Overexpose to reduce noise

I definitely ETTRed most with my 5Dc. Hardware has improved over the years: better sensor/circuit designs so that there’s less noise when you raise shadows. Review sites will also show you how DR has steadily improved so that there’s deeper blacks (before noise threshold) and finer increments of contrast. With my 5Dc and landscapes, I wouldn’t raise shadows even at base ISO as I’d see noise. Though when I’ve revisited my 5Dc files more recently, I’ve found there’s not as much noise when I raise shadow in familiar photos. I think Adobe improved those Camera Raw features compared to when I first was using it in the 2000s. Though when it comes to overexposing, I still haven’t run into issues with recovering if I have accidentally done it with my recent Canon. It could be that development seems different, as older cameras basically have a more limited range to be able to adjust.

lucky7 wrote in post #18975441
I shoot a 6D also. I underexpose at night and bring the shadows up...within reason. I try not to let the ISO go above 6400 because that's where things get kind of gross looking, lol.

But underexposing in dark setting is how you increase the noise visible in the shadow areas, when you brighten overall exposure to brings thinks up to their inherent tonality during postprocessing.

Tom Reichner wrote in post #18975410
.
I am so glad that someone revived this thread. . I wish I had been aware of the thread when it was first started back in 2011, because then I was shooting with a Canon 50D as my main camera, and did not know about overexposing to reduce noise.

Overexposing and then bringing the exposure down on the computer definitely resulted in cleaner files than shooting the "correct" exposure in the first place, with my 50D. . I noticed this was also the case with my Canon 1D4, but not to the same extent. . Now that I've been shooting with a Canon 6D, I have found that overexposing and then bringing the exposure down in editing does not result in a cleaner file than just shooting the "correct" exposure to begin with.

It almost seems as if sensor tech gradually changed over the years from 2009 until 2012, and that the newer sensors, for whatever reason, do not benefit from overexposure.

I would like to know exactly HOW this change occurred. . What is it, precisely, about the newer sensors that resulted in this change? . Does it have to do with the way the data is recorded onto the sensor at the instant of capture, or does it have to do with the way the data is processed (in camera).

So I guess my question is, is this a physical change in the sensor itself, or is it a change in the software that goes into image generation?

If it is the sensor itself, what exactly did they change? . What parts of the sensor are different, and what are those differences?

If it is the software changing the way the image is generated, then what is different about the software? . What lines of code are different, and what exactly are those differences in the code?


.

Hey Tom,. have a read here;
https://photography-on-the.net …php?p=8534003#p​ost8534003

It's got a full history lesson on the ideas of ETTR and what we ended up calling "HAMSTTR"
ETTR goes back a Looong way, like 2003 or so,. I'm stunned you've not read about here.
We used to do all kinds of fits and tricks trying to eek out every last bit of detail before noise crushed it in the old days. Today's sensors are so good, none of it really matters anymore IMHO.

Wilt wrote in post #18975701
But underexposing in dark setting is how you increase the noise visible in the shadow areas, when you brighten overall exposure to brings thinks up to their inherent tonality during postprocessing.

He probably "under-exposes" (uses a negative EC) at night to minimise clipping in lights.

TeamSpeed wrote in post #12970056
Just a quick clarification, ETTR and HAMSTTR aren't the same exact thing, there is a distinct difference between the two.

Well, actually, no.

HAMSTTR was termed specifically to avoid a need to define two differing methods. HAMSTTR was not a different methodology from what we'd been doing with ETTR since it started,. it was really just a more inclusive term that acknowledged the fact that part of how we push our histograms to the right is by using an ISO boost. No one was shooting ETTR at ISO 100 back in the days when noise was so nasty! It does not discern pushing EC via shutter, aperture or ISO.

