Talk:Exposing to the right - Knowledge (XXG)

1303:

when shooting is set as to maximize recorded image quality, and the desired final exposure is set in post-processing. Where we don't seem to agree is the equivalence of EFTH and ETTR. Yes, the two come from quite different premises. But I believe their outcome happens to coincide, because when maximizing exposure to the right edge of the histogram with ETTR, one also happens to expose for the highlights - just because the highlights are at the right edge of the histogram content (subtle differences do exist - EFTH is not defined so precisely and its exact effect on the right edge of the highlights is not certain, while ETTR may be merely sensitive to poorly defined histogram edge due to small highlights). It is true that by EFTH (and ETTR) one may have to sacrifice the quality of the shadows in case of higher-DR scenes, but this is an issue only when the DR of the sensor is not sufficient for the DR of the scene.

1106:

views better, I do not think there are entirely different points there. But it is not my intention to be confrontational, I would appreciate if we could work together to make the article better. I think it is a better idea to keep a discussion (I don't want to see this as a dispute), I would like to discuss matter we don't agree in, not to quarrel but to get things more clear. Generally, I have zero wikipedian ambitions, and I have no illusion my lines are perfect. I wouldn't care what wikipedia says on ETTR for my private needs. But I keep seeing novices who are confused over ETTR. Not the basic low-DR part, that's easy, and you've got that covered roughly. The higher DR and JPG-vs-raw histograms, that's where they are confused. Some come quoting this article, with not much clue how to use ETTR in a bit more challenging cases. I thought a better explanation here might help many. I did come in good faith.

1309:

decide to shoot raw should be able to grasp them, but the industry doesn't seem to like embracing them. Perhaps a gamma-corrected histogram with marked points of blowing could be a compromise solution, combined with a "flat" image setting and a sufficiently wide histogram display. Currently, gamma-corrected histograms tend to fail for the pre-visualisation purpose in the higher-DR case, simply because in-camera rendering isn't good enough at the automatic HDR tonemapping part. The current in-camera DR extensions (experience with Nikon ADL) do help with better HDR tonemapping, but make things worse for judging raw data exposure because they involve heavy and scene-dependent instant post-processing that heavily affects the histogram, and they also actively affect exposure (underexpose raw data by up to a stop or two). _sem_

259:

digital signal capture. The latter is achieved when the exposure is maximized subject to the constraint that the (important) highlights are not blown. In the histogram this means that the right edge of the histogram is aligned with its right edge. The histogram example is technically correct but for a low-DR scene. The challenging exposure issues are with wide-DR scenes where the dynamic range exceeds the range of the in-camera histogram. Luminance histogram is shown only, JPG vs raw histogram issues are not explained, and a bunch of practically relevant trade-offs are not discussed. It'd be a good idea to add an example of processing ETTRed raw files of wide-DR scenes to fit within standard display DR, preferably in different possible ways.

994:"JPG-centric", and the raw image has the status of an optional extra. And, unfortunately, the camera image rendering engines are not catching up with sensor DR improvements so well. I know because I can render properly exposed wide-DR raw files in LightRoom much better than the camera does using its instant DR extension (Nikon ADL, Sony DRO...). Mind these extensions are not some faux-HDR, because they render with a natural-look intent and actually do capture a substantially higher input DR, than default, about 12 stops with ADL on recent Nikon full-frame DSLRs (see respective DPR camera reviews). But they don't get the full 14 stops available in raw - which is partially because they 805:

actually get a wrong impression here. Unfortunately, my edits were quickly undid by Nagualdesign. I fully admit my contribution lacks references etc because I'm not a skilled wikipedian and don't have much time for this. There is much more that should be added to put ETTR in the full context of practical single-exposure HDR processing. The external link "ETTR Exposed" is a very good reference, with image and jpg/raw histogram examples. I merely wanted to point out that claiming that ETTR always means increasing exposure is plain wrong, and to give a hint that ETTR is also relevant in a high-contrast context. BR, _sem_

982:

abruptly; in blown areas with small gradients one can actually see edges at lines where each of the three colour channels get saturated, and weird rainbows of false colours between them. And they are nastily obvious because they are in bright areas of unprocessed images (there are odd things at the shadows edge too, which are the subject of the ETTR procedure, but normally only get visible when lifting shadows heavily or with some other heavy forms of pp). The main concept behind ETTR is the distinction between the visually desired exposure and the exposure optimal from the digital measurement point of view.

990:

G16, no highlights headroom but I don't really like its meter), the ETTR concept is important in order to get clean shadows from a normal-DR scene. If you got two stops using ETTR in 2003, the improved sensor gives you the same advantage today without ETTR chimping, because of the improved DR (on account of less noise and more bit-depth). Careful exposure based on ETTR is still valuable with the improved sensors, but the practical advantages are visible mainly with higher-DR scenes (these sensors can be used for many scenes which were once in the exclusive domain of multiple-exposure HDR).

680:, the first of the external links, published by Chicago University. It's author has tested the technique with some rigor and shows that it does indeed work, albeit for slightly different reasons than is often assumed. One thing it does not seem to deal with is selectively adding 'fill-light' in post production (a common technique), which a simple test confirms does indeed lead to posterization. However this simple test would be considered Original Research and is therefore inadmissable. If I could find a reputable source that has published such tests I would add it to the refs. 874:

the raw histogram, as needed for single-shot HDR use). One should expect issues with auto-HDR algorithms because the right edge of histogram content is often poorly defined (for instance with small specular highlights) and because the the metering sensors of DSLRs are low-resolution (have large "pixels"); one might expect better performance with mirrorless cameras or in live-view, where the main sensor is used for metering - but it is unrealistic to expect that the entire image sensor is used in metering, due to camera processor computing power limitations.

1546:

ETTR. The second one is unfortunately mostly invalid, except with Magic Lantern and one Leica AFAIK. The third one is often violated, though it depends a lot on the camera and shooting mode - I find it completely irrelevant but Nagualdesign does not accept using "ETTR" for anything involving a negative exposure compensation. Also, I tried making a special section on the higher-DR case to leave the original article intact as much as possible, because this was indeed the way ETTR was first established, and to avoid conflict with Nagualdesign. BR, _sem_

1022:(no ML for us unfortunately). A couple of the latest models feature Highlights-Weighted Metering, which is reportedly prone to underexposure of raw data unfortunately (diglloyd.com) (probably made for JPG). This is why these things need to be explained to novices on daily basis, and it really doesn't help to have a Knowledge (XXG) article in a form which offers no clue. It would be really great if someone could explain things more nicely and add references, but I don't think burying head in the sand is an acceptable procedure. BR, _sem_ 692:

convertors are available), or better yet, take the first photograph and stop it up. Now open both files in Photoshop and count how many 'steps' there are in each shadow. You should see greater (or should I say worse) posterization in the 'normal' photograph. You can use a drastic curves or levels adjustment to see the banding more clearly, but do remember to treat both photographs in an identical manner and make sure that you're working in 16-bit mode. (Convert them to 8-bit and they will look nearly identical.)

