My new 2 Step Exposure Technique

CyVan

Mu-43 All-Pro
Joined
Mar 9, 2016
Messages
1,353
Location
Jamaica
I think the main takeaway is:
For best results, prioritize aperture and shutter speed for exposure changes rather than increasing ISO.

The more light that hits the sensor the better. However you can only increase the amount of actual light via aperture and shutter speed. Increasing exposure via ISO doesn't change the amount of light hitting the sensor, it only affects what's done with the amount of light that did.

But the thing is , most of us already do that because we know that in general , higher iso = more noise so we tend to do whatever we reasonably can to keep iso as low as possible. But there is some value in concretizing the concept in your mind. So in other words, if you need a higher exposure, try increasing the amount of light hitting the subject rather than taking the 'easy' way out by just increasing iso. The results won't be the same.
 
Last edited:

Machi

Mu-43 Top Veteran
Joined
May 23, 2015
Messages
791
Now might be a good time to explain that "ETTR" was a technique applicable to early 2000s-era sensors (when the term ETTR was coined). Back then, sensors were capable of 5 stops. The best camera sensors today are capable of 13 stops, so ETTR is not needed any more as long as you expose correctly.

ETTR is about improving SNR across the image. DR of camera has not so much relevancy in this case, even if it had only 5 stops, which btw modern digital cameras which were RAW capable never had (oldest Olympus E-1 had already around 10EV).
 

PakkyT

Mu-43 Hall of Famer
Joined
Jun 20, 2015
Messages
4,263
Location
Massachusetts, USA
The more light that hits the sensor the better. However you can only increase the amount of actual light via aperture and shutter speed. Increasing exposure via ISO doesn't change the amount of light hitting the sensor, it only affects what's done with the amount of light that did.
ETTR is about improving SNR across the image.

Yes we all know this and it is the same principle Bushman keeps starting new threads about over and over and over and over again just presenting it each time like he has some new novel technique that is "very interesting". After this thread dies off, he will be back with a brand new thread talking the same bullet points all over again presenting it with some new twist to basically share the exact same tired subject all over again. Often it is with a plug for his blog.
 

Machi

Mu-43 Top Veteran
Joined
May 23, 2015
Messages
791
Yes we all know this and it is the same principle Bushman keeps starting new threads about over and over and over and over again just presenting it each time like he has some new novel technique that is "very interesting". After this thread dies off, he will be back with a brand new thread talking the same bullet points all over again presenting it with some new twist to basically share the exact same tired subject all over again. Often it is with a plug for his blog.

Surprisingly not everyone knows this and that's why I was reacting to the Trixter's post.
Bushman is (for now) "lost case" and he will end up with FF anyway.
But my hope is that he will find joy also in photography and not only in talking about photography (nothing wrong about that but too much can be simply too much).
 

BushmanOrig

Mu-43 Top Veteran
Joined
Mar 31, 2015
Messages
533
Location
Switzerland
Real Name
Siegfried
Yes we all know this and it is the same principle Bushman keeps starting new threads about over and over and over and over again just presenting it each time like he has some new novel technique that is "very interesting". After this thread dies off, he will be back with a brand new thread talking the same bullet points all over again presenting it with some new twist to basically share the exact same tired subject all over again. Often it is with a plug for his blog.

You right on one thing. From my first post on the exposure triangle months ago, I invited forum participants to work with me. Not to humiliate you, I will not post a link to the responses I received from you and other forum participants...

The difference is I ignored the sarcasm and rude responses and I continued my search for a satisfactory answer or technique to function as something more advanced than the older ETTR technique...

If you cared to work with me you would have been part of the solution and not on the outside being sarcastic, making jokes and looking down at me... viewing everything I did as an "over and over"...

I do describe the 2-Stop Exposure Technique in more detail on my blog. Maybe worth a moment of study to see what the end result of months of work is...

