File :-(, x, )
is this true Anonymous
is it true with digital cameras that it's best to overexpose your pictures at the brink of blown highlights

then you pull it back in processing to have the most details in your images
>> Anonymous
By the time you're trying to find the brink of blown highlights, your shot is gone.
>> Anonymous
no.

You shouldn't have to do any post processing if your camera and technique is good. In my opinion.
>> Pentard !pjwjmEQ1RM
>is it true with digital cameras that it's best to overexpose your pictures at the brink of blown highlights


Absolutely not.
You can usually lighten an underexposed image to uncover things that are too dark (to a certain point) but blown highlights are areas where there is zero information, and it is impossible to recover information that does not exist.

If you have to pick between underexposing and overexposing, always underexpose. You can brighten it up in any number of programs later on.
>> Anonymous
>>201953

>> at the brink of blown highlights
>> Depressed Cheesecake !wFh1Fw9wBU
Yes, it's true. It's called Exposing to the Right (ETTR). You expose so the histogram is as much to the right as possible without clipping.
>> Depressed Cheesecake !wFh1Fw9wBU
>>201953
This ... this is just the dumbest thing I've read in a while.
>> Pentard !pjwjmEQ1RM
>>201961
Sorry, my mistake.
OP should have said "to the brink" not "at the brink."
Poor choice of wording lead to confusion.

>>201964
How about you go fuck yourself, DC?
I do photography at work every day, and when I have to try to rescue an image that someone else has fucked up the exposure on I almost always have an easier time fixing an underexposed image than an overexposed image.

But I guess actual experience doesn't matter as much to you as some shit you read on the internet.
>> Anonymous
One can't recover blown highlights, but overexposing just short of blow-out and pulling it back down gets the most dynamic range out of the sensor. And it is called, like DC said, by the incredibly catchphrasey "expose to the right (ETTR)."

Can we just call it overexposing and pulling or whatever, like everybody always did with film? Please?
>> Depressed Cheesecake !wFh1Fw9wBU
>>201969
I'm not trying to be an asshole, you're just wrong. It's easier to recover highlights than it is shadows.

In film, you expose for the shadows and develop for the highlights.

In digital, you expose for the highlights and develop for the shadows.
>> Pentard !pjwjmEQ1RM
>>201973

No, it isn't.
We're talking about *blown* highlights here. Spots where the image has gone all the way to white.
You can't recover that shit. Period. If you've blown the highlights to being totally white there's absolutely no information there to be recovered, and no amount of exposure-correcting or selective burning can bring that shit back.

Over-dodging can create tons of noise, but that's much easier to fix than trying to draw/clone in areas that are totally blown.
>> Depressed Cheesecake !wFh1Fw9wBU
>>201977
>We're talking about *blown* highlights here

No, YOU are talking about blown highlights. The rest of the thread is talking about:
>at the brink of blown highlights
>> Pentard !pjwjmEQ1RM
>>201979
>No, YOU are talking about blown highlights.

You replied to a comment I made where I specifically was talking about BLOWN highlights saying that my advice about BLOWN highlights was retarded.

While my comment may not have been directly addressing what the OP asked, your comment in response to mine was also about BLOWN highlights since my original comment was about BLOWN highlights.

TL;DR - learn2readingcomprehension
>> Depressed Cheesecake !wFh1Fw9wBU
>>201984
In that case, you are still wrong. It's as equally impossible to recover blown highlights which are turned white as it is to recover shadows that are turned black.
>> Pentard !pjwjmEQ1RM
>>201986
>In that case, you are still wrong. It's as equally impossible to recover blown highlights which are turned white as it is to recover shadows that are turned black.

1) Where did I say overexposed to the point of turning the shadows 100% black?
2) You'd be surprised at how much information you can pull out of a shadow.