1325:"You may be tempted to underexpose images to avoid blowing out the highlights, but if you do, you’re wasting a lot of the bits the camera can capture, and you’re running a significant risk of introducing noise in the midtones and shadows. If you underexpose in an attempt to hold highlight detail, and then find that you have to open up the shadows in the raw conversion, you have to spread those 64 levels in the darkest stop over a wider tonal range, which exaggerates noise and invites posterization. 801:

within the DR of current in-camera JPG engines, about 8 stops. Certain in-camera DR extensions (Nikon ADL, Sony DRO etc) may be able to process some more DR, see for instance "Dynamic range" pages of camera reviews at DPReview.com. But one is still able to do much better manually by shooting raw, exposing carefully (using ETTR with some further considerations), and processing with a wide-DR capable raw converter (for instance, Adobe Lightroom, or the free Raw Therapee).

759:

Michael Reichmann and Thomas Knoll is wrong, however. That paper actually shows that ETTR works in the simple case of overexposing (within limits) and then globally stopping down an image in post-processing, compared to simply taking a normal exposure. However, it does not deal with cases in which an image is processed via dodging and burning and other techniques, which any photographer will tell you is the very reason they shoot in ETTR:

147: 1136:

to record scenes with quite high DR without compromise. ETTR would be directly applicable, if they were able to show the raw histogram (well, a good approximation of it). With a minor deviation from the circumstances described for the low-contrast scene: in my experience with Nikon cameras, one cannot always assume that the initial camera metering will produce an image with a "centered" raw histogram. Quote from you:

22: 77: 53: 1205:, any by exactly the amount of difference from the initial camera metering. But even in this context, if you wouldn't start with a roughly centered histogram of a low-DR scene with a blob somewhere in the midtones range, but at a random previous position in the M mode instead, you would sometimes have to decrease exposure if the starting histogram was blown in the highlights, wouldn't you?" 978:, any by exactly the amount of difference from the initial camera metering. But even in this context, if you wouldn't start with a roughly centered histogram of a low-DR scene with a blob somewhere in the midtones range, but at a random previous position in the M mode instead, you would sometimes have to decrease exposure if the starting histogram was blown in the highlights, wouldn't you? 1519:

that's it, mission accomplished. If the camera is not ISOless and no desirable highlights have been clipped in the raw data, ISO should be increased in-camera (3) until either just before they are or the camera becomes ISOless, whichever comes first. In neither of the two situations above the histogram is necessarily all the way to the right, although it often is for obvious reasons.

1010:

convertes but not yet in-camera rendering engines, which let one blow some other unimportant highlights without the ugly side-effects). Then one is no longer looking at the histogram content as one chunk that needs to be flush right for basic ETTR; the exposure is increased a bit further, so that the spikes that can be associated with the unimportant highlights go into saturation.

87: 767:

light to dark areas, having been poorly digitized in the first place. To put it simply, by overexposing in the first place nothing needs to be lightened in post. If you'd like to quote the section(s) of the paper that you referenced which you think demonstrates the 'misdirected reasoning' of Reichmann and Knoll, perhaps we can discuss how the article might be improved.

1014:

there is no optimal exposure just compromises (bracketing and HDR blending is possible with still scenes). In my experience with Nikon DSLRs, with scenes over the standard ca 8 stops shown by the histogram but within the sensor DR so that a non-blown raw capture is possible, the default metering is somewhere for the midtones, but rather haphazard than optimal,

179: 503:"The image sensor will, however, (depending on its design and features) use between 8 and 16 bits of information to record the brightness of a given pixel in the image. If we assume an 8-bit sensor, and for the time being ignore the color of the image, the available brightness values are 0-255. Fully black will be recorded as 0000 0000 814:. What you are describing is called "exposing for the highlights" (to the detriment of the rest of the image), not ETTR. If the dynamic range of the scene exceeds that of the camera then ETTR isn't a viable option; instead you can either expose for the highlights, expose for the shadows, take a normal exposure or use HDR/bracketing. 327:) is just plain wrong and utter nonsense! Truth is: When you "shift the histogram to the right", you basically increase exposure time. The longer the exposure, the less noise, it's that simple. Sensors catch light, a basic physical principle, nothing else, they have no distribution of complex tonal values or such. 1419:

I agree this article is nicely written, regarding the very basic things. But it fails to address the more challenging aspects of ETTR use with raw histograms. So novices after learning that bit very soon see higher-DR examples and come asking "Why is your source image so dark? How can you say this is

1328:

Correct exposure is at least as important with digital capture as it is with film, but in the digital realm, correct exposure means keeping the highlights as close as possible to blowing out, without actually doing so. Some photographers refer to this concept as “Expose to the Right” because you want

1308:

Regarding raw/jpg, linear/logarithmic/gamma-corrected histograms, certainly each has its value. Gamma-corrected is surely the most relevant for final processing. I think a logarithic raw histogram is best for judging exposure for raw ETTR, though it may be a hard nut for wide masses - well those that

873:

The Magic Lantern firmware also implements an auto-ETTR function (I've got no personal experience with it). Certain recent Nikon DSLRs have a highlight-weighted metering option, which is essentially also auto-ETTR (however, according to a few expert reviewers it is not useful for ETTR with respect to

668:

also misrepresents ETTR in their blog. The tests that they performed were of little practical value as they used ISO gain to expose to the right. As others have pointed out in the comments section of that blog, only 2 of the examples laid out are even valid. And setting out to disprove something that

576:

I would suggest that the x-axis of the histogram be labeled: My initial reaction to those histograms was that they didn't correctly show the scaling of the response due to the doubling of the exposure. I am coming from a sensor/FPA POV where I would consider the photon to electron to 'digital unit'

489:

The sensor does not record information, it collects light. More properly, it converts light into electric charge. Double the light exposure and you double the charge (up to a limit). This charge is then digitized (converted to a number), such that a doubling of the number represents a doubling of the

371:

being exported to Photoshop (other non-linear editors are available). A more accurate image of an ETTR histogram would look almost exactly like the 'normal' histogram but shifted to the right, without being stretched out. The same mistake is made on the Luminous Landscapes website, which I reproduced

1545:

Comment: Of course, the low-DR and high-DR cases are essentially the same, but under the assumptions that the sensor DR is sufficient for the scene DR, that a raw histogram or its good approximation is available when judging exposure, and that the camera meter defaults to a lower exposure value than

1259:

It's worth noting that the finished image ought to have an even, gamma-corrected histogram, so having that on your camera, along with the live viewfinder, helps you to pre-visualize the finished image (linear histograms not so much). The clipping warning of a gamma-corrected luminosity histogram can

1251:

