Maximize Contrast when taking photo

[RichardsTPF]

Is it true that CPL help improving contrast? I know CPL is mainly used to reduce reflections from non-metallic surfaces. If there is sufficient light, do you think CPL is a good idea?

Can someone tell me how Picture Control works? I think PP has more control and does better job than pre-programed Picture Control.

 

[Destin]

Underexposing by a small amount will indeed give more color saturation, and more perceived contrast. Shooting at a low iso, outdoors during the day, I always try to underexpose by 1/3-1/2 stop in camera to get more saturated colors and avoid blowing highlights.

However once I get above say, iso 400, or start shooting a darker scene, or at night, ETTR is the rule I use -that is, overexposing by 1/3-1/2 stop in order to achieve less noise in my photos.

ETTR, and slight underexposure are both proven techniques for getting better photos, it simply depends on your end goal, and what you are shooting. You learn with experience when to use each one, and why.

 

[EchoingWhisper]

Underexposing by a small amount will indeed give more color saturation, and more perceived contrast. Shooting at a low iso, outdoors during the day, I always try to underexpose by 1/3-1/2 stop in camera to get more saturated colors and avoid blowing highlights.

However once I get above say, iso 400, or start shooting a darker scene, or at night, ETTR is the rule I use -that is, overexposing by 1/3-1/2 stop in order to achieve less noise in my photos.

ETTR, and slight underexposure are both proven techniques for getting better photos, it simply depends on your end goal, and what you are shooting. You learn with experience when to use each one, and why.

Never ETTR other than on base ISO, the only thing you get is blown highlight, you don't get better noise results.

 

[unpopular]

I have the ETTR thing down pretty precisely. Like everything you can't just meter any old way and expect reliable results. You can't just increase exposure by some random amount, not withstanding the scene itself.

If you meter for the hilights and place them at the outer limits of the cameras latitude, then you do not get blown hilights. I don't know for sure about overall noise, I seem to be getting better noise performance, and theoretically you should - but I am ensuring I have maximum latitude. Certainly my shadows are much less noisy and more flexible as a result.

 

[Destin]

Never ETTR other than on base ISO, the only thing you get is blown highlight, you don't get better noise results.

That's absolutely bogus. One of the most important reasons to ETTR is to reduce noise in high ISO photos, as the brighter the photo, the less visible the noise is.

By definition, ETTR is exposing as far to the right as possible without blowing highlights. Therefore, if you're blowing highlights, you aren't ETTR'ing properly.

At high isos your dynamic range is less than at base iso, so you may not be able to push your exposure as far to the right without blowing highlights. That doesn't mean that ETTR isn't useful at high isos though, I use it there all the time, and it works very well to reduce the visible noise in photos.

 

[EchoingWhisper]

Never ETTR other than on base ISO, the only thing you get is blown highlight, you don't get better noise results.

That's absolutely bogus. One of the most important reasons to ETTR is to reduce noise in high ISO photos, as the brighter the photo, the less visible the noise is.

By definition, ETTR is exposing as far to the right as possible without blowing highlights. Therefore, if you're blowing highlights, you aren't ETTR'ing properly.

At high isos your dynamic range is less than at base iso, so you may not be able to push your exposure as far to the right without blowing highlights. That doesn't mean that ETTR isn't useful at high isos though, I use it there all the time, and it works very well to reduce the visible noise in photos.

When you increase ISO you brighten the photo, then you pull it down it becomes the same. I mean, you should ETTR using shutter speed and aperture but not ISO.

 

[hartz]

I also kind of feel like you're suggesting that one must always compromise shadow detail in order to maintain contrast. This isn't necessarily true, but you do need enough shadow detail to work with in order to bring about the local adjustments necessary, at least in ways that do not compromise image quality.

Very definitely not always. I'm happy with the Jpegs my camera produces 95% of the time. 90% of the rest of the time I'm too lazy to fix the picture. But as long as I've had a camera with the capability, I've been shooting JPEG+RAW... just in case, and because if I spend the time to turn this on and off, I lose the (snap)shot.

In particular, I think this sort of knowledge (expose to the right) is handy in cases such as these. I've tried taking pictures of rainbows and those cresp-something rays, and failed. Now I am armed with some knowledge so that next time I'll have a better chance of getting it right.

So I really do not think it is the best course of action to try to get everything "right" in camera.

I agree, but as I've explained I've had cases where I could not fix it in post processing, and the crux of it appears to lie in the fact that not enough data was collected in the right range of tonal and/or luminosity levels.