CyberDyneSystems wrote in post #18975715
Hey Tom,. have a read here;
https://photography-on-the.net …php?p=8534003#p​ost8534003

It's got a full history lesson on the ideas of ETTR and what we ended up calling "HAMSTTR"
ETTR goes back a Looong way, like 2003 or so,. I'm stunned you've not read about here.
We used to do all kinds of fits and tricks trying to eek out every last bit of detail before noise crushed it in the old days. Today's sensors are so good, none of it really matters anymore IMHO.

.
Oh, yes, Jake, I read all about ETTR, years ago. . Of course I know all about it now!

The problem is that I didn't learn about it until 2012, and I really could've used that information earlier, like in 2010. . This thread was started in 2011, a year before I learned about ETTR. . If I had read this thread when it first came out, I could have taken better photos from August 2011 until early 2012 when I started implementing ETTR. . That means that some of my photos from the 2011 deer rut (November) would be cleaner than they are ..... which would be nice.

.

All good except if you shoot Leica M. No room at the top especially with the original MM. With the M 10 it is like shooting color transparency film. If you go to far up on the shoulder(highlights) there is nothing there to pull back but there is lots of room in the toe (shadows).

airfrogusmc wrote in post #18975876
All good except if you shoot Leica M. No room at the top especially with the original MM. With the M 10 it is like shooting color transparency film. If you go to far up on the shoulder(highlights) there is nothing there to pull back but there is lots of room in the toe (shadows).

.
But the very definition of ETTR is to expose as far to the right as you can without overexposing any of the highlights. . So you can apply it to any type of body or sensor and it will work, because by definition it prevents you from ever blowing the highlights.


.

Tom Reichner wrote in post #18975937
.
But the very definition of ETTR is to expose as far to the right as you can without overexposing any of the highlights. . So you can apply it to any type of body or sensor and it will work, because by definition it prevents you from ever blowing the highlights.

.

Tom, shoot with a Leica M 10 or better yet an original MM and shoot the way you would with a Nikon or Canon ETTR and then let me know how that works out. It is very different. The highlights that you can pull back with both Nikon, Canon, Fuji, Sony etc are really not there with Leica. Most Leica shooters I know always go the other way to protect the highlights that are important.

airfrogusmc wrote in post #18976005
Tom, shoot with a Leica M 10 or better yet an original MM and shoot the way you would with a Nikon or Canon ETTR and then let me know how that works out. It is very different. The highlights that you can pull back with both Nikon, Canon, Fuji, Sony etc are really not there with Leica. Most Leica shooters I know always go the other way to protect the highlights that are important.

.
Right. . Of course. . So with the Leica, one can still shoot to the right, but the actual exposure values would not be the same as they are with most other cameras.

Allen, we all aim to protect the highlights that are important, that is why, when shooting to the right, we typically take many test images to determine how far you can go while preserving every bit of highlight detail. . Every camera is different, and that is why test shots are done repeatedly in each scenario. . I would never assume that one camera would give me exposure latitude that another camera gives me. . That's why ETTR means test shots and chimping before each meaningful frame, regardless of what gear is used or its exposure tendencies.

Shooting with a Leica doesn't mean that you can't expose to the right, it just means that when you do expose to the right you are going to be shooting very different exposure values than you would with other gear, due to the Leica's predisposition to blow out highlights. . But that wouldn't be a problem for anyone, because when we take test shots and chimp the histogram, we don't enter into the situation with any preconceived ideas about what exposure we will probably end up with.

We take each and every case on its own, and don't allow any previous experience to affect our settings. . We go entirely off of what the histogram is telling us at that very moment shooting that very scene in that very light with that very camera. . That is why ETTR can never fail, when done by the textbook definition of the term.


.

Tom Reichner wrote in post #18976011
.
Right. . Of course. . So with the Leica, one can still shoot to the right, but the actual exposure values would not be the same as they are with most other cameras.

Allen, we all aim to protect the highlights that are important, that is why, when shooting to the right, we typically take many test images to determine how far you can go while preserving every bit of highlight detail. . Every camera is different, and that is why test shots are done repeatedly in each scenario. . I would never assume that one camera would give me exposure latitude that another camera gives me. . That's why ETTR means test shots and chimping before each meaningful frame, regardless of what gear is used or its exposure tendencies.