Most gamma-corrected histograms show 5 stops (of equal width), which is good for assessing the tonal range of the image, aiming for a fairly even spread. A linear histogram, on the other hand, reveals that this 'even' spread is often bunched up in the left half. If you intend to develop your digital

1135:

I think you didn't catch the particular situation I am addressing, maybe because you are used to a camera which has the ability to show raw histograms (with ML) but does not have a sensor with as much useful DR as some Nikons and Sonys. These other cameras are, with careful exposure and in raw, able

1013:

You claim: "When it comes to high-dynamic-range scenes (those which equal or exceed the DR of the camera) ETTR becomes redundant, as the digitization of a normally exposed image is already optimal (the right half of the RAW histogram is already in use)." If the scene DR is larger than the sensor DR,

1009:

only, for the sake of cleaner shadows (the basic aim of ETTR). For instance, if there is the sun or sharp-edged specular highlights in the frame, it is usually okay to leave them blown (notice the limit has changed with the introduction of handy "highlights recovery" algorithms available in some raw

869:

is an approach of modifying the default camera rendering so that the in-camera histogram becomes a good approximation of the raw histogram in the highlights range, unfortunately resulting in odd greenish JPGs. Several new cameras sport a "flat" (low contrast) rendering mode intended for capture of a

1459:

As the subtitle asks, should this article cover Exposing for the Highlights? Please read the above section before providing opinions. The IP editor appears to believe that any exposure in which the histogram reaches the right edge (without clipping) is a form of ETTR, even if the resultant image is

1056:

of the things I said I will respond to that. As I said before, "When it comes to high-dynamic-range scenes (those which equal or exceed the DR of the camera) ETTR becomes redundant, as the digitization of a normally exposed image is already optimal (the right half of the RAW histogram is already in

892:

ETTR was primarily intended for anyone shooting in RAW who also processes their images in Photoshop/ACR. Even in 2003 (when ETTR was first described) most DSLRs had enough dynamic range to adequately capture most scenes, but heavy post-production could noticeably reduce image quality. That is still

853:

of about 8 stops (which is there mainly because by what current displays are typically able to show). The point is that with such sensors, one is able to practice ETTR (expose for the highlights), with respect to the raw histogram, therefore avoid blown (important) highlights, and still get shadows

796:

In the simple low-contrast context, initial metering indeed usually produces a central blob in the histogram, and ETTR requires a positive correction. This is good as an initial didactic part. But in practice, the gains of ETTR with low-contrast images may be worthwhile only with poor-quality image

792:

There is a very common misconception that ETTR always means increasing exposure (and that there is an ETTL standing for decreasing exposure). In fact it is about adjusting exposure so that the histogram is flush right, without a spike indicating blown highlights (to be more precise, blown important

584:

In color photography this process can have a negative effect on color fidelity and even contrast as the intensity increases due to non-linearities in the FPA. There is, for any FPA, a 'sweet spot' in the output range that minimizes this latter effect. If one were to do ETTR with this in mind, the

428:

The 5-segment histograms are copied off my EOS 600D. I also presumed that each line represented +/-1EV, and a quick test confirms this, yet the camera can take photos with more than 5 stops range. Go figure. (Something to do with the histogram being based on a jpg, rather than the actual raw data.)

285:

The premise behind ETTR is the falicy that each bit records a different zone of f stop of light thus meaning the last bit of a 14-bit raw file records massive detail all in the highlights. This is of course an absolute absurdity to anyone who has even a basic understanding of how semiconductors and

258:

There is a common misconception that ETTL means decreasing exposure (and ETTR increasing exposure), while in fact ETTR may mean increasing or decreasing exposure, referring to some default camera metering (or maybe from a random previous exposure manually chosen in the M mode), with the aim of best

1388:

Conversely, I can find numerous examples equipped with raw and jpg histograms, indicating that raw images offer a stop or two of additional "highlights headroom". But this doesn't seem to be an universal truth; my humble Canon G15 doesn't seem to have any, and if the jpg histogram seems blowm, the

1355:

I can't take credits for inventing any of this. All I know, I have learned mostly from the web, some from books, and just verified myself. I fully agree that it would be great to look up proper references, and I did supply some. But I think it is firstly important to form content in a didactically

1302:

Generally I quite agree with everything regarding "conventional" exposure - exposing for the midtones / highligts / shadows, high- and low-key shooting consideration. "Conventional" exposure assumes that one should expose as to achieve the desired final exposure, opposed to ETTR where the exposure

1243:

If your camera shows a histogram you can view the range of tones in the image and ensure that there is no excessive clipping. The histogram is normally gamma-corrected in order to represent how we see; ideally, an evenly lit, normally-exposed scene will show a flat/level histogram tapering down at

1105:

I am sorry if you took that sand as an offence; with that just I wanted to point out to you that I didn't perceive your undos and replies exactly as "good faith". If I seem to be discussing ad nauseam, this is because I feel like you're not showing interest in arguments; I was trying to explain my

917:

during post-production (particularly when adding fill light). It is therefore the antithesis of ETTR, notwithstanding the fact that you may have carefully made sure that your histogram extends as far to the right as possible without clipping. In reality, when you Expose for the Highlights you move

880:

Thank you for the reply, although it fails to cut to the heart of this issue. Before I explain why, I would like to note that I have read every single reference used on this article in full, plus many more, and I understand them completely. I also have Magic Lantern installed on my camera and have

758:

I've reverted a lot of the edits made recently as there were a few misconceptions being banded about. The facts about signal-to-noise ratio were already mentioned in the opening paragraph, including the reference to Emil Martinec's work. Representing it as an 'important paper' that all but debunks

413:

I'm not sure about those histograms divided into five sections (which I presume relate to the nominal 5-stop range of the camera discussed). Surely the point of ETTR is that those stop dividers should be drawn at 16,32,64,128, illustrating that each higher stop uses twice the number space range of

1518:

1 and 2, representing manual Exposure, should be maxed out first at base ISO. If desirable highlights have been clipped in the raw data at this stage the artist may decide to compromise some blur, sharpness and/or DOF by adjusting 1 and 2 until they no longer are (just). If the camera is ISOless

1239:

When using a light meter (or built-in meter) it's quite straightforward to match the mid-tones of the scene to the mid-tones of the negative. For low-key or high-key scenes you have to do a little thinking and set your exposure (or exposure compensation) lower or higher, respectively, if you want

989:

ETTR was originally invented with low-DR scenes in mind. But at the time, there were no sensors with 14 stops of DR at hand. With the sensors originally considered (and today's compact camera & smartphone sensors - ETTR surely is applicable to compact cameras, I practice it often with a Canon

981:

The motivation for exposing to the right (that is highlights) edge comes from the hard saturation properties of digital sensors. Film had different properties (Ansel Adams etc), blowing highlights was not so problematic because the saturation was smooth by chemical means. Digital sensors saturate

888:

Now, the whole concept of ETTR is predicated on the fact that by deliberately overexposing an image then stopping down during post-production you acquire greater tonal range in the shadows, improved SNR, fuller use of the colour gamut and greater latitude during post-production (particularly when

588:

In monochrome FPAs with high linearity throughout the range, there is great benefit from an ETTR approach. Keep in mind that HDRI essentially uses an ETTR-like approach to capture low-lights by allowing high-lights to blow-out, so to the extent that HDRI 'works' to capture low-light areas with a

1493:

What is the objective of ETTR? I think most knowledgeable photographers will agree that the objective is to capture the best IQ from the scene possible into the raw data. Q stands for Quality. The I in IQ here means visible Information from the scene. If you have captured the best information

900:

When it comes to high-dynamic-range scenes (those which equal or exceed the DR of the camera) ETTR becomes redundant, as the digitization of a normally exposed image is already optimal (the right half of the RAW histogram is already in use). In such cases it may be advantageous to Expose for the

804:

So, I think explaining that ETTR may actually require a negative exposure correction is practically important, and I made a honest attempt to fix it. I think the standing ETTR wiki was a major disgrace to Knowledge (XXG), because many budding photographers trying to learn advanced techniques may

800:

The challenge where ETTR gets really useful these days is high-contrast (high-dynamic-range - HDR) scenes, which used to be the domain of multiple-exposure HDR techniques. Specifically I mean moderately-high DR, which still fit within the DR of the better image sensors when shooting RAW, but not

766:

When burning (or otherwise darkening) part of an image you are in effect discarding data, whereas when dodging (or otherwise lightening) part of an image you're often attempting to represent or reconstruct data that really isn't there, having been lost in the noise or, in the case of adding fill

993:

The lack of raw histograms is a particular problem with ETTR in the wide-DR-scene context that blurs the understanding of the meaning of ETTR for this purpose. If raw histograms were available on every camera, using ETTR for 11-stop scenes would be quite natural. But camera user interfaces are

691:

If you'd like to reproduce the experiment yourself simply photograph a range of dark tones, like the shadow under your settee (a smooth gradient is best), using a normal exposure, then take another with double the Time Value. Next take the second photograph and stop it down in ACR (other RAW

1368:

I am aware of certain problematic points where decent references are probably non-existent. For instance, there is no proper documentation on camera metering algorithms that I would be aware of. Some rather anecdotal evidence is present in certain web forum threads, but these are subject to

1247:

For low-key or high-key scenes you would expect to see a histogram weighted to the left or right, respectively. However, it's quite common for photographers to deliberately increase exposure for low-key scenes (expose for the shadows) or decrease exposure for high-key scenes (expose for the

1168:"ETTR was primarily intended for anyone shooting in RAW who also processes their images in Photoshop/ACR. Even in 2003 (when ETTR was first described) most DSLRs had enough dynamic range to adequately capture most scenes, but heavy post-production could noticeably reduce image quality." 685:

It is certainly a fact that ETTR is disputed - there are many people online who get frustrated even discussing the concept - hence the need to have 'both sides of the argument' represented in the article. But it is far from factual to claim that its denigrators are correct in their

845:, because it is defined as aligning the right (highlights) part of the histogram. It is quite true that if scene DR exceeds camera DR this goes to the detriment of the shadows range (noise and tonal range). The confusing part is that the better sensors these days have considerable 580:

Considered from this POV, it seems clear that increasing the exposure or opening the aperture will increase the intensity resolution in 'digital units' throughout the intensity range while leaving much (but not all) of the noise constant thereby resulting in a better S/N ratio.

1397:

inasmuch as the use of images and straightforward description explains ETTR in an easy to understand fashion. IMO, we should stick to something similar on this article. Introducing the notion that slightly underexposing is sometimes also considered ETTR is just misleading, IMO.

1057:

use)." To reiterate, by 'optimal' I specifically meant that the right half of the RAW histogram is in use. This implies that full use has been made of the available dynamic range of the camera. At this point overall IQ cannot be improved using ETTR (as described by Thomas Knoll

889:

adding fill light). It might properly have been called Deliberately Overexposing Within Limits (DOWL), as that is precisely the prescription offered by the technique. However, as this technique involves careful attention to the histogram it is more properly termed ETTR.

1140:

In my experience, in such cases, using default camera metering, the right half of the histogram may be sometimes in use but only partially, and sometimes there may already be blown highlights, despite ample unused shadows range. How would you form ETTR advice for such

624:

Frankly, I believe that proves that the concept is invalid, thus the article should simply briefly state that ETTR is a flawed concept. Out of respect for the time you have put into the article, I chose to merge the dispute into the text, to add balance. The phrases

865:(well, an approximation of it) is available in Magic Lantern, an alternative firmware for Canon DSLRs (unfortunately Canon sensors are not the best out there regarding DR at base ISO, and additionally suffer from banding which is not considered in DR measurements). 1334:

I fully agree with everything here. With the addition that the threat to the shadows and possibly midtones depends on the difference between the scene DR and the sensor DR in the raw case (or between the scene DR and the camera JPG engine DR in the JPG case).

937:) is, frankly, prattle. Since you cannot provide robust references for your assertions, and don't seem to understand either Knowledge (XXG) or ETTR, yet persist in edit warring I will leave the article as is for now and open a Request for Comment (below). 1434:

You say you have experience with ML and the raw histograms inthere. The sample screenshots I've seen seem to have a relatively small histogram window. Is it possible to set a wider histogram in ML, for a better assessment of scene DR and more accurate

1138:"ETTR becomes redundant, as the digitization of a normally exposed image is already optimal (the right half of the RAW histogram is already in use)." To reiterate, by 'optimal' I specifically meant that the right half of the RAW histogram is in use." 849:, that is about 14 stops above the noise floor (according to the DxOMark); take two or three stops away depending on your personal quality standards of the useful photographic DR, you have 11 to 12 stops available, which is much more than the 1389:

raw image is most likely blown to. Though, this isn't a bad thing according to the ETTR concept. Rather, it is a bad idea to waste good DR on the mostly wasted highlights headroom, especially with sensors which don't have lots of DR. _sem_

985:

So, there is no such thing as ETTL in digital shooting. ETTR / exposure for the highlights is maximizing exposure within limits with the aim of best data capture. Increasing/decreasing exposure is the "manipulated variable" here, not some

1260:

be a bit oversensitive though. Personally I prefer to use a linear RGB histogram purely for the accurate highlight clipping warning, safe in the knowledge that I can always reproduce a good tonal range (normalized histogram) in Photoshop.

998:, which one can see by using RawDigger to check raw data of such images which are ETTR'd according to the camera histogram. (But this is not the only problem here; there is probably the issue of finite bitlength in processing, and also 490:

light exposure. In reality the accumulation of charge and the digitizing process may not precisely follow this rule due to physical limitations and the methods employed to mitigate these limitations, but the basic principle is valid.