Sage because this is a stupid argument.
>> Anonymous
>>201973
choke on a cock
>> Depressed Cheesecake !wFh1Fw9wBU
You can pull more information out of a near-white highlight than you can out of a near-black shadow.
>> Anonymous
>>201940
While DC has some pertinent knowledge (ETTL/ETTR), he fails completely at presenting a succinct argument and therefore makes himself look like an idiot, yet again.
>> Meese !iZn5BCIpug
>>201995
my copy of lightroom says differently
>> Depressed Cheesecake !wFh1Fw9wBU
>>202000
Physics says differently.
>> Anonymous
>>202001
Prove this.
>> Anonymous
>>201973

Says the worst-at-post-processing tripfag on /p/
>> Depressed Cheesecake !wFh1Fw9wBU
     File :-(, x)
>>202023
Fuck off. Doesn't mean I don't understand how a sensor works.

>>202010
A modern camera uses 12 bits to encode a capture into 4,096 levels.

Level 2,048 represents half the number of photons recorded at level 4,096. This is the meaning of linear gamma - the levels correspond exactly to the number of photons captured.

Linear capture has important implications for exposure. If a camera captures six stops of dynamic range, half of the 4,096 levels are devoted to the brightest stop, half of the remainder (1,024 levels) are devoted to the next stop, half of the remainder (512 levels) are devoted to the next stop, and so on.

The darkest stop, the extreme shadows, is represented by only 64 levels.

Look at the attached picture. The top is how a camera records light. You can see it stores more information about a pixel in the highlights than in the shadows. Below is how the image should distribute light after exposure correction in your RAW workflow.
>> Anonymous
>>202027
Okay, so apparently that's how a sensor works, I'll take your word on it without a link to a referencing source. However, *why* would a sensor want to work that way? It seems counterintuitive.
>> Anonymous
>>201973

Hey DC can you clarify this for me. When i shoot print film (aka all the time) if anything i over expose by 2/3 of a stop. Then i scan the film and dip the curves. The reason i do this is too capture more shadow detail and minimise the effect of the grains in dark areas.

Am i doing it right?
>> Pentard !pjwjmEQ1RM
DC, stop flailing.

Anyone who's had to fix large batches of images knows that it's easier and quicker to fix overly dark images than overly light ones, and knows sure as fuck that while you can't pull any information out of a blown highlight you can pull a hell of a lot more than you think out of overexposed shadows.

You can read all the books and study all the charts to your heart's content, but experience trumps book learning.

Sage, again, for a shitty discussion that should fade away to the bottom of Page 10 as quickly as possible.
>> sage !i/euDJmWr2
>>202034
Actually...if I'm given the opportunity, I'll slightly over-expose rather than slightly under-expose usually. So honestly, Im going to side with DC on this.

Arguing about actual BLOWN highlights and BLACK shadows is just stupid, though. If you over/underexposed to that extent then you're doing it wrong anyway.
>> Depressed Cheesecake !wFh1Fw9wBU
>>202034
Stop spouting dumb shit.

>youcan't pull any information out of a blown highlight you can pull a hell of a lot more than you think out of overexposed shadows.
>blown highlight, overexposed shadows

NO ONE IS FUCKING TALKING ABOUT OVEREXPOSED HIGHLIGHTS.

The entire photographic industry agrees with me, dipshit. The way a camera sensor is designed is to use more levels to record highlights, then midtones, THEN shadows. Out of 4,096 bits used to record light intensity of a pixel, only 64 are for shadows. That means less dynamic range, that means less recovery.

Google "ETTR", stop sounding like an uninformed jackass.

>>202032
Here are a few sources, the top is from Adobe
http://www.adobe.com/digitalimag/pdfs/linear_gamma.pdf
http://www.digitalphotopro.com/tech/exposing-for-raw.html
http://www.luminous-landscape.com/tutorials/expose-right.shtml

As to why the camera works like that, it's intuitive. There is more light in highlights, hence it's easier for a sensor to record its intensity. There's less light in shadows, so the signal must be amplified to get the level of each pixel, hence why there is ALWAYS more noise in shadows.

