape", you may not want to hike out 10 miles to "meter" that mount and then hike back to your tripod to dial in the exposure -- so a reflected meter reading is a huge time saver (chimp the histogram if you're worried.)

Go ahead and use ALL the modes on your camera. There is a reason they are there. Use the mode most effective for the shot at hand. Don't fall in the trap of believing that Manual is somehow "better" than the other modes... manual is not necessarily better or worse... it just offers you absolute control. But if your plan was to just go with whatever it takes to get the meter to zero out in the middle then you're not gaining anything by shooting in manual... you're just taking more time to dial in the exposure then the computer would have used.

okay. I have a question. so I spot meter using the camera, then I do the same exact frame in auto. there is a bright tv on on the right side of the frame (doing this in my living room) cars driving by with a little window glare or shine. I spot meter zero in a neutral object. click. set manual exposure. in the other pic, I let it run in auto.
The auto setting would take the effects of the tv. cars going by, whatever else wouldn't it? But the manual exposure, ignoring the tv as it was set on a another object more neutral in the setting, ignoring the headlights of vehicles driving by. would give me the more accurate exposure wouldn't it? This is my understanding of metering in manual mode.

Auto mode, take a shot in a dim setting, comes up with "raise flash". Assuming you don't want a flash effect. you cant use auto. Put in aperature priority. camera adjusts aperature. But jacks the iso a liitle. now you have noise. change your noise limitations instead of letting it free float. Does the camera readjusts for you not allowing the iso to free float in ap priority? Don't you have to go in and turn on noise reduction now? Dim room, ap mode. Consider turning on d lighting?
This is where I get confused. which is probably why I don't deal with it. Same room. I would do a quick manual meter off the camera. put my iso at 200. lower my ap down to 2.8 and take a shot. looks over exposed drop the exposure compensation a notch. and bring up the shutter speed. under exposed bring the ap up to 3. something click up the exposure compensation and maybe slow the shutter .
Is there really a big difference there?
The main difference, I see when comparing what I took in manual and what was done in a auto mode is iso. in manual I tend to be able to keep the iso lower. same frame, I keep a two hundred iso a mode will take the picture at 400. I take it at 400 it takes it at 800. Camera take it at 1600 I took it with a 800 iso. And ap. Camera auto takes it at 4 I took it at three. so Basically a wider aperature with lower iso. Is what seems consistently different.

 

[Eagle74]

My suggestion to you... as a newbie... is to put your camera in aperture mode, possibly program mode (not Auto), and just worry about your compositions.

Shoot in manual when you realize that shooting in an automatic mode failed you.

Photography, and the artistry of photography, are INSANELY steep learning curves as it is. The last thing you need to do is overcomplicate them by throwing away perfectly useful tools that are available on your camera on day one.

Good point, Its alot of fun twirling the dials and adjusting this or that, that by the time I'm done adjusting everything the actual composition of the scene has taken second place.

I am still at the stage of learning how my camera reacts to different settings, its tempting to waste a scene taking test shots. I think I will leave the testing and all that to when I'm at home puttering about. In time I'm pretty sure I will be able able to make the most from a technical perspetive of the features of my D7000, but If I don't bring my heart, eyes, creativity to a scene then I defeated the very purpose I bought this thing in the first place. Thanks for the reminder.

 

[runnah]

With raw files and sensors these days as long as you are within 2 stops either way of ideal exposure you are golden.

 

[apaflo]

With raw files and sensors these days as long as you are within 2 stops either way of ideal exposure you are golden.

True, but only if you shoot at low ISO's or are not at all critical!

Modern cameras with something at or close to 12 stops of dynamic range can shoot at base ISO and there really isn't much difference within a couple stops down from clipping. A JPEG can only encode about 8 or 9 stops of dynamic range, and a print has even less.

But a digital camera loses about 1 stop of dynamic range with each 1 stop increase in ISO sensitivity. If ISO 200 provides a 3 stop cushion, then at 1600 there is none! Hence at anything other than base ISO, it still makes a difference.