The alternative - troll images, sarcasm, and then..... the huge big nothing

This is a reply to YOUR rude provocative post - I was more than willing to share info and to help others... in a friendly and fully respectful manner...
 

pdk42

One of the "Eh?" team
Joined
Jan 11, 2013
Messages
7,477
Location
Leamington Spa, UK
Siegfried - I don't want to be rude or to be difficult here, but all this stuff about exposure etc is very simple. But what you write makes it all sound so complicated. To get best image quality/noise/NR etc you only need to follow a few simple steps:

- Use base ISO
- Get as much light as you can onto the sensor (wide aperture, slower shutter) - but not too much (i.e. don't blow the highlights)

If after doing that you find that you have shadow areas that are too dark then either:

- Shoot a HDR sequence
- Buy a camera with more DR / lower base noise

It really is as simple as that. Of course, if the light is too low to keep to base ISO and get a sharp shot (i.e. shutter speed too slow), then raising ISO is the only option and you'll just have to suffer the consequences. If doing a lot of low light shooting is your thing then you'll probably find an FF camera is the better tool for the job.

All this talk of "gain", "two steps", etc is just overly complex stuff that serves to confuse and not enlighten.
 
Last edited:

Richard_M

Mu-43 Veteran
Joined
Feb 15, 2019
Messages
246
Location
Melbourne, Australia
I have just quickly read a few posts in this thread.

It would appear to me this is based around landscape photography. There are other genres besides landscapes, and IMO, these techniques will not work for all situations.

I had a particularly difficult subject to photograph on the weekend. It was a pity I didn't have the EM1 MKII with me to compare it against the EM1 MKIII which is what I was using. I was also using one of my Fuji cameras. For the most part the Olympus did a great job, but IMO the Fuji had a slight edge with nailing the exposure.
 

Machi

Mu-43 Top Veteran
Joined
May 23, 2015
Messages
791
@pdk42 ETTR should be simple but I understand why many have still problem with it because they don't know principles of it.
I think that's because as in the past number MPix was golden goose, now DR is golden goose so many now thinks that DR is the most important aspect of camera.
Bushman tried to understand principles behind ETTR and I actually applaud his progress in this area.
Problem is that he thinks that it will somehow allow him to develop some magic general rule to improve M43 photos to be on par with those from FF. That's simply isn't realistic. There are some methods to improve noise of M43 images even beyond FF but they aren't for general usage (HDR, Hires, stacking) and ETTR works also only sometimes (generally when there is lot of light to play with).

@BushmanOrig
Bushman, You ignore biggest problem of ETTR and similar techniques and that's when to applie it (and how much) and when not. That's scene dependent and that's why there cannot be simple general rule.
For example:
1. Scene with lots of snow and under clouds allows to push EV correction to +2 or even more without blowing highlights.
2. Scene with Sun high above horizon behind semitransparent clouds. Even base exposure settings offered by the camera will be too much and at least part of the clouds will be significantly overexposed beyond recovery.
 

pdk42

One of the "Eh?" team
Joined
Jan 11, 2013
Messages
7,477
Location
Leamington Spa, UK
@pdk42 ETTR should be simple but I understand why many have still problem with it because they don't know principles of it.
I think that's because as in the past number MPix was golden goose, now DR is golden goose so many now thinks that DR is the most important aspect of camera.
Bushman tried to understand principles behind ETTR and I actually applaud his progress in this area.
Problem is that he thinks that it will somehow allow him to develop some magic general rule to improve M43 photos to be on par with those from FF. That's simply isn't realistic. There are some methods to improve noise of M43 images even beyond FF but they aren't for general usage (HDR, Hires, stacking) and ETTR works also only sometimes (generally when there is lot of light to play with).
Yes, I mostly agree. But FF isn't a panacea either, esp in landscapes. Very often the DR of the scene will exceed the DR of even the very best FF sensor (e.g. Nikon Z7, Sony A7Riii) so you just have to use some alternative scheme (HDR, stacking etc). That alternative will work for m43 too of course. Having just spent some months running a Nikon Z7 I have come to the conclusion that although its IQ is certainly better, with a little work you can get m43 pretty close.

