Best way to expose for highlights?

[htc]

If you tweak your camera settings AND you follow the exposure guidelines for ETTR in guide, many shots in JPG will look like those in the article -- far too overexposed.

But if you shoot in RAW, you will be able to post process the RAW, and get a final JPG with better dynamic range and less noise than if you had shot JPG in the camera, in many situations.

That's what it makes you a RAW shooter and nothing else... Not good

 

[SkiHound]

This is what I followed, by setting up the OM-D properly you get a more accurate reading of how far you can push the highlights.

pekkapotka - Journal

I think this is a very good way to set up the camera to get raw files that capture close to maximum information. It's not a setup for out of camera jpegs and if metering scenes with low dynamic range (e.g., a scene in which the histogram wouldn't come close to touching either pure white or pure black, or metering a low key scene, the technique will produce files that look very over exposed. They capture the data and the exposures can be adjusted in post processing. Scenes have different levels of reflectance and different levels of dynamic range and no in camera metering system is going to produce perfectly exposed out of camera results without user intervention. Becoming comfortable with a metering system and using the EC dial appropriately are essential. But I do think that Pekka's set up produces really high quality raw files and I use it as my starting point.

 

[nathan_h]

That's what it makes you a RAW shooter and nothing else... Not good

I think it depends on what you want.

If you want control of both the camera and the "printing" (ie, darkroom) process, what we refer to a Post Processing (PP) these days, then you want to shoot RAW and PP every shot to some extent.

If you want JPG out of the camera that is pretty much ready to view, shooting RAW may not work, and using the setup and metering methods discussed here won't work.

For me, I want the maximum amount of information in my RAW files for the parts of the image that matter to me most, without too much time spent capturing the image since a typical shooting day involves several miles of hiking with people who are not photographers, so my snapping has to be relatively quick and on the fly -- and get me good captures to complete back at the digital darkroom.

 

[entropicremnants]

That's what it makes you a RAW shooter and nothing else... Not good

Why is shooting RAW a "bad" thing. There is no virtue or evil in shooting either RAW or JPG -- just what serves you as a photographer.

I often hear this RAW/JPG argument as if to shoot one or the other is a "character defect" and there is an absolute best way to shoot -- and there simply isn't to my way of thinking.

Your comment is rather brief so I may be misinterpreting, but are you suggesting that those who choose to shoot in RAW most of the time are somehow "bad" photographers?

Not trying to challenge you here -- just curious about what YOU believe.

 

[htc]

Your comment is rather brief so I may be misinterpreting, but are you suggesting that those who choose to shoot in RAW most of the time are somehow "bad" photographers?

Glad you asked; no, I don't think RAW is bad, just time consuming. My longest "trip" took one year with 45 000 pictures. Okay, not nearly all where good ones, actually only a few was, but you get the idea of "time consuming" ;-)

I think and trust that main part of my jpegs doesn't benefit shooting RAW and with rest of them I understand perfectly the deeper meaning of RAW. I would just like to take best of both worlds.

 

[nathan_h]

You may be a candidate for shooting raw plus JPEG. You'll be limited by the fact that you are exposing for JPEG which doesn't make use of the full range of the raw capture. But you will have the convenience of JPEG and the option to do some tweaking with the raw files.

But again you should ignore all this advice about strange exposures to maximize data in the raw file since it will also impact the JPEG in ways you do not want.

 

[entropicremnants]

You may be a candidate for shooting raw plus JPEG. You'll be limited by the fact that you are exposing for JPEG which doesn't make use of the full range of the raw capture. But you will have the convenience of JPEG and the option to do some tweaking with the raw files.

But again you should ignore all this advice about strange exposures to maximize data in the raw file since it will also impact the JPEG in ways you do not want.

Also, all your raw files from any camera have an embedded "basic" jpg in the file -- many don't know this.

There is a really cool product called "Instant JPEG from RAW" that you can use to right-click on a RAW file and extract the embedded JPG. It's nearly instantaneous as it is NOT a raw conversion.

If you want to see what your camera was thinking when it took the RAW shot, try it. RAW shooters may be surprised by how good the camera performs at times, lol. If you only need web quality, the embedded JPG is MORE than enough quality wise.