As others have said, you're really relying on how the engineers at Canon or Nikon or Sony or whoever produced your RAW editor think is the ideal way to render every single image that comes it's way - usually this is just a simple gamma translation. It is much better, IMO, to expose for maximum detail across all tonal regions so that you can render the image the way YOU see it.

The problem with this is in the limitations of the sensor (including the pre-amp and A-to-D phase). And I gather it is the luminosity levels, not the tonal regions, which affects this specific area most.

I suppose that this is what it ultimately boils down to: sometimes the way those engineers see things are flat and lifeless (lol)

Speaking of those engineers: Why isn't the "auto" mode on a high-end camera as good as the auto mode on Point-and-shoot cameras? Forget about the technological superiority of the collected data provided by the high-end camera. This is about the simply usable, often beautiful results from these cameras! I feel the contrast and saturation and noise reduction done by P&S cameras surpass that of high end cameras. I understand that this is only true in AUTO mode, that it assumes you do not want to do something special with post processing, and achieved by throwing away large amounts of data. What counts though is the end product.

 

[hartz]

I have the ETTR thing down pretty precisely. Like everything you can't just meter any old way and expect reliable results. You can't just increase exposure by some random amount, not withstanding the scene itself.

If you meter for the hilights and place them at the outer limits of the cameras latitude, then you do not get blown hilights. I don't know for sure about overall noise, I seem to be getting better noise performance, and theoretically you should - but I am ensuring I have maximum latitude. Certainly my shadows are much less noisy and more flexible as a result.

Could you please explain all of this much more verbosely! What about the scene do you consider? Do you suggest metering for the highlights? The camera have a latitude?

Why is "noise performance" so important to everybody? Stop looking at my pixels, look at my photos.

 

[unpopular]

The camera I happen to own is a notoriously noisy body, so I kind of need to be careful. But noise performance is not nearly as important to me as shadow performance.

I would love to see some of your photographs. Do you have a link?

Before I start on how I meter, I just want to say that I do not think that getting everything "right in camera" is meritless, it's a valid technique which many photographers choose - after all, if you're getting good results out of camera that's fine, all it means is that you have different values in what is important in an image; it's not technically a "wrong".

Now, that said, when I don't get lazy and actually expose properly, often times I will utilize about 75% of the histogram on less contrasty scenes and 90% of the histogram on more contrasty scenes, with exposure always extending almost to absolute white.

You had said that you opt to use the entire available histogram on what was important. At first I thought that this was an interesting exception - but in fact you too are using the same amount of space, except that instead of placing the image further up and lighter, you're placing it further down and darker, more like how the image is to be ultimately rendered. We're using the same amount of theoretical bits, only that they are placed in different regions.

The issue comes up when you want to make local adjustments to the shadows. With all your shadows now squeezed into the lower, excessively noisy part of the histogram, it is very difficult to make useful and clear information out of them. You could adjust exposure in such a way that emphasizes them but by exposing for the highlights I absolutely ensure that everything recordable by the camera is present in the raw file. If anything is blocked up, I know that if I tried to lighten it the highlights would blow out because they are already placed at the upper limits of latitude.

Often times when discussing ETTR it is either a kind of trial and error, or it is suggested to up the exposure by some predetermined amount. Being the anal zone system type of guy I am, this just didn't cut it for me. +2/3 stop doesn't say anything about the contrast ratio of the scene - and more important, there is that pesky question of how do I meter in digital?

I started out approaching digital like b/w film, exposing for the shadows and compensating for their appropriate placement (typically -2 or -3ev for placement at Zone II or III). I quickly found, however, that doing so often leads to blown highlights since there isn't an analog to adjusting development time. I started having to meter off the highlights, just to ensure that my shadow placement was within latitude. This worked, but was unsatisfying and was kind of a pain.

So I started exposing as if shooting slides, compensating for the highlight placement and allowing the shadows to fall where they will. Around this time I started reading about ETTR and realized that this was essentially what I was doing. I then started to realize that if I metered off the lightest region and placed it in the brightest exposure possible, I would maximize ETTR in a way that is specific to the scene rather than some arbitrary "one size fits all" approach.

So, I found that my camera is capable of exposing 3-4 stops above meter depending on color balance. This does not matter if the brightest region is middle grey or a white puffy cloud on a summer afternoon. If I spot meter the lightest region and provide about 5ev more more exposure, then it will be placed at the brightest point my camera can record. From my experience, this places the metered point at Zone 8 with detail extending to nearly but never extending to, absolute white.

In extremely low contrast situations where the darkest region is greater than 50%, it may be technically better to place the lightest region according to, or closer to, it's desired placement to avoid stretching the shadows across such a huge latitude. But for more typical scenes this technique does work and provides for excellent shadow integrity, detail and signal over noise.