487:"A connection is made between the fact that a difference of 1 stop represents a doubling or halving of exposure, while the assumption is made that the same principle is applies to the image sensor and the way it records information." 429:

The only bit of BS are the gradients underneath, which are non-linear and inaccurate. They don't really belong there, strictly speaking, but they give a quick idea of how to read the histograms (that they run from dark to light).

1464:

effects). Also, should the article explain that ETTR is not intended for high-DR scenes? Unfortunately I have not been able to provide good references for that, and even though it is self-evident with a little experimentation

1522:

This is valid for both low DR and high DR images, exposing for the highlights need not apply. I feel that having a separate section on ETTH, low contrast vs HDR is quite confusing (at least to me). Here are a couple of

1064:

My advice would be to allow the RfC to play out before piling on additional reading material. You have made your point(s) for all to read. Maybe take a step back for now and see how the discussion develops. Sincerely,

1197:"::::ETTR is, fundamentally, exactly the same thing as exposing for the highlights. You don't expose an arbitrary amount of EC to the right. In the original low-contrast ETTR context, you increase exposure until the 1420:

ETTR? You cannot get that clean shadows without multiple exposures!" But it is nothing but raw-based-ETTR exposure using a camera that sports a wide-DR capable sensor, followed by four slider drags in LightRoom :) (

1276:

Regarding your final paragraph, I don't quite follow all of it to be honest, but when you say, "ETTR is, fundamentally, exactly the same thing as exposing for the highlights", I have to disagree. As I understand it

925:

The major problem if the article was rewritten to include Exposing for the Highlights (or "ETTL"), which is basically what you are attempting, is that all the benefits and rationale of ETTR explained in the article

969:

ETTR is, fundamentally, exactly the same thing as exposing for the highlights. You don't expose an arbitrary amount of EC to the right. In the original low-contrast ETTR context, you increase exposure until the

809:

The benefits of ETTR (greater tonal range in dark areas, greater signal-to-noise ratio, fuller use of the colour gamut and greater latitude during post-production), which is essentially a form of over-exposure,

1450:)? I assume the resulting DR is comparable to what one gets with the recent Sony and Nikon sensors with a single exposure at base ISO. Notice most references to it recommend the use of raw histograms and ETTR. 1497:

How do you achieve that objective? You need to record the largest signal possible at the camera's cleanest settings subject to the desired artistic intent specific to each capture. No matter what the meter

857:

This is not in conflict with the basic understanding of ETTR assuming a low-contrast scene, but a simple extension of it. Not feasible with most smartphone cameras indeed, but this doesn't mean it isn't

521:

As noted above a single tonal value (be it black, white or any shade in between) is indeed represented by a single number, however mid-gray (in this regime) would be represented not as the mid-value, 128

861:

Unfortunately, even current big cameras don't support raw histograms and decent enough HDR rendering yet - until they do, understanding ETTR is a fundamental concept which lets one do this manually.

1133:"To reiterate, by 'optimal' I specifically meant that the right half of the RAW histogram is in use. This implies that full use has been made of the available dynamic range of the camera. ..." 1041:

Please try to discuss things clearly and succinctly in a way that addresses the issues raised, rather that one person making one point and the other then making an entirely different point

922:(increasing underexposure) until the highlights are no longer clipped. In photography you almost always avoid highlight clipping, but that does not imply that you are always employing ETTR. 636:

However, until research surfaces to disprove , I strongly believe this encyclopedic article should reflect the fact that the concept is proven wrong, although it still has some following.

464:"The basic principle, that the lighter tones in an image contain more information than the darker tones is not consistent with the physical realities of image sensors and their operation." 1252:

negatives it's advantageous to make use of the entire linear range to ensure maximum IQ, in which case an in-camera, gamma-corrected histogram should be bunched up to the right, hence

1460:

underexposed. There are indeed (non-WP) articles online that make the same assertion, but they do not explain that underexposure negates the benefits of ETTR (in fact, having the

1489:

Yes, a lot of different interpretations of what is being exposed to the right of what. This page should instead help to clarify the confusion by explaining how to achieve ETTR.

156: 63: 577:(A/D output) to be the 'linear' response so I would consider this histogram to be non-linear since each vertical bar seems to represent a one stop change (a doubling). 1002:

HDR-style rendering to a pleasing and naturally-looking output image within the standard output DR gets increasingly more challenging with increasing scene (input) DR.).

459:

argument, so I'll attempt to explain it here and, hopefully, a better way of describing the technique may result, so that others do not have the same misconceptions.

1502:

So for a given scene situation with Exposure in Manual mode, as long as no highlights in which the photographer wants to retain detail are clipped in the raw data:

1248:

highlights), such that the histogram sits somewhere in the middle, and correct it later in post. (High-DR scenes may also be exposed for the shadows or highlights.)

1394: 877:

HDR with multiple bracketed exposures is indeed a superior approach regarding the quality of the shadows, but unfortunately limited to still scenes! BR, _sem_

1369:

disappearing image examples etc. The in-camera DR extensions are even more of a mystery. There are rumours that ADL, DRO, HTO, ALO etc originate form Apical (

870:

wider DR (the resulting images tend to look dull and require post-processing); in this mode, the in-camera histogram is somewhat closer to the raw histogram.

455:

as the reasons given for the disputed validity of this technique misrepresent the concept. I expect that this is due to misconceptions rather than a blatant

1597: 585:

necessarily smaller difference between a non-ETTR exposure and this sweet-spot ETTR versus a full-on ETTR exposure would limit the benefit to S/N.

1602: 893:

true today. ETTR wasn't intended for point and shoot cameras or iPhones. And if all you do is overexpose then stop down the whole image in post (

529:

number. This would leave many more tonal values available to describe the upper 'half' of the sensor's range of sensitivity as the lower 'half'.

372:

without thinking. Would anybody like me to change the image to avoid confusion? Conversely, does any body think that changing the image would be

1170:

reminded me that some of the above issues, related to jpg-vs-raw-histogram difference, have been present all along, are not high-DR specific.

308:

You are wrong, or perhaps you have simply misunderstood. I'm trying to make the article clearer. Please let me know what you think. Regards,

266: 1494:

possible from the scene into the raw data, you will have a better chance to process it into a more pleasing final Image than if you hadn't.

1443: 649: 399:-style, linear histograms. It's more technically correct, even though it does not look like the ones on the Luminous Landscape website. 293: 1061:) and, as you mention, any artistic decisions will involve compromises. (Note also that each image in a HDRI sequence is a compromise.) 1607: 1592: 244: 930:. Every test you might think of which demonstrates the efficacy of ETTR would be turned on its head if you Expose for the Highlights. 519:. In both cases we see that the image sensor uses 8 bits to record the information, irregardless of the actual value being recorded." 105: 534:"In ETTR, it is assumed that the part of the image with the highest light intensity uses half of the available recording values.." 605: 33: 343: 1339:

This is precisely the sort of source that can and should be cited in Knowledge (XXG) articles. And since WP is founded on

117: 109: 113: 100: 58: 793:

highlights). Whether the exposure correction is positive or not, depends on the the initial value of the camera meter.