@BushmanOrig
Bushman, You ignore biggest problem of ETTR and similar techniques and that's when to applie it (and how much) and when not. That's scene dependent and that's why there cannot be simple general rule.
For example:
1. Scene with lots of snow and under clouds allows to push EV correction to +2 or even more without blowing highlights.
2. Scene with Sun high above horizon behind semitransparent clouds. Even base exposure settings offered by the camera will be too much and at least part of the clouds will be significantly overexposed beyond recovery.
Yes, I totally agree with all that. But I think the simplest way to deal with this is to use the over/under exposure indicators on the display. That way you can use your own judgement as to what are the important parts of the image to expose correctly. The metering algorithm of the camera can only be an approximation, even if it does a pretty good job on a lot of scenes.
 

PakkyT

Mu-43 Hall of Famer
Joined
Jun 20, 2015
Messages
4,263
Location
Massachusetts, USA
I continued my search for a satisfactory answer or technique to function as something more advanced than the older ETTR technique

Well let us know when you have come up with something that isn't the older ETTR technique because that is 100% the only thing you have ever tried to present here. You have offered nothing new or "interesting" over that to date. I applaud you on your determination and hope you are getting enjoyment from your hobby. But to be blunt, each time you present the same concepts in a new thread, the more likely it is you will be met with sarcastic replies. Simply put, people don't like to be told the same thing over and over like they are incapable of understanding simple concepts when presented with them the first time.

Now some would say just block you. But I am always optimistic, giving people the benefit of the doubt, that maybe this time the post won't be {insert thing that would make you block someone here}. So I will continue to see your posts ever hopeful or something actually interesting and different. :2thumbs:
 

BushmanOrig

Mu-43 Top Veteran
Joined
Mar 31, 2015
Messages
533
Location
Switzerland
Real Name
Siegfried
I have just quickly read a few posts in this thread.

It would appear to me this is based around landscape photography. There are other genres besides landscapes, and IMO, these techniques will not work for all situations.

I had a particularly difficult subject to photograph on the weekend. It was a pity I didn't have the EM1 MKII with me to compare it against the EM1 MKIII which is what I was using. I was also using one of my Fuji cameras. For the most part the Olympus did a great job, but IMO the Fuji had a slight edge with nailing the exposure.
Very interesting - would have loved to hear your feedback on the MKII and the MKIII - what was the application?
 

BushmanOrig

Mu-43 Top Veteran
Joined
Mar 31, 2015
Messages
533
Location
Switzerland
Real Name
Siegfried
Well let us know when you have come up with something that isn't the older ETTR technique because that is 100% the only thing you have ever tried to present here. You have offered nothing new or "interesting" over that to date. I applaud you on your determination and hope you are getting enjoyment from your hobby. But to be blunt, each time you present the same concepts in a new thread, the more likely it is you will be met with sarcastic replies. Simply put, people don't like to be told the same thing over and over like they are incapable of understanding simple concepts when presented with them the first time.

Now some would say just block you. But I am always optimistic, giving people the benefit of the doubt, that maybe this time the post won't be {insert thing that would make you block someone here}. So I will continue to see your posts ever hopeful or something actually interesting and different. :2thumbs:

My apologies to be as blunt as this post - if you and others stopped arguing, which you all do, we could have engaged in a really interesting discussion (which I asked for repeatedly) and have done something positive for the M43 community...

But instead:

Most of you continue to argue, are sarcastic, and post troll images and teach me how arrogant and how stupid and wrong I am, while ALL you have and continue to push is a horribly outdated exposure triangle and ETTR (O and it is indeed outdated) to explain exposure to anybody who dares to ask for advice or your next line is, go buy a full-frame camera, as Paul did repeatedly in this thread... You have NOTHING else!!!

The one positive thing I notice is more and more posters now agree that shutter speed & aperture are the only variables influencing how much image signal will reach the sensor - some are still hopelessly confused about the role of the sensor or ISO (exp triangle?) - but NO..., NO need to discuss exposure, its an old thing and we all super experts, nothing to see here, let's push an intellectually insulting "bucket" theory...

Then the next level on how to apply aperture - until a week ago Paul tried to make a fool of me, when I dared to mention "gain" (go find his insulting post - now tucked away in the dark corners of this forum)

Why not just stop arguing? This great forum can be of such awesome value to the silent reader - but NO, my own huge EGO - my first choice is to argue and not to accept new ideas...

I made repeated invitations to examine the EM1 MKIII - but NO, let's post a troll image?

I rest my frustrating case - why even bother?
 