Shooting with a Leica doesn't mean that you can't expose to the right, it just means that when you do expose to the right you are going to be shooting very different exposure values than you would with other gear, due to the Leica's predisposition to blow out highlights. . But that wouldn't be a problem for anyone, because when we take test shots and chimp the histogram, we don't enter into the situation with any preconceived ideas about what exposure we will probably end up with.

We take each and every case on its own, and don't allow any previous experience to affect our settings. . We go entirely off of what the histogram is telling us at that very moment shooting that very scene in that very light with that very camera. . That is why ETTR can never fail, when done by the textbook definition of the term.

.

Agree but unless you are an old transparency film shooter there can be a HUGE learning curve with Leica M. All you have to do is visit a Leica forum and see some of the frustration from those used to shooting with other cameras.

airfrogusmc wrote in post #18976018
Agree but unless you are an old transparency film shooter there can be a HUGE learning curve with Leica M. All you have to do is visit a Leica forum and see some of the frustration from those used to shooting with other cameras.

.
Doesn't the Leica M give you the ability to view a histogram? . If so, it shouldn't be any harder to ETTR with a Leica M than it is with any other camera ..... as long as you can let go of any preconceptions you have about what you think the exposure should be.

If your camera has a histogram, then all you need to do is:

1. . Shoot test shot.

2. . Look at histogram from said test shot.

3. . Adjust exposure until histogram comes right up to the right edge, without actually touching it.

Done!

That's really all there is to it, no matter what camera one is using or what one is used to.

If we're strictly talking only about ETTR, then I don't understand what the "huge learning curve" would be, unless people are somehow bringing their past experiences into it. . If your camera has a histogram and you just do the three steps that I listed above, and don't do or think about anything else, that really is all there is to doing ETTR, regardless of the gear being used.

I can certainly see how having very little exposure latitude with highlights can present a great learning curve, but I don't see what that has to do specifically with ETTR, as the rules of ETTR are applied to every camera exactly the same way, and if observed to the letter will not be affected by exposure latitude. . ETTR, precisely performed, is unaffected by any amount of latitude one way or the other.

.

Of course it has the ability to view histogram. But where other cameras have the ability to pull back some highlights that doesn't work with Leica M's the same way as with other cameras.

davesrose wrote in post #18975697
I definitely ETTRed most with my 5Dc. Hardware has improved over the years: better sensor/circuit designs so that there’s less noise when you raise shadows.

That tide hasn't floated all boats equally, though. There are still some recent cameras with poor base ISO shadows, like the Sony A9 and the Nikon D5, and Canon's RP and 6D2.

That's a bit of a wildcard. Some older cameras had a lot of RAW highlight headroom than others. The Rebel 400D/XTi is one example, with a half stop more headroom than most Canons of that period.

Tom Reichner wrote in post #18975764
.
Oh, yes, Jake, I read all about ETTR, years ago. . Of course I know all about it now!

The problem is that I didn't learn about it until 2012, and I really could've used that information earlier, like in 2010. . This thread was started in 2011, a year before I learned about ETTR. . If I had read this thread when it first came out, I could have taken better photos from August 2011 until early 2012 when I started implementing ETTR. . That means that some of my photos from the 2011 deer rut (November) would be cleaner than they are ..... which would be nice.

.

ETTR would be more user-friendly if cameras actually allowed you to meter for RAW highlights. Cameras are almost exclusively JPEG-oriented, despite possibly having RAW. ETTR is often too hard to estimate optimally in real time, so many people decide to just play it safe.

It is still useful in many cameras, even if not critical. The Nikon D5, for example, is one of the best FF cameras at ISO 102400, in most of the higher tones, but it does have some ugly banding noise deep in the shadows, so shooting ISO 51200 from the ISO 102400 setting is still useful for better shadows, if it doesn't clip.