739: 724: 270: 788:

Even more misconceptions, and ETTR for high-contrast scenes (which may require NEGATIVE exposure compensation)

39: 21: 653: 297: 645: 593: 419: 331: 289: 262: 240: 1570: 1477: 1406: 1289: 1073: 945: 822: 775: 702: 601: 567: 434: 404: 381: 313: 248: 212: 1356:

proper and reasonably accurate form. No point in tedious editing if there is no consensus on the content.

498:(as in a JPEG), at which point we have gone beyond the scope of ETTR (which deals purely with RAW data). 1559: 1558:

I completely agree with everything you have said here. Let me ask a direct question; Should the section

339: 1506:

shutter speed should be the longest allowable by the photographer's constraints for camera/motion blur;

1528: 415: 1553: 1535: 1531: 1509:

aperture should be the largest possible subject to the photographer's sharpness and DOF requirements;

1444:

https://rohidassanap.wordpress.com/2013/08/10/guide-to-using-dual-iso-mode-on-your-canon-5d-mark-iii/

597: 676: 1049:, and leave out comments like, "I don't think burying head in the sand is an acceptable procedure." 335: 220: 1360: 540:

which describe the highest stop of light sensitivity that use half of the available tonal values.

640: 1329:

to make sure that your highlights fall as close to the right side of the histogram as possible."

1565: 1472: 1401: 1284: 1068: 940: 817: 770: 698: 563: 430: 400: 377: 309: 219:

Please help fix the broken anchors. You can remove this template after fixing the problems. |

556: 629:

etc were added to clarify that the research we have shows that ETTR does not work, although

208: 191: 1438:

And did you also try the ML dual-ISO feature, which allows one to trade resolution for DR (

1340: 1046: 1319: 536:

No it isn't. No 'part of the image' uses half of the available recording values. It's the

204: 1466: 1348: 1281:

implies slightly underexposing the image to ensure that highlight details are retained.

146: 1586: 1382: 1374: 1363: 1524: 1429:

BTW, Jack Hogan has proposed to include a more thorough discussion of ISO. BR, _sem_

1313:

I'd like to offer you a little reading material, since you have offered me so much.

740:

http://chromasoft.blogspot.com/2009/09/why-expose-to-right-is-just-plain-wrong.html

725:

http://chromasoft.blogspot.com/2009/09/why-expose-to-right-is-just-plain-wrong.html

1512:

ISO should be set in-camera to the lowest level resulting in the cleanest shadows.

1439: 1421: 621:

I edited the article to clarify the fact that this concept is in fact disputed.

104:. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can 1577: 1539: 1484: 1413: 1296: 1080: 952: 829: 782: 706: 657: 609: 571: 438: 423: 408: 385: 347: 317: 301: 274: 252: 92: 466:

Of course any tone may be considered to be a single piece of information - the

235: 1447: 562:

Please comment below before making changes to undermine the article. Regards,

82: 76: 52: 551:, etc. when describing the proposed technique, and making assertions such as 1370: 897:

dodging/burning, adding fill light, etc.) you have gained virtually nothing.

456: 396: 392: 367:

histograms that are subsequently processed in a RAW converter (also linear)

325:...highest (brightest) stop uses fully half of the discrete tonal values... 1378: 121: 674:

For a more well reasoned analysis of the technique you may wish to read

199:

This article links to one or more target anchors that no longer exist.

1005:

A further refinement on top of ETTR is the notion of exposing for the

1020:

with no simple and reliable way of raw-ETTR using automatic metering

901:

Highlights by underexposing the image. However, this will result in

854:

clean enough for the rather heavy lifting needed in post-processing.

474:

of tonal values describing the lightest tones (the first 'stop') is

359:

Eagle-eyed experts may have spotted that the image histograms are

1347:

can make up for a lack of good references. On WP that's known as

881:

personally tested and verified ETTR as described by Thomas Knoll

669:

the author already 'knows' to be wrong is not exactly scientific.

1361:

http://www.rawdigger.com/howtouse/exposure-for-raw-or-for-jpegs

173: 15: 376:

confusing? ..I realize that I may be talking to myself here.

286:

digitization works but this article makes no mention of it.

145: 1455:

RfC: Should this article cover Exposing for the Highlights

664:

Thanks for the reply, Thoger. Unfortunately the author of

797:

sensors, or when really heavy post-processing follows.

589:

higher S/N, ETTR should be expected to 'work' as well.

1195:

I would also like you to comment this paragraph above:

452: 391:

Apologies for my impatience but I decided to swap the

1383:https://www.google.si/patents/WO2002089060A2?cl=en 1375:http://www.dpreview.com/articles/3798759501/apical 1364:http://www.rawdigger.com/howtouse/beware-histogram 885:. There is no need to assume ignorance on my part. 677:Noise, Dynamic Range and Bit Depth in Digital SLRs 933:The section of the article which you have added ( 553:"is not consistent with the physical realities.." 482:of tonal values that describe the darkest tones. 236:http://en.wikipedia.org/Talk:Exposing_to_the_left 470:(a number). What ETTR actually says is that the 1323:Regarding exposing for the highlights it says, 1235:Some thoughts regarding metering and histograms 120:. To improve this article, please refer to the 1440:http://www.magiclantern.fm/forum/?topic=7139.0 1422:http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/nikon-d7200/13 363:, whereas ETTR deals entirely with in-camera, 744:Why "Expose to the Right" is just plain wrong 729:Why "Expose to the Right" is just plain wrong 666:Why "Expose to the Right" is just plain wrong 8: 1448:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kQNR4HcfjtI 19: 260: 116:. To use this banner, please refer to the 47: 1371:http://www.apical.co.uk/assertive/camera/ 1016:prone to blowing highlights unnecessarily 1393:Here's another interesting article from 1199:highlights edge of the histogram content 972:highlights edge of the histogram content 494:these values may be gamma corrected and 1379:https://www.google.si/patents/US7302110 1320:Raw Capture, Linear Gamma, and Exposure 843:nothing but exposing for the highlights 812:cannot be gained through under-exposure 717: 555:when rebutting the technique smacks of 49: 511:, white will be recorded as 1111 1111 7: 1424:) Can't we offer them a better clue? 1359:Some more relevant references here: 211:. The anchor (#Camera Raw) has been 98:This article is within the scope of 1560:ETTR with high dynamic range scenes 935:ETTR with high dynamic range scenes 38:It is of interest to the following 395:-style, non-linear histograms for 323:The common understanding of ETTR ( 14: 1343:, no amount of explaining things 154:This article is supported by the 1203:highlights edge of the histogram 976:highlights edge of the histogram 177: 130:Knowledge (XXG):WikiProject Film 114:regional and topical task forces 85: 75: 51: 20: 1598:Start-Class filmmaking articles 1131:Regarding your specific reply: 1603:Filmmaking task force articles 1240:your image to match the scene. 207:links to a specific web page: 1: 783:01:31, 31 December 2015 (UTC) 610:20:16, 6 September 2012 (UTC) 543:5) Inserting phrases such as 409:04:34, 26 November 2011 (UTC) 386:00:19, 26 November 2011 (UTC) 318:00:19, 26 November 2011 (UTC) 1317:First, an Adobe whitepaper: 913:use of the colour gamut and 905:tonal range in the shadows, 1578:23:36, 5 January 2016 (UTC) 1540:16:00, 5 January 2016 (UTC) 1485:03:00, 5 January 2016 (UTC) 1414:05:03, 7 January 2016 (UTC) 1297:01:35, 7 January 2016 (UTC) 1279:exposing for the highlights 1081:23:36, 5 January 2016 (UTC) 1007:highlights deemed important 953:03:00, 5 January 2016 (UTC) 830:00:55, 4 January 2016 (UTC) 439:09:24, 2 January 2012 (UTC) 424:15:26, 1 January 2012 (UTC) 302:01:49, 15 August 2011 (UTC) 253:22:59, 29 August 2013 (UTC) 1624: 205:Adobe Photoshop#Camera Raw 1608:WikiProject Film articles 1593:Start-Class film articles 863:ETTR with a raw histogram 707:15:02, 7 March 2012 (UTC) 658:08:59, 7 March 2012 (UTC) 572:00:04, 6 March 2012 (UTC) 348:09:25, 8 March 2013 (UTC) 275:10:53, 17 June 2015 (UTC) 153: 133:Template:WikiProject Film 70: 46: 1469:is not permitted on WP. 1351:, which is prohibited. 1341:verifiability, not truth 1166:Reading your sentences: 1395:digitalcameraworld.com 1345:as you understand them 754:Further misconceptions 213:deleted by other users 150: 28:This article is rated 928:would no longer apply 918:the histogram to the 157:Filmmaking task force 149: 32:on Knowledge (XXG)'s 1254:expose to the right 996:don't practice ETTR 453:amended the article 106:join the discussion 915:much less latitude 492:After digitization 151: 34:content assessment 1467:original research 1349:original research 1052:Since you quoted 1047:assume good faith 648:comment added by 613: 596:comment added by 414:its predecessor? 351: 334:comment added by 292:comment added by 277: 265:comment added by 243:comment added by 227: 226: 194:in most browsers. 172: 171: 168: 167: 164: 163: 108:and see lists of 1615: 1575: 1573: 1568: 1557: 1482: 1480: 1475: 1411: 1409: 1404: 1294: 1292: 1287: 1078: 1076: 1071: 950: 948: 943: 827: 825: 820: 780: 778: 773: 746: 737: 731: 722: 660: 612: 590: 350: 328: 304: 255: 221:Reporting errors 209:Raw image format 181: 180: 174: 138: 137: 134: 131: 128: 101:WikiProject Film 95: 90: 89: 88: 79: 72: 71: 66: 55: 48: 31: 25: 24: 16: 1623: 1622: 1618: 1617: 1616: 1614: 1613: 1612: 1583: 1582: 1571: 1566: 1564: 1551: 1478: 1473: 1471: 1457: 1407: 1402: 1400: 1290: 1285: 1283: 1074: 1069: 1067: 1045:. Also, try to 946: 941: 939: 847:sensor (raw) DR 823: 818: 816: 790: 776: 771: 769: 756: 751: 750: 749: 738: 734: 723: 719: 643: 633:that it works. 