It does require post processing to properly place the shadows. I am also working on a method to place shadows according to their brightness and intended placement, however I need to do some additional tests to see if this is practical.

 

[EchoingWhisper]

The camera I happen to own is a notoriously noisy body, so I kind of need to be careful. But noise performance is not nearly as important to me as shadow performance.

I would love to see some of your photographs. Do you have a link?

Before I start on how I meter, I just want to say that I do not think that getting everything "right in camera" is meritless, it's a valid technique which many photographers choose - after all, if you're getting good results out of camera that's fine, all it means is that you have different values in what is important in an image; it's not technically a "wrong".

Now, that said, when I don't get lazy and actually expose properly, often times I will utilize about 75% of the histogram on less contrasty scenes and 90% of the histogram on more contrasty scenes, with exposure always extending almost to absolute white.

You had said that you opt to use the entire available histogram on what was important. At first I thought that this was an interesting exception - but in fact you too are using the same amount of space, except that instead of placing the image further up and lighter, you're placing it further down and darker, more like how the image is to be ultimately rendered. We're using the same amount of theoretical bits, only that they are placed in different regions.

The issue comes up when you want to make local adjustments to the shadows. With all your shadows now squeezed into the lower, excessively noisy part of the histogram, it is very difficult to make useful and clear information out of them. You could adjust exposure in such a way that emphasizes them but by exposing for the highlights I absolutely ensure that everything recordable by the camera is present in the raw file. If anything is blocked up, I know that if I tried to lighten it the highlights would blow out because they are already placed at the upper limits of latitude.

Often times when discussing ETTR it is either a kind of trial and error, or it is suggested to up the exposure by some predetermined amount. Being the anal zone system type of guy I am, this just didn't cut it for me. +2/3 stop doesn't say anything about the contrast ratio of the scene - and more important, there is that pesky question of how do I meter in digital?

I started out approaching digital like b/w film, exposing for the shadows and compensating for their appropriate placement (typically -2 or -3ev for placement at Zone II or III). I quickly found, however, that doing so often leads to blown highlights since there isn't an analog to adjusting development time. I started having to meter off the highlights, just to ensure that my shadow placement was within latitude. This worked, but was unsatisfying and was kind of a pain.

So I started exposing as if shooting slides, compensating for the highlight placement and allowing the shadows to fall where they will. Around this time I started reading about ETTR and realized that this was essentially what I was doing. I then started to realize that if I metered off the lightest region and placed it in the brightest exposure possible, I would maximize ETTR in a way that is specific to the scene rather than some arbitrary "one size fits all" approach.

So, I found that my camera is capable of exposing 4-6 stops above meter depending on color balance. This does not matter if the brightest region is middle grey or a white puffy cloud on a summer afternoon. If I spot meter the lightest region and provide about 5ev more more exposure, then it will be placed at the brightest point my camera can record. From my experience, this places the metered point at Zone 8 with detail extending to nearly but never extending to, absolute white.

In extremely low contrast situations where the darkest region is greater than 50%, it may be technically better to place the lightest region according to, or closer to, it's desired placement to avoid stretching the shadows across such a huge latitude. But for more typical scenes this technique does work and provides for excellent shadow integrity, detail and signal over noise.

It does require post processing to properly place the shadows. I am also working on a method to place shadows according to their brightness and intended placement, however I need to do some additional tests to see if this is practical.

I really like your way. But I am not doing it yet, because it is a bit unpractical now.

 

[unpopular]

I really like your way. But I am not doing it yet, because it is a bit unpractical now.

That's ok. I think I'm the only one who does... I am curious though why this is not practical for you?

I can think of several situations where this technique is not suitable. To make it work you're getting very close to the cameras latitude and it is very easy to over expose, and because exposure is based on reflected light and not available light, you can't really "set-it-and-forget-it" So for situations like active portraits and photojournalism, my technique is not at all suitable. You also tend to get pretty slow shutter speeds.

 

[Derrel]

Unpopular...do you use the Tone Curve adjustment on your camera? I feel that that "is" the closest control we have in digital to the equivalent function of development time. LOW tone curve is low gamma, Minus Development. Maximum Tone Curve represents hard Plus Development. NORMAL tone curve is normal development. The tone curve's setting plays a HUGE part in the histogram's information, since all cameras create the histogram from a JPEG image that is processed in-camera, and not from the RAW file.

Some of the newer, consumer- and enthusiast-oriented cameras, like the Nikon D7000 for a specific example, were/are/have been accused of "over-exposing" scenes, when in reality what it is is a difference in how the JPEG-creation engines in those cameras are handling the exposure PROCESSING, especially with regard to tone curve or contrast settings. Thom Hogan mentions this in his D7000 review primarily because it was a big internet "scandal" when newbies who were used to shooting their little D40 in Vivid mode, and with the settings cranked to HIGH on everything, got ahold of a camera that had an inherently "snappier" way of processing images.