>>202033
I do not regularly shoot film, but when you are working with a scanned image, you are only working in 8-bit mode, so you have almost no control over the dynamic range.
>> Pentard !pjwjmEQ1RM
>>202042

Fair enough.
But like I said, when someone overexposes an image they tend to do it much worse than they tend to underexpose.

This is still a stupid discussion, however.
>> Pentard !pjwjmEQ1RM
>>202051
>NO ONE IS FUCKING TALKING ABOUT OVEREXPOSED HIGHLIGHTS.

I AM YOU FUCKING RETARD.
Jesus Christ I know you're an Engineer but if you managed to get into college I have a hard time believing that you're so incredibly awful at reading comprehension.
>> Depressed Cheesecake !wFh1Fw9wBU
>>202054
>This is still a stupid discussion, however

It's "stupid" because you clearly fail to understand how digital imaging works, so instead you're trying to backout of the argument. Just admit you're wrong and a huge tool and we'll call it a night.
>> sage !i/euDJmWr2
>>202055
Everyone knows YOU'RE talking about it, but the discussion wasn't ABOUT blown highlights...

You're rattling off information about citrus fruits when everyone is talking about granny smith apples.
>> Pentard !pjwjmEQ1RM
>>202063
>Everyone knows YOU'RE talking about it, but the discussion wasn't ABOUT blown highlights...
>You're rattling off information about citrus fruits when everyone is talking about granny smith apples.

Which is why I don't understand DC's childish attempts to argue with me when we aren't even talking about the same thing.

I admitted to misunderstanding the OP's question in my second post, but DC for some reason decided to start arguing with what I was saying about *blown* highlights even though his responses were wrong, and then he went back to addressing the OP's statement about not-quite-blown highlights and acting like that was what I was talking about.

I guess the dude is just in a trolling mood tonight.
>> Anonymous
>>202070
This is /p/, everyone's in a trolling mood every night.

You fuckhead.
>> Depressed Cheesecake !wFh1Fw9wBU
>>202070
>I almost always have an easier time fixing an underexposed image than an overexposed image.

This is a stupid statement which is technically incorrect, because of the reasons I've stated.

Additionally, it is just as impossible to recover a blown highlight as it is to recover an underexposed shadow.

Your point is moot and you are a faggot.
>> Pentard !pjwjmEQ1RM
>>202076

Nah, /p/ didn't used to be like this.
So... uh... stfu newfag or whatever I'm supposed to say now.

PS: 0/10
>> sage !i/euDJmWr2
>>202070
your argument is flawed, anyway. The charts back him up, but you're talking about blown highlights, which are COMPLETELY white, and near-black shadows, which are NOT completely black. Yes, you're going to be able to get more data out of varying shades of black instead of a white blob, but varying shades of white would be more comparable to varying shades of black.
>> Pentard !pjwjmEQ1RM
>>202079
>it is just as impossible to recover a blown highlight as it is to recover an underexposed shadow.

Again, you are a fucking moron and incapable of understanding written English.
Blown highlight = 100% overexposed
Underexposed highlight ? underexposed 100%

It's a matter of degrees. Something can be underexposed to varying degrees, but if something is overexposed to the point of being blown it's 100% maximum overexposed.

Sage, again, because you don't even understand what we're talking about.
>> Pentard !pjwjmEQ1RM
>>202084
>you're talking about blown highlights, which are COMPLETELY white, and near-black shadows, which are NOT completely black.

Absolutely correct on all counts, and I never said they were the same.
I don't understand why DC isn't capable of understanding what I was saying.
>> Depressed Cheesecake !wFh1Fw9wBU
>>202088
>Underexposed highlight ? underexposed 100%

lolwut?