For example the Nikon D4 is probably the best low light camera currently available, and at ISO 1600 it has less dynamic range (7.88 stops) than a JPEG image can show. Basically from about ISO 800 on up exposure has to be exact because there is no leeway at all, and whatever noise there is in the shadows will either show or shadow detail will be lost.

 

[Gavjenks]

Exposing to the right used to bring with it a very significant benefit with digital sensors that were made 10,12,13 years ago. If you're using a state of the art digital SLR with one of the new wide-dynamic range and rich-color, low-noise sensors, like say the new SONY-made sensors, oh in like, just for ONE single example, the Nikon D800, FAILING TO expose fully to the right has become in a practical sense, MUCH LESS of a deal-breaker than it used to be back when sensors were very much "sucky", as in the D100 days, or whatnot. Software has also become much,much better, within just the last few years, and it is much easier to get both shadow separation, and highlight control and placement, with a wide variety of exposure variations.

If you look around, you'll see that expose to the right articles on the web are often 10 years old....that was a different time. Please take very,very careful note of what I have written here. I'm not saying that ETTR offers no benefits, so please, save your keystrokes and skip the indignant and hoity-toity post-in-response (you know who you are). ETTR was once a cornerstone of good digital best practices...back when both sensors and software were in their infancy. That was a looooong time ago, speaking in sensor and software terms.

Better sensors simply give you more dynamic range and also I suppose higher bit depths to divide it up. Neither can just magically pull data out of an image that is clipped (blown highlights look worse than blocked shadows, completely aside from anything regarding sensor data density, which I've never heard of having been changed much incidentally. I was under the impression that it was a fundamental feature of CCD technology, do you have a citation to suggest that it has changed?).

Yes, more dynamic range means that in a wider range of situations, the image WON'T clip in the first place, simply because there aren't always lights bright enough and local enough to get that much higher than the metered exposure. But it's still fairly common if you're just not paying attention at all. Especially in, like, sunsets, street lamp scenes, windows on a sunny day while shooting indoors, etc.

But you still need to consider whether or not to expose to the right. Ignoring it completely is the equivalent of saying "Oh well modern cards have better crumple zones and better braking tires that make rapid deceleration 50% less likely. So I'm just never going to wear a seatbelt anymore." Well that's a fine choice... 50% of the time.

Until dynamic range gets so high that no common earthly scene can extend beyond it, ETTR is relevant... even if the linear vs. logarithmic thing isn't an issue (which again, what makes you say it isn't?)


Edit: I interpret ETTR as both pushing the histo further right if empty space is to the right OR pulling it more left if there are blown highlights at all. I.e. perfect right snuggly fit, either way. This might not be how others are using the term?

 

[Derrel]

Exposing to the right used to bring with it a very significant benefit with digital sensors that were made 10,12,13 years ago. If you're using a state of the art digital SLR with one of the new wide-dynamic range and rich-color, low-noise sensors, like say the new SONY-made sensors, oh in like, just for ONE single example, the Nikon D800, FAILING TO expose fully to the right has become in a practical sense, MUCH LESS of a deal-breaker than it used to be back when sensors were very much "sucky", as in the D100 days, or whatnot. Software has also become much,much better, within just the last few years, and it is much easier to get both shadow separation, and highlight control and placement, with a wide variety of exposure variations.

If you look around, you'll see that expose to the right articles on the web are often 10 years old....that was a different time. Please take very,very careful note of what I have written here. I'm not saying that ETTR offers no benefits, so please, save your keystrokes and skip the indignant and hoity-toity post-in-response (you know who you are). ETTR was once a cornerstone of good digital best practices...back when both sensors and software were in their infancy. That was a looooong time ago, speaking in sensor and software terms.

Better sensors simply give you more dynamic range and also I suppose higher bit depths to divide it up. Neither can just magically pull data out of an image that is clipped.

Yes, more dynamic range means that in a wider range of situations, the image WON'T clip in the first place, simply because there aren't always lights bright enough and local enough to get that much higher than the metered exposure. But it's still fairly common if you're just not paying attention at all. Especially in, like, sunsets, street lamp scenes, windows on a sunny day while shooting indoors, etc.

