From: Floyd L. Davidson on
Porte Rouge <porterougeman(a)gmail.com> wrote:
>> You are aware that ETTR is a two part process, part one
>> being boost the exposure to maximum possible, and part
>> two is to later reduce it to whatever it is that makes
>> your heart beat fast enough.
>>
>> You *have* to do both.
>
>Yes, I understand. My question is, after ETTR what exactly do you
>yourself do in post processing. Do you adjust exposure, black point,
>or something else?

"After ETTR" means it follows adjusting *exposure* in
post processing.

Incidentally, black point has nothing to do with ETTR or
exposure. For most images if gamma is set correctly
there is no need to move the black point up. Generally
I click on "Auto" for black point, and if it moves the
curve away from the lower right corner I reset it and
review the gamma settings to make sure I've got that
right. Some times it does work out that it helps to
move the black point, but not often.

I adjust exposure, white balance, gamma and linearity,
black point, color saturation and potentially things
like noise reduction and certain lens specific
corrections all with the raw converter. An image editor
is used for resizing, cropping, retouching, USM, borders,
watermarks, etc.

>> >> >When I shot slide film I would spot meter
>> >> >on an area that I knew what the meter should read and set exposure
>> >> >accordingly, and in digital this also yields a good looking sunrise.
>> >> >The histogram, however, is not as far to the right as it could be.
>>
>> >> How can you spot meter on an area that "I knew what the
>> >> meter would read"??? �I don't understand what you mean
>> >> by that statement.
>>
>> >I spot meter on something that, from experience, I know what I want
>> >the light meter to indicate for exposure. For example (for film, no
>> >ETTR), a gray cloud I set exposure so the meter reads in the middle of
>> >the exposure display, a white cloud plus 1 or 2 stops, a black cloud
>> >minus 1 or 2 stops.
>>
>> So you take wild guesses at what shade various parts of the
>> scene are! �(Isn't the whole idea of a meter supposed to be
>> to get away from these wild guesses about exposure??? :-)
>>
>
>It's not really a wild guess. It's like the earlier post about the
>snow bank. I was taught and learned that if I spot metered the snow
>and set exposure so the exposure display read dead center, the snow
>would be gray in the photo. If I use 1 or 2 stops more exposure it
>will be whiter.

So you take a wild guess at 1 or 2 stops more! Even
with film and no histograms most accomplished
photographers attempted to get within 1/2 a stop.
Today, with digital and histograms, it is entirely
possible to be within 1/3rd of a stop.

This may or may not be obvious (I live 300+ miles north
of the Arctic Circle); but do realize that I literally
take thousands of images that include snow! It really
does require paying attention before hand if you want
detail in the snow, or if it can just be "white" or if
it can be blown out totally. (There is this
false claim that Eskimos have 100 words for snow, which
they don't... but skiers do and so do photographers! :-)

And all of that has to be balanced against the
brightness level for people's faces, black dogs, and
white bears.

>If I spot meter the black dog and the exposure meter
>is centered the dog will be gray, so I use less exposure and it will
>be darker.

You guess at how much darker it should be...

What a spot meter can show you (and a histogram can show
even more easily), is how much of a range you have
between the dog and whatever else there is. If it
happens to be a snow bank, it might well be 7 or 8 stops
difference and arbitarily adjusting the dog to something
that "will be darker" will mean that you lose the
texture of the snow. The trick is realizing that the
dog is going to be off scale, so getting texture on both
the snow and the dog means putting the snow right at the
maximum. Then in post processing the brightness is
adjusted to maintain the snow at just under maximum
white while contrast is adjusted to bring the texture on
the dog out of the black.

It depends on the dynamic range of your camera of
course, but the closer one puts the snow to maximum
white the less noise will show up on the texture of the
dog.

--
Floyd L. Davidson <http://www.apaflo.com/floyd_davidson>
Ukpeagvik (Barrow, Alaska) floyd(a)apaflo.com
From: Porte Rouge on

> So you take a wild guess at 1 or 2 stops more!  Even
> with film and no histograms most accomplished
> photographers attempted to get within 1/2 a stop.
> Today, with digital and histograms, it is entirely
> possible to be within 1/3rd of a stop.

Floyd, baby, chill out. "Wild guess" is over the top. I'm a slow
typer, I didn't go into a lot of detail about the metering. I do all
the stuff in your post here, meter, histogram, Photoshop, ACR (thanks
for the link to UFRAW by the way,that looks interesting) I was just
checking to see what other methods people used to correct their photos
in post processing.