You are a faggot.
>> Depressed Cheesecake !fKArfJ/kL.
>>202088
>Again, I am a fucking moron and incapable of properly using a camera. It is ridiculous that I am allowed to use a DSLR, and I am surprised that I am able to write so much blatant bullshit when my mouth is so full of dicks.

I'm glad we agree.
>> sage !i/euDJmWr2
>>202089
they're not even comparable, though, and that's what you're comparing. You're saying that you can recover more from a darkened region than something that's solid white. Well no crap, that's obvious. If you took something that was 50% overexposed and something that was 50% underexposed on digital, you would get more to work with from the overexposed (I would assume that really contrasting situations might be a minor exception, but Ive never tested that)
>> Depressed Cheesecake !wFh1Fw9wBU
>>202099
lol. Aren't you a little old for this, Pentard? Seriously, just get over it, butthurt fag.
>> Pentard !pjwjmEQ1RM
>>202096

An image. Can be. Underexposed. Or. Overexposed. To varying. Degrees.

When an image. Has blown highlights. Those areas. Are overexposed. To the maximum. Degree possible.

If the shadows. Of an image. Are "underexposed." That does not. Indicate that. They are underexposed. To the maximum. Degree possible. Just that they. Are underexposed. To some degree.

God, take some technical writing classes.
Sage for semantic discussions on a photography board.
>> Depressed Cheesecake !wFh1Fw9wBU
>>202104
>An image. Can be. Underexposed. Or. Overexposed. To varying. Degrees.

A shadow. Can be. Underexposed. Or. Overexposed. To varying. Degrees.

Faggot.

Highlights are easier to correct than shadows. End of fucking discussion.
>> Pentard !pjwjmEQ1RM
>>202101
>they're not even comparable, though, and that's what you're comparing. You're saying that you can recover more from a darkened region than something that's solid white. Well no crap, that's obvious. If you took something that was 50% overexposed and something that was 50% underexposed on digital, you would get more to work with from the overexposed (I would assume that really contrasting situations might be a minor exception, but Ive never tested that)

I'm not comparing them or saying that they're the same at all.
>> Pentard !pjwjmEQ1RM
>>202108
>A shadow. Can be. Underexposed. Or. Overexposed. To varying. Degrees.
Which is exactly what I said.

>Highlights are easier to correct than shadows.
Not when they're blown. Blown shadows and highlights are both impossible to correct.

>End of fucking discussion
I'm glad you've decided to stop being retarded.
>> sage !i/euDJmWr2
>>202109
You ARE comparing them, you're using blown highlights and slightly underexposed shadows to correct that underexposed images are easier to save than overexposed. that's fundamentally flawed logic.

>>202108
this
>> Depressed Cheesecake !wFh1Fw9wBU
>>202111
>Blown shadows and highlights are both impossible to correct.

Which once again, no one but you started discussing. Fucking faggot.
>> Anonymous
Another great Cheesecake thread.
>> Pentard !pjwjmEQ1RM
>>202116
>Which once again, no one but you started discussing. Fucking faggot.

Uh, and also you, when you decided to argue with my statement that blown highlights were impossible to fix.

Its like you're trolling so hard that you don't even know what you're saying...
>> sage sage
sage
>> Anonymous
>>201949
Aaaaargh Ken Rockwell!!
>> Anonymous
>>201964
you are the dumbest poster here i've seen in a while. pentard is right.
>> Anonymous
>>202062

Weren't you the retard who insisted that sharpening should be done before resizing?
>> Blackadder !!bSWRwu/NqzQ
You should expose a scene correctly for the desired result and the lighting situation. Knowing when you should do it one way or another is partly what will make you good at photography.

http://prolost.blogspot.com/2008/03/exposing-to-left-vs-exposing-to-right.html
>> Anonymous
>>202070
>I almost always have an easier time fixing an underexposed image than an overexposed image.

Wrong. The difference between a completely "blown" shadow and blown highlight is that the level difference between the next value is much smaller at the highlights than in the shadows - that's why it's much better to overexpose, because you can dig up more details than from shadows.

