Debunking ETTR

[jeff_schewe]

<blockquote>

<p>Dan South wrote:<br>

That's a GREAT question. I still haven't seen a SINGLE image that convinces me of the superiority of ETTR. Not ONE! Talk is cheap. Demonstrate.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Ok, since you didn't like my video tutorials I'll show you an image from the <a href="http://www.adobepress.com/bookstore/product.asp?isbn=0321637550">Real World Image Sharpening</a> book (that I doubt you would buy anyway). But rather than post in-line, I put up a page on my web site called <em><a href="http://schewephoto.com/ETTR/index.html">Un-Debunking ETTR</a></em></p>

<p>I did this for two reasons...the limitations of posting images here in-line and the fact that this subject comes up enough that it was worth putting a page together for use after this thread dies out (which it will eventually).</p>

<p>The page shows an image that was helped by ETTR...and it's typical of the type of lower contrast image where it can help the signal to noise ratio. I also posted an example of just how much data a raw capture can contain (in the event you think ETTR is to "risky".</p>

<p>BTW, you may think the shot of Jay was "unflattering" but he liked it enough to want to use it as his current portrait. I selected that image NOT to name drop a friend of mine but because it showed the feature in Lightroom pretty well (and both Michael Reichmann and get a kick out of Jay). Jay actually thought it was funny...I also put in in the <a href="http://www.adobepress.com/bookstore/product.asp?isbn=0321580133">Real World Camera Raw</a> book too. Guess you hated it there (oh, wait, bet you didn't buy that either huh?).</p>

<p>It's funny when people accuse me of name dropping...I really don't intend or try to drop names...it's just that I've got a lot of friends in the industry ya know? So, when I talk about my fiends, some people think I'm just dropping names. Nope...just talking about my friends...</p>

<p>So, check it out and get back to us huh? Maybe this will help?</p>

[michael_young3]

<p>David Ralph penned:</p>

<blockquote>

<p>... casting pearls before swine.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Why, that's just swell. My further comments are addressed to everyone but David. With all due respects, kind and learned sirs.</p>

<p>As it sits this moment, the only practical application I see for ETTR is convenience. More light makes for a better picture. One way to use more light is to select a lower ISO, and expose using the settings and procedures naively learned by and taught to photographers. A second way to use more light is to keep the same ISO, but expose brighter. Auto Exposure Bracketing (AEB) can help do this automatically. There is no corresponding auto-ISO bracketing function on my camera. Hence, the primary benefit of ETTR from this view is the convenience of AEB while taking the picture.</p>

<p>The noise performance of either is about equal, or nearly enough so by very close visual inspection of the image. However, "overexposed" ETTR images have color and contrast shifts that must be adjusted out to produce a good picture. "Properly" exposed images fit the processing applied by common imaging software, and requires relatively little attention or adjustment to color or contrast, certainly nothing that approaches the repair required for ETTR exposures. What you gained in convenience with AEB, you pay back ten-fold and more in the processing end.</p>

<p>All ETTR examples I have seen demonstrate only superior noise performance compared to normally exposed scenes. That improved noise performance is a simple and natural byproduct of simply using more light, which can also be achieved by selecting lower ISO. In other words, I have been unable to find examples anywhere that, beyond improved noise, demonstrate the superior detail that ETTR theoretically captures.</p>

<p>So, I thought finally I would you for your help, on behalf of myself and those similarly uncertain but curious about the benefits of ETTR. Beyond the overly bright exposure that we've already beat to death and beyond, what am I looking for? How do I bring out those details in processing? How much improvement will I see? Thank you, kind and learned sirs.</p>

 

[peter_stacey1]

That Niagara example is great Jeff.

[dan_south]

 

<blockquote>

<p>Ok, since you didn't like my video tutorials I'll show you an image from the <a rel="nofollow" href="http://www.adobepress.com/bookstore/product.asp?isbn=0321637550" target="_blank">Real World Image Sharpening</a> book (that I doubt you would buy anyway).</p>