619: 591: 549:"it is assumed" 524: 518: 514: 510: 506: 449: 357: 329: 287: 283: 267:212.235.212.118 238: 232: 223: 197: 196: 195: 178: 135: 132: 129: 126: 125: 91: 86: 84: 61: 29: 12: 11: 5: 1621: 1619: 1611: 1610: 1605: 1600: 1595: 1585: 1584: 1581: 1580: 1548: 1547: 1516: 1515: 1513: 1510: 1507: 1500: 1499: 1495: 1456: 1453: 1452: 1451: 1436: 1431: 1430: 1426: 1425: 1391: 1390: 1386: 1366: 1357: 1337: 1336: 1311: 1310: 1305: 1304: 1274: 1273: 1272: 1271: 1270: 1269: 1268: 1267: 1266: 1265: 1264: 1263: 1262: 1261: 1257: 1249: 1245: 1241: 1237: 1219: 1218: 1217: 1216: 1215: 1214: 1213: 1212: 1211: 1210: 1209: 1208: 1182: 1181: 1180: 1179: 1178: 1177: 1176: 1175: 1174: 1173: 1172: 1171: 1153: 1152: 1151: 1150: 1149: 1148: 1147: 1146: 1145: 1144: 1143: 1142: 1118: 1117: 1116: 1115: 1114: 1113: 1112: 1111: 1110: 1109: 1108: 1107: 1092: 1091: 1090: 1089: 1088: 1087: 1086: 1085: 1084: 1083: 1062: 1050: 1030: 1029: 1028: 1027: 1026: 1025: 1024: 1023: 1011: 1003: 991: 987: 983: 979: 960: 959: 958: 957: 956: 955: 931: 923: 898: 890: 886: 875: 871: 859: 855: 833: 832: 789: 786: 755: 752: 748: 747: 732: 716: 715: 711: 710: 709: 694: 693: 688: 687: 682: 681: 671: 670: 639:Best regards, 618: 615: 538:range of tones 522: 516: 512: 508: 504: 448: 447:Misconceptions 445: 444: 443: 442: 441: 411: 356: 353: 321: 320: 282: 279: 231: 228: 225: 224: 218: 217: 216: 192:case-sensitive 186: 185: 184: 182: 170: 169: 166: 165: 162: 161: 152: 142: 141: 139: 97: 96: 80: 68: 67: 56: 44: 43: 37: 26: 13: 10: 9: 6: 4: 3: 2: 1620: 1609: 1606: 1604: 1601: 1599: 1596: 1594: 1591: 1590: 1588: 1579: 1576: 1574: 1569: 1561: 1555: 1550: 1549: 1544: 1543: 1542: 1541: 1537: 1533: 1530: 1527:with further 1526: 1520: 1514: 1511: 1508: 1505: 1504: 1503: 1496: 1492: 1491: 1490: 1487: 1486: 1483: 1481: 1476: 1468: 1463: 1454: 1449: 1445: 1441: 1437: 1433: 1432: 1428: 1427: 1423: 1418: 1417: 1416: 1415: 1412: 1410: 1405: 1396: 1387: 1384: 1380: 1376: 1372: 1367: 1365: 1362: 1358: 1354: 1353: 1352: 1350: 1346: 1342: 1333: 1332: 1331: 1330: 1326: 1322: 1321: 1316: 1307: 1306: 1301: 1300: 1299: 1298: 1295: 1293: 1288: 1280: 1258: 1255: 1250: 1246: 1242: 1238: 1236: 1233: 1232: 1231: 1230: 1229: 1228: 1227: 1226: 1225: 1224: 1223: 1222: 1221: 1220: 1206: 1202: 1198: 1194: 1193: 1192: 1191: 1190: 1189: 1188: 1187: 1186: 1185: 1184: 1183: 1169: 1165: 1164: 1163: 1162: 1161: 1160: 1159: 1158: 1157: 1156: 1155: 1154: 1139: 1134: 1130: 1129: 1128: 1127: 1126: 1125: 1124: 1123: 1122: 1121: 1120: 1119: 1104: 1103: 1102: 1101: 1100: 1099: 1098: 1097: 1096: 1095: 1094: 1093: 1082: 1079: 1077: 1072: 1063: 1060: 1055: 1051: 1048: 1044: 1040: 1039: 1038: 1037: 1036: 1035: 1034: 1033: 1032: 1031: 1021: 1017: 1012: 1008: 1004: 1001: 997: 992: 988: 984: 980: 977: 973: 968: 967: 966: 965: 964: 963: 962: 961: 954: 951: 949: 944: 936: 932: 929: 924: 921: 916: 912: 908: 904: 899: 896: 891: 887: 884: 879: 878: 876: 872: 868: 864: 860: 856: 852: 848: 844: 842: 837: 836: 835: 834: 831: 828: 826: 821: 813: 808: 807: 806: 802: 798: 794: 787: 785: 784: 781: 779: 774: 764: 762: 753: 745: 741: 736: 733: 730: 726: 721: 718: 714: 708: 704: 700: 696: 695: 690: 689: 684: 683: 679: 678: 673: 672: 667: 663: 662: 661: 659: 655: 651: 650:84.48.118.251 647: 642: 637: 634: 632: 628: 627:"are said to" 622: 616: 614: 611: 607: 603: 599: 595: 586: 582: 578: 574: 573: 569: 565: 560: 558: 554: 550: 546: 545:"are said to" 541: 539: 535: 530: 528: 520: 499: 497: 496:then recorded 493: 488: 483: 481: 477: 473: 469: 465: 460: 458: 454: 446: 440: 436: 432: 427: 426: 425: 421: 417: 412: 410: 406: 402: 398: 394: 390: 389: 388: 387: 383: 379: 375: 370: 366: 362: 354: 352: 349: 345: 341: 337: 333: 326: 319: 315: 311: 307: 306: 305: 303: 299: 295: 294:68.150.59.159 291: 280: 278: 276: 272: 268: 264: 256: 254: 250: 246: 242: 237: 229: 222: 214: 210: 206: 202: 201: 200: 193: 189: 183: 176: 175: 159: 158: 148: 144: 143: 140: 136:film articles 123: 119: 118:documentation 115: 111: 107: 103: 102: 94: 83: 81: 78: 74: 73: 69: 65: 60: 57: 54: 50: 45: 41: 35: 27: 23: 18: 17: 1563: 1562:be removed? 1521: 1517: 1501: 1488: 1470: 1461: 1458: 1399: 1392: 1344: 1338: 1327: 1324: 1318: 1314: 1312: 1282: 1278: 1275: 1253: 1234: 1204: 1200: 1196: 1167: 1137: 1132: 1066: 1058: 1053: 1042: 1019: 1015: 1006: 999: 995: 975: 971: 938: 934: 927: 919: 914: 910: 906: 902: 894: 882: 866: 862: 850: 846: 840: 838: 815: 811: 803: 799: 795: 791: 768: 765: 760: 757: 743: 735: 728: 720: 712: 699:nagualdesign 675: 665: 644:— Preceding 638: 635: 631:"it is said" 630: 626: 623: 620: 592:— Preceding 587: 583: 579: 575: 564:nagualdesign 561: 552: 548: 544: 542: 537: 533: 531: 527:much smaller 526: 502: 500: 495: 491: 486: 484: 479: 475: 471: 467: 463: 461: 450: 431:nagualdesign 401:nagualdesign 378:nagualdesign 373: 368: 364: 360: 358: 330:— Preceding 324: 322: 310:nagualdesign 288:— Preceding 284: 261:— Preceding 257: 245:2.30.163.217 239:— Preceding 233: 198: 190:Anchors are 187: 155: 99: 40:WikiProjects 686:assertions. 525:, but by a 468:tonal value 416:GideonReade 93:Film portal 30:Start-class 1587:Categories 1554:Jack Hogan 1532:Jack Hogan 1043:ad nauseum 986:ETTR/ETTL. 713:References 598:Softboyled 361:non-linear 355:Histograms 122:guidelines 110:open tasks 64:Filmmaking 1244:the ends. 1207:BR, _sem_ 1201:hits the 1000:automatic 974:hits the 851:camera DR 697:Regards, 523:(decimal) 517:(decimal) 509:(decimal) 478:than the 457:straw man 397:Canon EOS 393:Photoshop 281:Criticism 234:Refer to 203:] Anchor 1462:opposite 761:Latitude 646:unsigned 606:contribs 594:unsigned 513:(binary) 505:(binary) 344:contribs 336:Ahinterl 332:unsigned 290:unsigned 263:unsigned 241:unsigned 907:reduced 903:reduced 895:without 858:useful. 451:I have 230:ETTL? = 215:before. 1572:design 1567:nagual 1479:design 1474:nagual 1408:design 1403:nagual 1291:design 1286:nagual 1141:cases? 1075:design 1070:nagual 947:design 942:nagual 911:lesser 824:design 819:nagual 777:design 772:nagual 641:Thoger 476:larger 369:before 365:linear 36:scale. 1529:ideas 1525:links 1498:says. 1435:ETTR? 1335:_sem_ 1059:et al 909:SNR, 883:et al 867:UniWB 839:ETTR 617:Reply 515:= 255 480:range 472:range 1536:talk 920:left 703:talk 654:talk 602:talk 568:talk 435:talk 420:talk 405:talk 382:talk 374:more 340:talk 314:talk 298:talk 271:talk 249:talk 188:Tip: 127:Film 112:and 59:Film 1315::-) 1054:one 557:POV 532:4) 507:= 0 501:3) 485:2) 462:1) 1589:: 1538:) 1446:, 1442:, 1385:). 1381:, 1377:, 1373:, 1018:, 841:is 763:. 742:- 727:- 705:) 656:) 608:) 604:• 570:) 559:. 547:, 437:) 422:) 407:) 384:) 346:) 342:• 316:) 300:) 273:) 251:) 62:: 1556:: 1552:@ 1534:( 1256:. 701:( 652:( 600:( 566:( 433:( 418:( 403:( 380:( 338:( 312:( 296:( 269:( 247:( 160:. 124:. 42::

Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.

Index