Metering, some myths explored

Alveric wrote in post #18104865
However, had I been of the ETTR mindset, I woulda gotten this:

Not the true tonal values and a washed out sky from which some detail might be utterly irretrievable.

_______________
**Yes, I know no photo perfectly matches real life due to many factors, like manufacturer's coded-in 'styles', RAW engines, &c. 'As in real life' means as close to the real thing as possible, no 'creative deviations' at all.

Well maybe I am missing something here, but this would be what you got if you used ETTR by 0.5 stop, right?
In that case shouldn't you bring down your exposure by -0.5 in post processing then?

As I understand it, you deliberately overexpose (a bit) in camera and then underexpose (a bit) in post, thereby revealing more details in shadow areas. If you do not, all your images would just be overexposed images, right?

I know PhotosGuy posts his "Need an exposure crutch?" link all over but this seems pretty simple.

If I meter using my Caucasian hand, my meter should say +1 and assuming the light reflecting off my hand is the same light reflecting off my subject, I should get a good exposure.

And I remember reading about "Brother Blue Sky" in the Understanding Exposure book. So outside, if my subject is not in the shade, metering off blue sky, those settings should give me a good exposure even if the meter reads something else from my subject.

Right?

D-Noc wrote in post #18104904
Well maybe I am missing something here, but this would be what you got if you used ETTR by 0.5 stop, right?
In that case shouldn't you bring down your exposure by -0.5 in post processing then?

As I understand it, you deliberately overexpose (a bit) in camera and then underexpose (a bit) in post, thereby revealing more details in shadow areas. If you do not, all your images would just be overexposed images, right?

True, spot on in fact, but his point was if you expised ettr and it was clipping the highlights as a result, then you haven't any detail to pull back in the first place, zero data is zero data, therefore in that instance, ettr was not a good method.

sued5320 wrote in post #18104918
And I remember reading about "Brother Blue Sky" in the Understanding Exposure book. So outside, if my subject is not in the shade, metering off blue sky, those settings should give me a good exposure even if the meter reads something else from my subject.

Right?

Unfortunately NOT. Just took this reading at 1:50pm on bright sunny day in CA (Hillary is about 5 miles away on a fundraiser)
ISO 250, 1/250

1. Incident meter: f/16 + 0.1EV
   
2. 1° Spotmeter sky: f/22 +0.1EV
   

D-Noc wrote in post #18104904
Well maybe I am missing something here, but this would be what you got if you used ETTR by 0.5 stop, right?
In that case shouldn't you bring down your exposure by -0.5 in post processing then?

As I understand it, you deliberately overexpose (a bit) in camera and then underexpose (a bit) in post, thereby revealing more details in shadow areas. If you do not, all your images would just be overexposed images, right?

Yes, indeed. Your reasoning is correct. The problem is that you either have to take notes for every photo as in the days of film, or you have to be able to remember exactly by how much you overexposed so that you can pull it in post-processing. When we're out shooting dozens of photos, running all round the place, with many other things in our minds besides pictures (such as quickly pulling off the gravel road to avoid being destroyed by that huge, oncoming combine, &c) it's nigh impossible to remember just how much you went off the right exposure values. Guess you could record them by, er, well, taking a photo?

And to what purpose, really? Just so as to be able to pull detail in the shadows that's not really relevant? Maybe that's why the sensor designers designed to have only ~25% or data on the left side of the histogram: it's gonna be underexposed and mostly unseen anyway!

I mean, if a man has the time and the inclination and the ability to be taking notes or the exceptional memory to remember, ETTR might work very well for him. But in the field, when you need to record accurate photographs, it's just not practical.

sued5320 wrote in post #18104918
I know PhotosGuy posts his "Need an exposure crutch?" link all over but this seems pretty simple.

If I meter using my Caucasian hand, my meter should say +1 and assuming the light reflecting off my hand is the same light reflecting off my subject, I should get a good exposure.

And I remember reading about "Brother Blue Sky" in the Understanding Exposure book. So outside, if my subject is not in the shade, metering off blue sky, those settings should give me a good exposure even if the meter reads something else from my subject.

Right?

The Brother Blue Sky refers to metering off the sky at 30 degrees above the horizon, where it's most likely to be the mid tone blue in the chart posted earlier. Yet, as Wilt pointed out, the blue in the sky changes with latitude, time of the day, season, and atmospheric conditions. It's not reliable.

As for caucasian skin, well, average caucasian is ~1 stop above mid tone (mid grey if you will); but there are nuances in caucasian: both the tanned Spanish farmer and the Scandinavian girl are caucasian, but I betcha the one's skin tone is one stop darker than the other's.

I'm a half Scandanavian girl and 0 Spanish farmer - so I'll go with the +1 stop.

Cool.

What I remember Mr Peterson suggesting was to determine your hand's actual exposure value so that you can use it as an impromptu grey card** when you're in a pinch. Find a location with even lighting (such as the shade) and take a reading off a grey card, then in the same conditions take a reading off your hand. Note the delta between the readings and now you can use your hand as a card: just adjust for the difference.

The back of my hand, thanks to Big Bother Sun, is mid tone.

_______________
**Note that your hand as a grey card is for exposure determinations only. Don't ever try to use it as a white balance card!

Alveric wrote in post #18104995
As for caucasian skin, well, average caucasian is ~1 stop above mid tone (mid grey if you will); but there are nuances in caucasian: both the tanned Spanish farmer and the Scandinavian girl are caucasian, but I betcha the one's skin tone is one stop darker than the other's.