</blockquote>

<p>On the contrary, it's a great book. I picked up a copy at Borders recently.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>But rather than post in-line, I put up a page on my web site called <em><a rel="nofollow" href="http://schewephoto.com/ETTR/index.html" target="_blank">Un-Debunking ETTR</a></em><br /> I did this for two reasons...the limitations of posting images here in-line and the fact that this subject comes up enough that it was worth putting a page together for use after this thread dies out (which it will eventually).<br /> The page shows an image that was helped by ETTR...and it's typical of the type of lower contrast image where it can help the signal to noise ratio. I also posted an example of just how much data a raw capture can contain (in the event you think ETTR is to "risky".</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I look forward to checking it out.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>BTW, you may think the shot of Jay was "unflattering" but he liked it enough to want to use it as his current portrait. I selected that image NOT to name drop a friend of mine but because it showed the feature in Lightroom pretty well (and both Michael Reichmann and get a kick out of Jay). Jay actually thought it was funny...</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I'm glad that the gentleman liked his portrait, and I apologize for using the word <em>unflattering</em>. That was inaccurate. I didn't mean to imply that the gentleman looked bad. He looked fine. The photo just seemed like an odd choice for what was being demonstrated. There was no shadow detail to recover, not much color to work with, very little contrast, and it wasn't a subject that you really want to sharpen all that much. It was just the fellow's face and an uninteresting white background. Another image might have made for a better demo.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>I also put in in the <a rel="nofollow" href="http://www.adobepress.com/bookstore/product.asp?isbn=0321580133" target="_blank">Real World Camera Raw</a> book too. Guess you hated it there (oh, wait, bet you didn't buy that either huh?).</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I never claimed that I "hated" anything, and I certainly wouldn't judge something without a firsthand impression.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>It's funny when people accuse me of name dropping...I really don't intend or try to drop names...it's just that I've got a lot of friends in the industry ya know? So, when I talk about my fiends, some people think I'm just dropping names. Nope...just talking about my friends...</p>

</blockquote>

<p>A technical lecture isn't <em>People Magazine</em>. Time spent mentioning friends could have been better invested in discussions of concepts, techniques, and the history behind how those concepts and techniques were developed. I found the lecture to be somewhat light on details and heavy on banter. Just my opinion; I'm sure that many readers found them useful. The friends could have been mentioned in the credits if they were critical to the topics discussed.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>So, check it out and get back to us huh? Maybe this will help?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I shall, thank you. It still amazes me that more folks haven't embedded examples within the discussion. Is ETTR that difficult to demonstrate? These pages will no doubt be retrieved by search engines for years to come. A few examples would help put the point across.</p>

[dan_south]

<p>Okay, I looked at the examples at the link. The water example is interesting, and the final result looks very good.</p>

<p>The example with the crane on the dock is interesting also, and it shows the effect of noise in the shadow areas. However, the "as metered" exposure is actually underexposed by 1/2 to 2/3 of a stop. How was the capture metered? Manually, or automatically by the camera? If the shot had been metered more accurately, would there have been as much noise in the shadows, and would ETTR have made as much of a difference?</p>

<p>It's also interesting that both histograms show clipping on the right side. I thought that the objective was to avoid clipping. How does one know how much a histogram can be clipped and still yield a recoverable image?</p>

[peter_stacey1]

<p>Dan South wrote:</p>

<blockquote>

<p>How does one know how much a histogram can be clipped and still yield a recoverable image?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>A number of the earlier questions in your post only Jeff can provide the definitive answer to, but in relation to this one, it's a matter of getting to know your camera system through shooting lots of images, doing specific testing or reading information available about your camera (my preference is to take lots of photos).</p>

<p>With my Nikon cameras, if I'm not manually metering I can always add +2/3 stop exposure compensation and the highlights will still be fine, even if the histogram on the rear of the camera looks clipped. +2/3 of a stop is a lot, given that each stop is a doubling of the amount of light hitting the sensor, yet with my cameras, that amount causes no problems.</p>

<p>Dan South wrote:</p>

<blockquote>

<p>It's also interesting that both histograms show clipping on the right side. I thought that the objective was to avoid clipping.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>The objective of using ETTR is to capture optimum RAW data, which generally includes avoiding clipping.</p>

<p>With the first image, all of the information is there and after Jeff's conversion, the histogram trails off before the right hand side. There is no clipping, even though the default conversion initially looks that way.</p>

<p>In the Niagara shot, it's not really a specific example of ETTR, he's used it as an example of how much data there is in the first stops of a RAW file. With todays digital cameras having >6 stops of usable dynamic range, in a 12-bit capture, the first two stops contain more than half the 4096 levels you have available at each pixel.</p>

<p>If the situation allows you to use them, it's prudent to do so, otherwise you aren't using the full capability of your system and are producing a less than optimal RAW file.</p>

<p>However, even after doing that, in some situations things are just meant to be white. In that case, even after conversion, the histogram will spike because there are white, featureless areas of an image. White, specular highlights are a common example of this.</p>

<p>With the Niagara shot, only Jeff can comment on whether he would have pushed areas to complete white if he had a different choice available, but as it is, it looks pretty good to me.</p>

<p>Regards,</p>

<p>Peter</p>

[william l. palminteri]

<p>.....and still no mention of "DTTL".<br>

....or an explanation of the dreaded color shift.</p>

<p>Bill P. vs. the Forces of Doom</p>

<p> </p>

[ben_goren]