> This may or may not be obvious (I live 300+ miles north
> of the Arctic Circle); but do realize that I literally
> take thousands of images that include snow!  It really
> does require paying attention before hand if you want
> detail in the snow, or if it can just be "white" or if
> it can be blown out totally.  (There is this
> false claim that Eskimos have 100 words for snow, which
> they don't... but skiers do and so do photographers! :-)
>
> And all of that has to be balanced against the
> brightness level for people's faces, black dogs, and
> white bears.
>
> >If I spot meter the black dog and the exposure meter
> >is centered the dog will be gray, so I use less exposure and it will
> >be darker.
>
> You guess at how much darker it should be...
>
> What a spot meter can show you (and a histogram can show
> even more easily), is how much of a range you have
> between the dog and whatever else there is.  If it
> happens to be a snow bank, it might well be 7 or 8 stops
> difference and arbitarily adjusting the dog to something
> that "will be darker" will mean that you lose the
> texture of the snow.  The trick is realizing that the
> dog is going to be off scale, so getting texture on both
> the snow and the dog means putting the snow right at the
> maximum.  Then in post processing the brightness is
> adjusted to maintain the snow at just under maximum
> white while contrast is adjusted to bring the texture on
> the dog out of the black.
>
> It depends on the dynamic range of your camera of
> course, but the closer one puts the snow to maximum
> white the less noise will show up on the texture of the
> dog.
>
> --
> Floyd L. Davidson <http://www.apaflo.com/floyd_davidson>
> Ukpeagvik (Barrow, Alaska)              fl...(a)apaflo.com

From: Wilba on
Floyd L. Davidson wrote:
> Wilba wrote:
>> Floyd L. Davidson wrote:
>>>
>>> Neither you nor DRS were even able to analyze a couple of
>>> fairly simple histograms;
>>
>> I decided not to respond to that challenge because it was irrelevant ...
>
> Sure Wilba, sure. In fact, the put up or shut up
> challenge simply ended the discussion because nobody
> could even come close. They *knew* it was over. No
> point repeatedly claiming to understand histograms when
> you can't even analyze a simple one!

No point getting sucked into a troll ambush. :- )

> As the least well informed of just about anyone who got
> into the discussion, your posting entire articles with
> nothing but insults is just hilariously entertaining.

Sure. Well, it is interesting that whenever someone posts on-topic evidence
that refutes your loopy claims, you completely ignore it. How about that?

A few minutes after my last reply to you, I came across the following. It
perfectly describes what you seem to be experiencing and how your behaviour
comes across.

"Feeling threatened can bring up the ego state of self-righteousness where
the opposite point of view cannot be entertained. Judgment based on fear and
threat to the self has the language of bad, wrong, vengefulness and
retribution. To the extent that you are strongly identified with injustice,
unfairness, threat and being wronged, you dis-identify with emotions of love
that allow you to feel intact, valued and safe.

"This represents a state of radical non-acceptance of the situation, the
other person or yourself. Anger along with the defense mechanisms of denial,
blame and the projection of blame, creates a judgment of the source of the
problem being out there (in the other/s), and not in here. This is "It's not
me-it's you or them" is dis-recognition from cause/responsibility/ownership
within oneself. Growth is impeded. The energy around the issue remains
stuck.

"The ability to hold opposites and contradictions together at the same time
in the mind is one measure of healthy thinking. Those who are so caught in
high emotional arousal that they cannot see the other part/s of the story
lose the ability to negotiate to come to a solution satisfying to both
sides. When we accept the situation, other person and our self we can
embrace different and even conflicting beliefs, attitudes or perceptual
states at the same time. However, when we are being judgmental and
separative, to that degree we are unable to see different points of view and
other ways to perceive the conflict so that problem-solving can be
accomplished."

Now here's your chance to prove me wrong. I predict, and I'd bet good money
on it, that your authentic response to the above will be exactly as it
describes. QED. I also predict that your reply will be to either ignore it
completely, retort childishly (like, "Takes one to know one!"), or simply
insult me. What I would like to happen instead is that you consider for a
moment that you are creating your own experience, at least to some extent,
as described above. Good luck!


From: Floyd L. Davidson on
Porte Rouge <porterougeman(a)gmail.com> wrote:
>> So you take a wild guess at 1 or 2 stops more! �Even
>> with film and no histograms most accomplished
>> photographers attempted to get within 1/2 a stop.
>> Today, with digital and histograms, it is entirely
>> possible to be within 1/3rd of a stop.
>
>Floyd, baby, chill out. "Wild guess" is over the top. I'm a slow

It's a wild guess.

--
Floyd L. Davidson <http://www.apaflo.com/floyd_davidson>
Ukpeagvik (Barrow, Alaska) floyd(a)apaflo.com
From: Floyd L. Davidson on
"Wilba" <usenet(a)CUTTHISimago.com.au> wrote:
>
>No point getting sucked into a troll ambush. :- )

Now you are trolling...

I am, however, not interested in non-technical discussions,
and twice as disintrested when it has nothing to do with
photography.

--
Floyd L. Davidson <http://www.apaflo.com/floyd_davidson>
Ukpeagvik (Barrow, Alaska) floyd(a)apaflo.com