Last edited:
Joined
Jun 1, 2019
Messages
1,082
Location
Spitfire Bluff
Like an idiot I make sure for most photos light meter is perfectly zeroed in on the middle and click.
And then fix it in post processing. Reading this makes me wonder if I should be doing something complex, something more than just bringing light meter in the middle of the scale :S
 

BushmanOrig

Mu-43 Top Veteran
Joined
Mar 31, 2015
Messages
533
Location
Switzerland
Real Name
Siegfried
Like an idiot I make sure for most photos light meter is perfectly zeroed in on the middle and click.
And then fix it in post processing. Reading this makes me wonder if I should be doing something complex, something more than just bringing light meter in the middle of the scale :S
Well, it wouldn't hurt to drop the sarcasm and try a few simple techniques? More fun is to even understand why you try these techniques...?
 

pdk42

One of the "Eh?" team
Joined
Jan 11, 2013
Messages
7,477
Location
Leamington Spa, UK
The one positive thing I notice is more and more posters now agree that shutter speed & aperture are the only variables influencing how much image signal will reach the sensor
But it's posts like yours, with all your overly-complex arguments (and at times plain wrong information) that might cause people to think there are other variables. You and I had a long to-and-fro some time back where I was trying to tell you exactly what you've written above, but you were trying to assert that you can do ETTR above base ISO and that somehow a shot "pushed" at higher ISO would be better than one at a lower ISO not pushed - even though BOTH HAD EXACTLY THE SAME SHUTTER SPEED AND APERTURE.

https://www.mu-43.com/threads/what-...your-olympus-ettr-and-other-techniques.107096

And even when I posted the PROOF that you were wrong here, you still argued!
 

BushmanOrig

Mu-43 Top Veteran
Joined
Mar 31, 2015
Messages
533
Location
Switzerland
Real Name
Siegfried
But it's posts like yours, with all your overly-complex arguments (and at times plain wrong information) that might cause people to think there are other variables. You and I had a long to-and-fro some time back where I was trying to tell you exactly what you've written above, but you were trying to assert that you can do ETTR above base ISO and that somehow a shot "pushed" at higher ISO would be better than one at a lower ISO not pushed - even though BOTH HAD EXACTLY THE SAME SHUTTER SPEED AND APERTURE.

https://www.mu-43.com/threads/what-...your-olympus-ettr-and-other-techniques.107096

And even when I posted the PROOF that you were wrong here, you still argued!

Paul:- "But - it's a long article and IMHO the point of ETTR is really quite simple..." like now you always refused to read, listen and understand what I am talking about...

Not willing to read or study or simply ask - but calling me names, insult me - the history is open for all to go see...

It always amazes me how quickly people willing to believe... "hey look, the one is bigger than the other and therefore the one is better than the other..." Anyone ever asked by how much?

BUT dare present great info that can really make a difference and you fight like there is no tomorrow...why?

Now, I agree it has been a process for me to move on from basic ETTR to having a better understanding - anyone here shared that journey? Have you been invited to share in this journey or just sit back and follow? BUT NO, insults made non-stop, do you recall all the things you called me, Paul?

Anyone here moved-on beyond the exposure triangle? - I am honestly not trying to be rude - take it as a simple but important question...

So why less noise below? Why would this apply to any ISO? See the EM1 II examples below (what was the ISO?)

Gee.jpg
Subscribe to see EXIF info for this image (if available)



Gee-2.jpg
Subscribe to see EXIF info for this image (if available)
 
Last edited:
Joined
Jun 1, 2019
Messages
1,082
Location
Spitfire Bluff
Well, it wouldn't hurt to drop the sarcasm and try a few simple techniques? More fun is to even understand why you try these techniques...?
Okay. My understanding was that, that anyone on photography forum would already know widening the aperture is sure shot way of not introducing noise while increasing light.
So the step 2 of your original post is baffling me.
What if I'm already shooting wide open? I can't possibly gain or do ETTR using aperture alone at that point.
Worse still, I have a Nikon 50mm f1.2 that drops below suboptimal levels of sharpness when wide open and I don't want to shoot at f1.2. What do you suggest for flooding the sensor in such cases?
 