If not, think about the difference between 0 and 1 in 64, and then think about the difference between 4095 and 4096.
>> Pentard !pjwjmEQ1RM
>>202232
>blown shadow

Nobody's talking about blown shadows.
I said I'd rather try to fix an underexposed image than try
to fix an image that had blown highlights. I didn't say fix an image with blown shadows.

Sage again for yet another thread that DC has successfully trolled.
>> Anonymous
Okay, so what's the final verdict?

ETTL and recover shadows = better?
ETTR and recover highlights = better?

What's the final answer?
>> sage !i/euDJmWr2
>>202349
it depends on what you want to achieve.

Lots of contrast - ETTL, probably
Most range and detail - ETTR
>> Anonymous
/r/ archive this shit
>> Depressed Cheesecake !wFh1Fw9wBU
>>202349
Depending on the lighting situation, but in 90% of the time, it's better to expose for the highlights without blowing them out.
>> Anonymous
ok

>>202286
retard, go take a sunset photo exposing to the left

>>202368
depressed headcheese, go take a nice sunset photo with exposing to the right... lets see who gets the better picture (if you do your shitty postprocessing, it still counts as a shitty picture and you will lose the competition) GO!!
>> Anonymous
>>202481
You're missing the whole point. Ideally, your raw exposure should always have the highest tone value be 254, or rather, whatever the just-below-white tone value is in its larger system. (8-bit is 0-255, 12 and 14-bit raw files have some larger number I don't know.)

For some subjects- high contrast sunsets, for instance- this will wind up with a more conventionally balanced histogram in most cases. Which is another reason why this stupid "ETTR!!!11! LULZ" terminology should be thrown out, but I digress.
>> washer
do yourself a favor and just shoot in raw.

there problem solved.
>> Anonymous
>>202490
488 says functionally the same thing as the now-deleted 481 post.
>> Depressed Cheesecake !wFh1Fw9wBU
>>202488
What the fuck are you trying to argue about?

Camera sensors are made to record more information in highlights and then midtones and then shadows. There is nothing to argue here. When you expose to the fucking right, you capture more information over a broader dynamic range. Obviously, you aren't supposed to blow out highlights.

See>>202027
>> Anonymous
Also, this shitfest has been going on over twelve hours. Let it go, DC, if the guy doesn't squeeze out all the extra DR he can, it's no big deal. People on the Internet can be wrong.
>> Pentard !pjwjmEQ1RM
Holy shit, DC, would you just shut the fuck up already?

This thread shouldn't still be on the first page.
>> Anonymous
i underexpose and bump saturation in pp. looks good imo
>> Anonymous
>>202510This thread shouldn't still be on the first page.

you don't want it to be on first because you're wrong
>> Anonymous
>>202606

sage for dc posting as anon
>> Anonymous
>>202498

lol DC didnt read the post and isnt up to the challenge because he knows his pictures all fucking suck
>> Anonymous
shoot raw shoot for highlights and for shadows then make a simple hdr in pp

/thred

funtip: shoot for highlights
>> Anonymous
this thread is awesome. btw, heres what i take out of it: pentard didnt want to admit he read the first post wrong since "at the brink" and "on the brink" are understood as the same thing. he then took his idea of the thread being about blown highlights throughout the entire thread.
>> Pentard !pjwjmEQ1RM
>>203115
>pentard didnt want to admit he read the first post wrong

>>201969
>Sorry, my mistake.

OH SHI-!!!!
>> Depressed Cheesecake !wFh1Fw9wBU
     File :-(, x)
>>203409

Camera-Specific Properties:Camera SoftwareAdobe Photoshop CS3 MacintoshImage-Specific Properties:Image OrientationTop, Left-HandHorizontal Resolution240 dpiVertical Resolution240 dpiImage Created2008:06:11 18:48:20Color Space InformationsRGBImage Width485Image Height254