Ansel Adams on Leica Q - spot metering and applying the zone system digitally.

[SrMi]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

40 minutes ago, Stuart Richardson said:

With respect to the masters involved here, both of these methods seem somewhat anachronistic for modern digital photography. I am sure that Ross achieves excellent results this way, but digital raw files are called raw files for a reason. By optimally converting the negative and doing as much as possible in the raw converter, the tonal information contained in the file is preserved as well as possible, which translates to better gradation, lower grain and all in all, few problems.

Exposing to the right, while optimal for preserving highlight detail, can also decrease the tonal range in your shadows and highlights. One of the main reasons film works differently is that it has a natural toe and shoulder to its characteristic curve. Digital (at least before conversion) is linear, so the main concern is to clip as little data as possible. With current digital cameras there is a large dynamic range, so it is often better to expose normally (as if you were shooting slides, for example), as long as you do not clip your highlights, you will have the maximum flexibility in your data, as well as the ability to use photos out of camera for evaluation and editing (not adjustments...editing as in deciding which photos to keep). If you use ETTR, all your files will look overexposed and horrible out of camera, which means you have to do a lot more work just to get them to the level where you can evaluate them.

Making a very basic raw conversion and then doing all the work in photoshop on an extra layer will both massively increase storage requirements, and strain the tonal information in the file rather needlessly (since most of this work can easily be done in a non-destructive editor). Photoshop should really be reserved for compositing, spotting and digital editing that cannot be done well in a RAW editor.

Agree with processing in raw, disagree about ETTR. To ponder: exposing a FF sensor one-stop below optimum is like shooting APS-C with optimal exposure. But do not let ETTR or whatever get in the way of the photography fun :).

AFAICT, what zone system is for negative B&W (used it a long time ago, with B&W film), the ETTR is for digital photography: getting the most out of the camera.

[Rokkor]

vor 21 Minuten schrieb Stuart Richardson:

I am not sure precisely what you mean by zone metering the highlights, but if you mean using a spot meter to place them just under clipping, then I would say that yes, that is usually the best practice in difficult conditions. But in general I would say that in certain photos highlights are going to clip...it is generally unavoidable with certain things (specular highlights or the sun, lamps etc are generally not a problem, but you do not want white walls to blow out etc). I tend to believe that unless your subject is very strongly backlit, it is best to make your file look as close to finished as possible, without clipping important highlights. That is why slide film is a good model -- you only have one chance, so you have to get it right from the start. Digital is very similar, it just gives you more tones to work with. Try to avoid pushing the file around too much in either direction. If you really pull back highlights a lot, they tend to go grey or their color will look off. If you boost shadows too much, you often get noise, banding or reddish/magenta/green color casts. Best practice is to expose down the middle, try not to do anything too heroic in post-processing. Always keep in mind as well that you want to work with the light. Processing can rarely save a photo that was shot poorly or in unrealistic conditions.

Yes I meant spot metering the highlights.

[Advertisement]

The Leica Q3 is available for pre-order at B&H Photo Video and Adorama

[Rokkor]

vor 2 Minuten schrieb SrMi:

Agree with processing in raw, disagree about ETTR. To ponder: exposing a FF sensor one-stop below optimum is like shooting APS-C with optimal exposure. But do not let ETTR or whatever get in the way of the photography fun :).

AFAICT, what zone system is for negative B&W (used it a long time ago, with B&W film), the ETTR is for digital photography: getting the most out of the camera.

“exposing a FF sensor one-stop below optimum is like shooting APS-C with optimal exposure. ” : why is this equal?

so you would say ETTR getting most out of the camera? I am surprised how much more details I can retain. Even on an iPhone this is day and night...

[SrMi]

36 minutes ago, Stuart Richardson said:

I am not sure how clear I was above, but basically, the Zone system was designed to solve very specific problems that arise in the film and darkroom workflow, especially when using sheet film, where individual photos can receive different processing. The reason for the technique is because of the way that film and paper react to light and to chemical development. It is designed to optimize the characteristic curve of the film and paper to produce as many tones as possible on the print.