Richard_M

Mu-43 Veteran
Joined
Feb 15, 2019
Messages
246
Location
Melbourne, Australia
Very interesting - would have loved to hear your feedback on the MKII and the MKIII - what was the application?

It was a closeup of native orchids. I only have the one macro lens for the Olympus bodies. However, if I get an opportunity next weekend and the subject is still in flower, I might put a zoom on the MK II and see how it compares to the MK III.
 

pdk42

One of the "Eh?" team
Joined
Jan 11, 2013
Messages
7,477
Location
Leamington Spa, UK
Paul:- "But - it's a long article and IMHO the point of ETTR is really quite simple..." like now you always refused to read, listen and understand what I am talking about...

Not willing to read or study or simply ask - but calling me names, insult me - the history is open for all to go see...

It always amazes me how quickly people willing to believe... "hey look, the one is bigger than the other and therefore the one is better than the other..." Anyone ever asked by how much?

BUT dare present great info that can really make a difference and you fight like there is no tomorrow...why?

Now, I agree it has been a process for me to move on from basic ETTR to having a better understanding - anyone here shared that journey? Have you been invited to share in this journey or just sit back and follow? BUT NO, insults made non-stop, do you recall all the things you called me, Paul?

Anyone here moved-on beyond the exposure triangle? - I am honestly not trying to be rude - take it as a simple but important question...

So why less noise below? Why would this apply to any ISO? See the EM1 II examples below (what was the ISO?)

View attachment 852165


View attachment 852166
I've no idea why you're presenting that photon transfer graph as some justification of your position Siegfried. It simply shows that you get more electrons accumulated in the sensel wells as the number of captured photons increases. It also shows how SNR improves as you get near to saturation. BUT YOU CAN ONLY SATURATE THE WELLS AT BASE ISO - since increasing ISO only increases gain. You're proving my point.

And the example images you posted - please provide the ISO, shutter speed and aperture before we can have a discussion about what the differences are.

And please, I am not attacking you personally - I'm simply criticising your ideas. Ideas should always be open to criticism - this isn't a religion you know! :)
 

BushmanOrig

Mu-43 Top Veteran
Joined
Mar 31, 2015
Messages
533
Location
Switzerland
Real Name
Siegfried
Okay. My understanding was that, that anyone on photography forum would already know widening the aperture is sure shot way of not introducing noise while increasing light.
So the step 2 of your original post is baffling me.
What if I'm already shooting wide open? I can't possibly gain or do ETTR using aperture alone at that point.
Worse still, I have a Nikon 50mm f1.2 that drops below suboptimal levels of sharpness when wide open and I don't want to shoot at f1.2. What do you suggest for flooding the sensor in such cases?

OK very interesting observation Sleepy, thanks.

The 2nd step is based on the following:-

- When you select f6,3 for a landscape image you safe to open the aperture to f5,6 without affecting the original DOF. I refer to this as aperture DOF flexibility.
- In the second step you consider aperture as both DOF and gain (when you opened the aperture to f5,6 you added more light onto the sensor (gain))

To get back to your question - what if you already at the bottom end of your sensor aperture DOF flexibility and you cannot further open the aperture to increase the gain...? With this example, my recommendation is to take advantage of the fact that you have this so-called aperture DOF flexibility with M43 cameras. Plan ahead and start off in step 1 with a smaller aperture knowing that in step 2 you might need to add more light onto the sensor.

All the steps 1 & 2 does - it helps you to expose as you did in the past (familiarity in step 1) plus it adds a logical technique in step 2 to really optimize your shot (pushing that sensor into its optimum performance)

So you will not stop using what you know is not good with your f1.2 lens, you will expand the use of aperture plus you will know exactly why...

Now imagine what flexibility a 1" sensor has?

Best :)
 
Last edited:

Latest posts

Links on this page may be to our affiliates. Sales through affiliate links may benefit this site.
Mu-43 is a fan site and not associated with Olympus, Panasonic, or other manufacturers mentioned on this site.
Forum post reactions by Twemoji: https://github.com/twitter/twemoji
Forum GIFs powered by GIPHY: https://giphy.com/
Copyright © Amin Forums, LLC
Top Bottom