Also, I am kind of wondering if your Sony's metering is keyed or indexed to the tone curve when the camera is in evaluative metering mode, etc..

 

[EchoingWhisper]

The camera I happen to own is a notoriously noisy body, so I kind of need to be careful. But noise performance is not nearly as important to me as shadow performance.

I would love to see some of your photographs. Do you have a link?

Before I start on how I meter, I just want to say that I do not think that getting everything "right in camera" is meritless, it's a valid technique which many photographers choose - after all, if you're getting good results out of camera that's fine, all it means is that you have different values in what is important in an image; it's not technically a "wrong".

Now, that said, when I don't get lazy and actually expose properly, often times I will utilize about 75% of the histogram on less contrasty scenes and 90% of the histogram on more contrasty scenes, with exposure always extending almost to absolute white.

You had said that you opt to use the entire available histogram on what was important. At first I thought that this was an interesting exception - but in fact you too are using the same amount of space, except that instead of placing the image further up and lighter, you're placing it further down and darker, more like how the image is to be ultimately rendered. We're using the same amount of theoretical bits, only that they are placed in different regions.

The issue comes up when you want to make local adjustments to the shadows. With all your shadows now squeezed into the lower, excessively noisy part of the histogram, it is very difficult to make useful and clear information out of them. You could adjust exposure in such a way that emphasizes them but by exposing for the highlights I absolutely ensure that everything recordable by the camera is present in the raw file. If anything is blocked up, I know that if I tried to lighten it the highlights would blow out because they are already placed at the upper limits of latitude.

Often times when discussing ETTR it is either a kind of trial and error, or it is suggested to up the exposure by some predetermined amount. Being the anal zone system type of guy I am, this just didn't cut it for me. +2/3 stop doesn't say anything about the contrast ratio of the scene - and more important, there is that pesky question of how do I meter in digital?

I started out approaching digital like b/w film, exposing for the shadows and compensating for their appropriate placement (typically -2 or -3ev for placement at Zone II or III). I quickly found, however, that doing so often leads to blown highlights since there isn't an analog to adjusting development time. I started having to meter off the highlights, just to ensure that my shadow placement was within latitude. This worked, but was unsatisfying and was kind of a pain.

So I started exposing as if shooting slides, compensating for the highlight placement and allowing the shadows to fall where they will. Around this time I started reading about ETTR and realized that this was essentially what I was doing. I then started to realize that if I metered off the lightest region and placed it in the brightest exposure possible, I would maximize ETTR in a way that is specific to the scene rather than some arbitrary "one size fits all" approach.

So, I found that my camera is capable of exposing 4-6 stops above meter depending on color balance. This does not matter if the brightest region is middle grey or a white puffy cloud on a summer afternoon. If I spot meter the lightest region and provide about 5ev more more exposure, then it will be placed at the brightest point my camera can record. From my experience, this places the metered point at Zone 8 with detail extending to nearly but never extending to, absolute white.

In extremely low contrast situations where the darkest region is greater than 50%, it may be technically better to place the lightest region according to, or closer to, it's desired placement to avoid stretching the shadows across such a huge latitude. But for more typical scenes this technique does work and provides for excellent shadow integrity, detail and signal over noise.

It does require post processing to properly place the shadows. I am also working on a method to place shadows according to their brightness and intended placement, however I need to do some additional tests to see if this is practical.

My camera - D5100 is a super dynamic range camera, but I can't even save my highlights in Lightroom once I go above +3 to 4 EV using spot metering on the brightest part, how did you go to 6 EV?

 

[unpopular]

Hmm. I'll look into this. I actually have quite a few controls to look at.

However, my most recent calibration was on a brightly lit white reference and the clipping was pretty close to what the camera was saying.

I am having some issues with my preview not being accurate all the time, but I think that has more to do with the crappy spot meter; I am really regretting having sold my starlight at this point.

I did make one typo, RE: color balance inaccuracy, it should be 3-4 stops, not 4-6. I get confused because I dial up the meter to +2 and then count 5-6, 1/3ev "clicks" since my meter only reads out to ±2, which is a real major pain.

I want to upgrade to the NEX-7 or, if I can afford it, that new Fuji rangefinder.

---

ETA: tests don't show any effect. I I could prob get 1/4ev more exposure but calibrating the lens also, but that just seems silly.

 

[unpopular]

hey michael - that was a typo, see above