ETTR - Equal noise at 3200 than at 1600?

So, I've discovered ETTR (or is it HAMSTTR here?)

I'm kind of cheating--I'm using Magic Lantern's AETTR. Works pretty well.

Anyway, so far, I've noticed that some of the photos I've taken that there isn't much of a difference in noise when ETTR at 3200/1600. I see literally no difference. Is that normal?

quadwing wrote in post #17015941
So, I've discovered ETTR (or is it HAMSTTR here?)

I'm kind of cheating--I'm using Magic Lantern's AETTR. Works pretty well.

Anyway, so far, I've noticed that some of the photos I've taken that there isn't much of a difference in noise when ETTR at 3200/1600. I see literally no difference. Is that normal?

yes,
the next step is to discover photoshop layers and noise reduction filters like neat image, noise ninja, etc. Then ISO 6000 will look like the old 1600 or 800

Hmm...I don't have Magic Lantern, but ETTR is about setting your in-camera exposure to keep noise to a minimal level, and, if you are shooting Raw, to maximize your ability to process your images. This is in-camera considerations!

So, what about when it comes to things like exposure? The "blinkies" people talk about, I assume, are highlight blowout indicators?

If they're blinking, is the camera reading the JPEG reading or RAW? Does that actually mean that those highlights are unrecoverable in RAW?

quadwing wrote in post #17017950
So, what about when it comes to things like exposure? The "blinkies" people talk about, I assume, are highlight blowout indicators?

If they're blinking, is the camera reading the JPEG reading or RAW? Does that actually mean that those highlights are unrecoverable in RAW?

The jpg. The Raw has a stop more headroom. If you have ML installed use it's Raw histogram (displayed in LV).

tonylong wrote in post #17017470
Hmm...I don't have Magic Lantern, but ETTR is about setting your in-camera exposure to keep noise to a minimal level, and, if you are shooting Raw, to maximize your ability to process your images. This is in-camera considerations!

What Tony said.

Probably the greatest cause of noise is under exposure then trying to bring the exposure up during post processing.

The most important thing is to 'getting it right in the camera'. In other words sh!t in, sh!t out.

When it comes ETTR vs. getting the exposure on point the first time you shoot, when you're shooting at higher ISO's, is it better to ETTR and bring it down to reduce noise, or is it better to get it right the first time?

ETTR is getting it right. Low light causes noise and ETTR maximizes the exposure of the shadows. Moreover, reducing the tonality in processing also reduces noise.

"Reducing the tonality" - could you explain that?

Excuse me if this is what you meant. I'm just not getting it, I guess. What I mean is if a photograph is properly exposed at a high ISO (we'll call this photograph 1), is it still better to ETTR anyway and pull it down in post to the same exposure that photograph 1 is at? That will reduce noise?

Across the histogram there are more details held in the white section than the black section, unless you completely over expose and 'blow out the whites'. ETTR in principle, is over exposing as much as you can without blowing out the whites ( blinkies ) Then you pull the exposure back in post processing, thus retaining as much detail as possible and not under exposing which would introduce noise.

tzalman wrote in post #17024577
ETTR is getting it right. Low light causes noise and ETTR maximizes the exposure of the shadows. Moreover, reducing the tonality in processing also reduces noise.

quadwing wrote in post #17025257
"Reducing the tonality" - could you explain that?

Excuse me if this is what you meant. I'm just not getting it, I guess. What I mean is if a photograph is properly exposed at a high ISO (we'll call this photograph 1), is it still better to ETTR anyway and pull it down in post to the same exposure that photograph 1 is at? That will reduce noise?

Pardon my anal retentiveness, but ETTR may be 'getting it right' only in the sense of sensitometry to capture the brightest areas without loss of detail, and in terms of the best technique to capture an image to maximize quality and minimize noise. But...

ETTR does very often 'portray tonal levels brighter than they are in reality' ...50% grey mid-tonal area might be captured as 70% (light grey) until corrected in post processing before printing; and black might be portrayed as 'very dark grey' until corrected in post processing. So the photo is not 'right' from the standpoint of tonal accuracy until corrected for printing.


And then there is also the very important and relevant consideration of what 'right' really means for the photographer! A scene might have 10EV of dynamic range, the photographer thinks that details in the lowest two EV have a lot of importance and that the stuff in the highest two EV are unimportant things like reflections of the sun on a chrome bumper...so 'right' exposure is to LET the top two brightness levels be LOST outside the 8EV range the camera might capture!!!

Wilt wrote in post #17025396
And then there is also the very important and relevant consideration of what 'right' really means for the photographer! A scene might have 10EV of dynamic range, the photographer thinks that details in the lowest two EV have a lot of importance and that the stuff in the highest two EV are unimportant things like reflections of the sun on a chrome bumper...so 'right' exposure is to LET the top two brightness levels be LOST outside the 8EV range the camera might capture!!!

A very good point, Wilt. Often times, I envision an image a certain way, and "right" exposure is the exposure which enables me to make the image match my vision. This can vary considerably from image to image.

ETTR only really makes sense if you're already at ISO 100, at least in principle. Suppose you're at ISO 800 and metering 1/100 s. Even if you can get away with preserving all the highlights at +1 EV, you'd probably be better off just bumping down to (ISO 400, 1/50 s) than overexposing at (ISO 800, 1/50 s). However, if you were already at ISO 100 to begin with, then you don't have the option to bump down the ISO. In that scenario, you might as well overexpose to reduce noise.

The caveat in all this is Canon's shadow banding and read noise. I guess it's possible that if you're shooting a scene with dark shadows but no strong highlights, overexposing at a higher ISO could be preferable to avoid the banding.

(picture of airplane flying overheard)

wat

brettjrob wrote in post #17025834
ETTR only really makes sense if you're already at ISO 100, at least in principle. Suppose you're at ISO 800 and metering 1/100 s. Even if you can get away with preserving all the highlights at +1 EV, you'd probably be better off just bumping down to (ISO 400, 1/50 s) than overexposing at (ISO 800, 1/50 s). However, if you were already at ISO 100 to begin with, then you don't have the option to bump down the ISO. In that scenario, you might as well overexpose to reduce noise.

The caveat in all this is Canon's shadow banding and read noise. I guess it's possible that if you're shooting a scene with dark shadows but no strong highlights, overexposing at a higher ISO could be preferable to avoid the banding.

Hmm, I'm sorry, but what you are saying here doesn't make much sense to me!

Not that you don't have something valid to say, but to me the concept of "ETTR" is, well, not so complicated!

To boil it down to a nutshell, ETTR means that at least with digital photography and when shooting Raw we have a bit more latitude in "pushing" the highlights, since there is more digital data that can be retained in highlights than in shadows.

As to specifics about ISO values, well, that depends on the specifics of your camera performance. For example, Canon has specialized in High ISO performance, so that with Canon cameras, if you want to "boost" your exposure, raising the ISO can allow you to do that with a minimum of Image Quality loss