The digital workflow is utterly different, and the zone system has no realistic place in an all digital workflow. Best to just expose to best represent tones you wish to photograph, while being careful not to clip your highlights. When editing, try to use a good raw editor to get your image as close as possible to your finished image, and only then, if you still need to, should you export the file as a 16 bit tiff and do further editing in Photoshop.

If you don't believe me, try Ctein (we are both professional printers, so believe us...we deal with this a lot):

https://theonlinephotographer.typepad.com/the_online_photographer/2011/10/expose-to-the-right-is-a-bunch-of-bull.html

That article by Ctein is a bit "discussable" 😉. The essential element of ETTR is also to preserve relevant highlights not to brighten the shadows as much as possible. ETTR can also mean underexposing.

I suggest we move the ETTR discussion, as long as it does not pertain to the zone system, into a different thread (and sub-forum).

 

 

[SrMi]

5 minutes ago, Rokkor said:

“exposing a FF sensor one-stop below optimum is like shooting APS-C with optimal exposure. ” : why is this equal?

so you would say ETTR getting most out of the camera? I am surprised how much more details I can retain. Even on an iPhone this is day and night...

It is "equal" from a noise point of view only (link).

Yes, with ETTR, you can get the most out of a sensor. Since most cameras lack raw histogram/blinkies, I am quite conservative in applying ETTR (no UniWB for me): I expose as not to clip relevant highlights even if it means underexposing slightly.

[Stuart Richardson]

1 hour ago, SrMi said:

To ponder: exposing a FF sensor one-stop below optimum is like shooting APS-C with optimal exposure.

I think this is quite misleading. Obviously full frame will have more detail and better tonality, because it has more samples per given area. I think it is also debatable that what you are saying is correct, even allowing for that. Perhaps you can show us an example? Also, "optimal" is also a fluid concept, as is readily apparent in the disagreement in this thread. As I mentioned with ETTR before, just like every other method, ETTR is a trade off. You might get more highlight gradation, but it is at the expense of shadow detail and midtone gradation. With balanced, normal exposure focused on the midtone range, you maximize the tonality in the range where it is needed most.

Edited January 6, 2021 by Stuart Richardson

[SrMi]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

18 minutes ago, Stuart Richardson said:

I think this is quite misleading. Obviously full frame will have more detail and better tonality, because it has more samples per given area. I think it is also debatable that what you are saying is correct, even allowing for that. Perhaps you can show us an example? Also, "optimal" is also a fluid concept, as is readily apparent in the disagreement in this thread. As I mentioned with ETTR before, just like every other method, ETTR is a trade off. You might get more highlight gradation, but it is at the expense of shadow detail and midtone gradation. With balanced, normal exposure focused on the midtone range, you maximize the tonality in the range where it is needed most.

You are right, it is misleading. Mea culpa. I did clarify it in post #25 (noise only).

ETTR is not about highlight gradation. Michael Reichmann (LuLa) misunderstood Thomas Knoll (Photoshop) and explained it incorrectly in the original article. ETTR is about lifting shadows where highlights are not hurt and thus improving detail in the shadows as the noise is decreased.

[zeitz]

2 hours ago, Stuart Richardson said:

By optimally converting the negative and doing as much as possible in the raw converter

Stuart,  you have totally lost me.  There is no negative that is being converted.  Raw is a table of values, pixel by pixel.  Given a decent profile, such as Adobe standard,  you see a good image on the screen.  All the raw converter adjustments are to the image's pixels after the profile de-mosaics the table; adjustments have nothing to do with the raw table itself.  It makes no difference if you adjust in the raw converter, use a Camera Raw Filter in photoshop, or use adjustment layers.  All you are doing is editing pixels in a raster scan graphics program.

[Stuart Richardson]

Zeitz, I am sorry, I said negative, probably was thinking of digital negative. Obviously it is not a "negative" per se. You are correct. The reason I say that as many adjustments should be done in the RAW converter is that by adjusting the image as close to possible as "final", you will be able to use that RAW, un-demosaiced information as well as possible. If you take a tiff or jpeg and start making dramatic adjustments, you will see how quickly the tones will fall apart in comparison to doing the same adjustments in camera raw or Lightroom/Capture One. This is not the case, however, if you are starting with a file format that is not raw to begin with.