But you still need to consider whether or not to expose to the right. Ignoring it completely is the equivalent of saying "Oh well modern cards have better crumple zones and better braking tires that make rapid deceleration 50% less likely. So I'm just never going to wear a seatbelt anymore." Well that's a fine choice... 50% of the time.

Until dynamic range gets so high that no common earthly scene can extend beyond it, ETTR is relevant.

ETTR was HUGELY important, perhaps critical even, when we had chit sensors, like those in the Nikon D1 back in 2000. ETTR is only situationally critical now that we have sensors like the new SONY sensors that have 14 EV dynamic range at base ISO. But as a Canon shooter, you're still lagging two EV values behind, so I can appreciate your position and where you're coming from. In plain English, ETTR USED TO BE of huge benefit in almost any situation. Today....not so much. See, I learned that over 13 years of shooting d-slr cameras from multiple generations.

Maybe some day you can understand the difference between "then" and "now". At one time, people had to turn a crank at the front of their engines to start their automobiles; later on, the "self-starting engine" was developed. At one time, arm strength was a critical factor in driving an automobile...by the late 1930's, that had changed. See how that works?? What was once "critical, every single time" gave way to "no longer the case."

Yes, ETTR is "relevant". But it is no longer "critical", the way it once was. Sensors are better, and software is far better. Maybe you ought to investigate a SONY-sensored camera sometime soon. See what you're missing as far as "Pliability" of the files.

Take a look. See how far SONY has come. http://www.fredmiranda.com/5DIII-D800/index_controlled-tests.html

 

[Gavjenks]

That article had pretty much nothing to do with exposing to the right or any of the reasons you would do so. I'll be clearer in this post. There's two things I mean when I personally say ETTR:

1) Lowering the exposure if any highlights are clipped. This happens slightly less often with modern cameras compared to 10 year old ones, but still quite commonly. Only a a few stops of dynamic range have been added in that time, and real world scenes can still have MANY more stops of dynamic range than our modern cameras do sometimes. In such cases, the cameras will (usually, depending where you point it) try and center the exposure, blocking shadows and clipping highlights. I think it generally looks a lot better to shift it so that the highlights are barely not clipped, at the expense of shadows which don't look as bad. This is still very relevant, perhaps even "critical" in very high DR scenes.

2) Raising the exposure if you aren't using the top part of the histogram (and then lowering it back again in the RAW converter). This is due to the physics of how sensors work and the difference between linear and logarithmic measures. The highest stop in your range has 1/2 of all the data. The second stop has 1/4, etc. (one extra stop = 2x as many photons = half of all the precision up to that point). So if you aren't using the top of your range, you're wasting the most sensitive and precise part of your measuring device.

As far as I am aware, none of this logic of #2 has changed one iota in the last 10 years. The newest of new modern sensors still have half their data in the top 1 stop of their range, unless you have citations to the contrary (I'm not even sure if it's physically possible to have that ever not be true, but maybe). Thus, this is still exactly as relevant as it ever was. You could argue that with higher bit depths, it doesn't practically MATTER if you waste (overabundant) data. And sure, okay, but why are we buying new cameras if we are just throwing out their new advantages?

Note that ETTR requires more light, and in low light handheld situations, it may not be worth it, by increasing shake blur. But pretty much any other time that you have the time to do it and are trying to take a top notch photo, you generally should at least consider it, I think. As much now as before.

 

[Gavjenks]

Here's a little graphic I drew up. This is a toy example of a hypothetical camera that has 4 stops of dynamic range and 5 bit depth, using individual photons as exposure for simplicity.
The X axis represents the range of the camera, similar (not identical) to the X axis in the histogram you see on the back of your LCD. It is scaled by stops.
5 bits = 32 discrete luminosity values possible (let's say 0 = "no photons during exposure, blocked shadow". 31 = "more than we can detect, blown highlight"). They are NOT divided equally across the range.
The top stop of dynamic range has 1/2 of all the lightness values the sensor can detect, but is only 1/4 of the range, since stops are logarithmic.