Supposedly if you measure the PALM, the palm is pretty consistently +1EV compared to 18% grey card, and regardless of the state of tan and even ethic heritage. My palm is +1.1EV to +1.3EV compared to a grey card, and I have a fairly healthy tan (although short of my wife calling me a Hawaiian islander), so even the Rule of Thumb is imprecise. Fairly close for guv'ment work! Carrying a grey card is the only way to some consistency, apart from getting an incident light meter.

Alveric wrote in post #18105007
Cool.

What I remember Mr Peterson suggesting was to determine your hand's actual exposure value so that you can use it as an impromptu grey card** when you're in a pinch. Find a location with even lighting (such as the shade) and take a reading off a grey card, then in the same conditions take a reading off your hand. Note the delta between the readings and now you can use your hand as a card: just adjust for the difference.

The back of my hand, thanks to Big Bother Sun, is mid tone.

_______________
**Note that your hand as a grey card is for exposure determinations only. Don't ever try to use it as a white balance card!

Not the back! I recommend the palm of your hand because I'm told that it doesn't tan.
And I "calibrate" my palm to a flat white paper target to avoid having a 'normal' white blowing out. Need an exposure crutch?

Alveric wrote in post #18104983
Yes, indeed. Your reasoning is correct. The problem is that you either have to take notes for every photo as in the days of film, or you have to be able to remember exactly by how much you overexposed so that you can pull it in post-processing. When we're out shooting dozens of photos, running all round the place, with many other things in our minds besides pictures (such as quickly pulling off the gravel road to avoid being destroyed by that huge, oncoming combine, &c) it's nigh impossible to remember just how much you went off the right exposure values. Guess you could record them by, er, well, taking a photo?

Exactly. But I guess it all depends on how true-to-life you want your image to be. If you use ETTR right up to the point where the clipping would occur, you should be able to pull it down by -x in post to get a natural looking image. But x might not be exact same amount as you overexposed with when you ETTR but in practise, does it matter much if the image is still LOOKING natural?

As stated earlier I don't use ETTR as such, but my 6D does seem to leave most of the histogram on the dark half if I set the exposure as suggested by the built in metering. So I overexpose by ~1/3 to 1/2 stop to get a better centered histogram. In a sense this is ETTR, but not to overexpose at all, more to get exposure right. The right amount of additional exposure will of course also be dependent on the subject.

I still prefer to get exposure as close to what I really want in camera. I think in regards to my way of handling a camera, ETTR is just an unnecessary step, as I haven't yet had an experience where I thought "Phew.. Im glad I used ETTR".

One thing that surprises me is that there is no exposure compensation level recorded in EXIF data. I often think that would be useful.

I decided yesterday to shoot a series of shots with two techniques in mind in the series

1. A modification of Photosguys' Shoot To The Right technique
   
2. ETTR with post processing adjustment back
   

1. I spotmetered the 18% target area and set initial exposure to that, 1/1250 f/5.6 ISO 100.
   
2. Then I shot 5 more shots, each +0.33EV more to the right, +0.33EV, +0.66EV +1.0EV, +1.33EV, +1.66EV.
   
3. Using LR, I adjusted Exposure BACK by the amount of deviation to the right for the 5 shots +0.33EV, +0.66EV +1.0EV, +1.33EV, +1.66EV,
   
4. Lastly, I adjusted shot 6 back only -0.66EV, to the 'white with detail visible' level (essentially about where you might have shot with ETTR)
   

1. STTR suggested by Photoguys works with SUGAR in lieu of a piece of white paper (a great relief for those of us who do not like to eat paper!)
   
2. If you shoot in RAW with STTR/ETTR you can get back to 'inherent brightness' during post processing, and not worry a lot about having blown your highlight detail by shooting too far to the right...The six shots do not appear to be materially different in content, whether adjusting 0.33EV (as in shot #2) or 1.66EV (as in shot #6)back and forth (shooting and postprocessing)
   
3. Shot 7 (ETTR) shows +1EV deviation from 'inherent brightness', and while not 'accurate' tonality, it is not 'horrid' either (comparing shot 6 vs. shot 7)
   

Wilt wrote in post #18105812
I decided yesterday to shoot a series of shots with two techniques in mind in the series

1. A modification of Photosguys' Shoot To The Right technique
   
2. ETTR with post processing adjustment back
   

To point #1, rather than shoot a piece of white paper, I decided to experiment with using something more likely available at a wedding reception or in many places, where finding white bond might be difficult (do you thing you'd find white paper ...SUGAR!

WAIT! I never said that you needed to take white paper to the wedding with you.

Back up to step #4 at the top of step #1 of "crutch" where I said,
Note: Now you're done with steps 1-4. From now on you'll use your hand to get a good reading in about 5 seconds. All you'll have to do is put your hand in the same light as the subject, adjust the camera to get the meter needle in the same spot as the test & use that for your exposure. This should be equivalent to an incident meter reading or a reflective reading from a gray card.

PhotosGuy wrote in post #18105882
WAIT! I never said that you needed to take white paper to the wedding with you.

Back up to step #4 at the top of step #1 of "crutch" where I said,
Note: Now you're done with steps 1-4. From now on you'll use your hand to get a good reading in about 5 seconds. All you'll have to do is put your hand in the same light as the subject, adjust the camera to get the meter needle in the same spot as the test & use that for your exposure. This should be equivalent to an incident meter reading or a reflective reading from a gray card.

Pardonez moi! Since I know my hand is +1.3EV, I merely need to take the reading off my palm, compensate that -0.33EV before shooting, and I know it is my ETTR exposure and that I need to back off another -1.0EV in postprocessing to bring it all back to 'inherent brightness'. And the sugar is only to stave off hunger.