You can download it here for Windows, Mac and Linus: Instant JPEG from Raw

Yes, it's legit. I've used it myself for years.

 

[Djarum]

If one, like me, is mostly a JPEG shooter, then blowouts are going to occur.

If you are a RAW shooter, lots of trick have to be had to actually get the camera to give highlight indicators to accurately indicate the values of the RAW.

Personally, I wish camera makers would make their UIs have the ability to display information based on a configuration I download to the camera. So, if I am a RAW shooter I can have it blink where I would normally set white values for my JPEGS, not Olympus values.

 

[entropicremnants]

If one, like me, is mostly a JPEG shooter, then blowouts are going to occur.

If you are a RAW shooter, lots of trick have to be had to actually get the camera to give highlight indicators to accurately indicate the values of the RAW.

Personally, I wish camera makers would make their UIs have the ability to display information based on a configuration I download to the camera. So, if I am a RAW shooter I can have it blink where I would normally set white values for my JPEGS, not Olympus values.

That's a great idea. You can do it to some extent, and Pekka has you adjusting the white point of the blink. But it could be more sophisticated --although then people would complain more about "complex menus", lol.

 

[Ned]

First question is, what kind of photography are you shooting? How you meter a scene has everything to do with what you're trying to shoot and what you're trying to portray in what you shoot. That is why there is no perfect exposure, or perfect metering pattern. That includes ETTR as much as 0EV. People need to learn to trust their eyes more and their equipment less. You are the photographer, and it's your vision which you are capturing. No camera can read your mind to output the right settings.

You said you are shooting in a lot of backlight (at least that's how I interpreted the basic problem). Whether you should be clipping and blowing those highlights from the backlight or not depends entirely on what you are trying to capture. If you are shooting portraits for instance, then your concern should be exposing your subject properly and you should not be concerned about preserving highlights in the background. You do however need to be conscious not to blow out highlights on the subject. You could use ETTR in that kind of situation only if you are metering with spot or center-weighted, and not if you are metering off the "matrix". If you are shooting a landscape, then metering off the entire scene is more meaningful. Too much variance between highlights and shadows may require the use of a graduated filter.

It all comes down to your experience and what you are trying to accomplish. Those are just a couple of examples to show how much your methods and techniques should vary depending on the situation. Don't rely on one method for all your photography.

 

[Djarum]

That's a great idea. You can do it to some extent, and Pekka has you adjusting the white point of the blink. But it could be more sophisticated --although then people would complain more about "complex menus", lol.

I'm talking more about the ability to download a profile to the camera. Vivid, Natural, High DR, Soft exposure, etc...is just a profile used to create a JPEG. A RAW file is pretty lifeless and flat until a profile is applied.

I guess what I'm saying, if I ETTR then bring down the highlights in Post, I should be able to have the camera do the same thing by just downloading the profile so it does it for me in camera. In the camera I can select some custom profiles that give me the live view of the current profile I'm using.

 

[entropicremnants]

I'm talking more about the ability to download a profile to the camera. Vivid, Natural, High DR, Soft exposure, etc...is just a profile used to create a JPEG. A RAW file is pretty lifeless and flat until a profile is applied.

I guess what I'm saying, if I ETTR then bring down the highlights in Post, I should be able to have the camera do the same thing by just downloading the profile so it does it for me in camera. In the camera I can select some custom profiles that give me the live view of the current profile I'm using.

That makes sense. Basically, you would be able to control the RAW --> JPG conversion process with greater detail than the stock profiles in the camera and their limited parameters.

I like the idea of user created profiles -- though I think only a small number of photographers would really make good use of them.

 

[uci2ci]

This thread has been a very good read for me. I didnt know about ETTR. I set my camera to the settings metioned in the article, and yes, it does make an appreciable difference, especially in shadow noise! Works great for me since i frequently have to raise shadows in my photos.

 

[Djarum]

That makes sense. Basically, you would be able to control the RAW --> JPG conversion process with greater detail than the stock profiles in the camera and their limited parameters.

I like the idea of user created profiles -- though I think only a small number of photographers would really make good use of them.

I honestly don't know. Many folks run their raw through a batch conversion. If the same exact profile from say light room could be downloaded to the camera, the light room batch process could be avoided.