Above are two examples of histograms. Normally the LCD screen doesnt have the resolution to show you these differences, but our low bit depth example makes it apparent. One is not exposed to the right. Notice that it has less information and is blockier, because most of the image is falling in the low-precision part of the range. Whereas the one exposed to the right has much more data in it, because it's using the higher precision part of the range. You then edit it in RAW with all this extra data to your liking, then digitally stop back to a proper exposure.

TL;DR: You'll get more posterization if you expose the same image to the left of the histogram than to the right
AFAIK, this is all still as true of modern sensors as older ones.



And when you stop and think about it, it becomes extremely intuitive and necessarily obvious: when you ETTR, you're getting the same image, without clipping any of it, but you're doing so with more light in every part of the image. Of course more light = more fine grained information available. You're literally letting more data into the lens, and sensors are fundamentally capable of taking advantage of that extra data (as long as you shoot in RAW, although even a trivial little bit if you don't at the very lowest stops!)

It's like trying to understand somebody on a low bandwidth audio connection versus a higher one. Same person talking, same sentences, but lower number of data bins makes it almost incomprehensible if you're being stingy with your megabytes. Same thing here, but you're being stingy with your shutter speed (or whatever). If you NEED to (very low light), then go for it. Otherwise ETTR.

 

[weepete]

A lot of the time now I use the zone system. So basically I just spot meter on the brightest part of the scene and judge where I want that to be in my exposure (usually it's 1-2 stops overexposed). I'll also check the shadows for clipping and the main subject to see if it falls where I expect it to be but I don't tend to worry too much about that now. If I'm clipped on the shadows or my main subject is going to be well underexposed it's a candidate for HDR and I'l then fit the exposure in to that.

Needless to say in dynamic situations this is not too useful, it only really works if you have time or the lighting is not changing often but seeing as a lot of my shots are landscapes it's proving quite effective so far for me

 

[Rick58]

The basics are really very simple. There's only one RIGHT exposure. Ask yourself what is most important in your scene. Stopping or enhancing speed? DOF? or unusually bright or dark lighting. Use that for your priority and let the camera do the rest. I usually shoot in manual, but that's only because that's how I learned and I'm too thick to change.

 

[EIngerson]

Hi everyone,

I need some expert advice. I want to shoot in manual as much as possible but zero'ing out the meter often gives unexpected exposures.

As a newbie shooting Raw and post processing should I be checking the histogram and adjusting until I am at the edge of clipping the hightlights?

I read somewhere on the "internets" that this is a good idea, but I simply don't know enough to know if this will be a good practice to adopt.

The "right" way is to learn the advantages of each exposure mode and then pick the appropriate mode as required for whatever you are doing.

That said, the most common configuration that I use is Manual Exposure, with AutoISO, and then fine tuned with whatever amount of Exposure Compensation is required. Generally I use a center weighted light meter setting.

None of that is ever cast in concrete and for any given shot or for an entire job I may well switch to something else. (I don't think I've ever really used a "Programmed Mode" for other than testing. I also never use Matrix Metering or Active D Lighting, which are Nikon specific light metering variations.)

So what's that all mean??? I set Aperture and Shutter Speed for artistic effects. I let the camera adjust ISO to get an appropriate image, though I might "recalibrate" the light meter a little up or down using Exposure Compensation. This absolutely invovles monitoring the camera's Blinking Highlight display and the RGB histograms. Maybe not for every shot, but absolutely for the first few shots until I've got it "right", and every now and then or anytime the light changes to make sure things stay "right".

I'm curious how auto ISO and exposure compensation fine tunes for you. I'm not knocking your method, I legitimately want to here about it. My way of thinking is, if you mess with exposure comp, you just make your camera choose a different ISO. I NEVER shoot in auto ISO. It's just not a variable I want my camera to choose for me.

Essentially, you've created an "ISO priority" auto mode.

 

[kathyt]

I push to the right when I spot meter off of skin. My tones tend to be right on target, and not underexposed. It just depends on what I am shooting.
*I should also note that I will overexpose about 1/3 of a stop as well.