<p>...and a “normal” exposure that’s been underexposed and brought up in

post…and severe posterization in the waterfall…and no crops of the highlight areas of the

waterfront….</p>

 

<p>Sorry, but if this example is meant to be convincing, I haven’t been. I’ve never

advocated underexposing and boosting the exposure to compensate. If that’s what you’re

trying to “un-debunk,” you’ve just wasted so much straw.</p>

 

<p>Cheers,</p>

 

<p>b&</p>

[william l. palminteri]

<blockquote>

<p ><a href="/photodb/user?user_id=361342"><em>Andrew Rodney</em></a><em> </em><a href="/member-status-icons"><em><img title="Subscriber" src="http://static.photo.net/v3graphics/member-status-icons/sub9.gif" alt="" /><img title="Frequent poster" src="http://static.photo.net/v3graphics/member-status-icons/2rolls.gif" alt="" /></em></a><em>, Mar 15, 2010; 02:46 p.m.</em><br>

<em>First and foremost you need to understand that yes, more photons hitting the photo sites (sensels) is always going to be better than less. The more photons of light, the better the signal to noise ration.</em></p>

</blockquote>

<p>Assuming that you mean "fewer", not "less" and "ratio", not "ration", you might want to add <em>"....up to the point of blowing out the photo....."</em></p>

<blockquote>

<p><em>That fact is not open for debate...</em></p>

</blockquote>

<p>That is true if the ONLY criteria you are concerned with is S/N ratio. If there are other factors in the mix, such as transfer function nonliearity in a presumed linear system, etc., then the equation shifts dramatically.</p>

<p>Bill P. vs. the Forces of Doom</p>

[digitaldog]

<blockquote>

<p>All ETTR examples I have seen demonstrate only superior noise performance compared to normally exposed scenes. That improved noise performance is a simple and natural byproduct of simply using more light, which can also be achieved by selecting lower ISO. In other words, I have been unable to find examples anywhere that, beyond improved noise, demonstrate the superior detail that ETTR theoretically captures.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Exactly, that’s all anyone who had discussed ETTR correctly has said, less noise. Nothing about better rendering or pleasing color, etc. </p>

<blockquote>

<p>

<blockquote>

<p><a rel="nofollow" href="http://www.photo.net/photodb/user?user_id=361342"><em>Andrew Rodney</em></a><em> </em><a rel="nofollow" href="http://www.photo.net/member-status-icons"><em><img title="Subscriber" src="http://static.photo.net/v3graphics/member-status-icons/sub9.gif" alt="" /><img title="Frequent poster" src="http://static.photo.net/v3graphics/member-status-icons/2rolls.gif" alt="" /></em></a><em>, Mar 15, 2010; 02:46 p.m.</em><br /><em>First and foremost you need to understand that yes, more photons hitting the photo sites (sensels) is always going to be better than less. The more photons of light, the better the signal to noise ration.</em></p>

</blockquote>

<p>Assuming that you mean "fewer", not "less" and "ratio", not "ration", you might want to add <em>"....up to the point of blowing out the photo....."</em></p>

</p>

</blockquote>

It be useful if you properly quoted the original poster will.

 

<blockquote>

...and a “normal” exposure that’s been underexposed and brought up in post…

</blockquote>

<blockquote>

I’ve never advocated underexposing...

 

</blockquote>

Your debunking “theory” is under exposing.

 

<blockquote>

The OP acknowledges the theory but doesn't seem to know when to use it so has decided that the theory is bad. If you don't know something, blame the technique. That's much easier than trying to continue to improve.

</blockquote>

Simply a fantastic analysis of issues that shouldn’t have taken 200 posts to get to. Bravo!

<blockquote></blockquote>

[ben_goren]

<p>You know, two can play this game.</p>

 

<p>Jeff’s “un-debunking” included a shot of Niagra Falls severely overexposed

and compensated for in post-production.</p>

 

<p>Attached is a picture I just took of the sunrise. Original 5D, Tamron 28-75 f/2.8 @ 75mm - f/8 -

1/1000 - ISO 100. I applied <strong>+3 exposure boost</strong> in ACR and didn’t flinch from

using the noise reduction sliders.</p>

 

<p>It’s nothing I would ever think of doing “for real,” and certainly would never advocate, but the results are

<em>far</em> more usable than Jeff’s overexposed example.</p>

 

<p>100% crop to follow.</p>

 

<p>Cheers,</p>

 

<p>b&</p><div></div>

[ben_goren]

<p>Here’s the promised crop.</p>

 

<p>Cheers,</p>

 

<p>b&</p><div></div>

[ben_goren]

<p>Andrew Rodney wrote:</p>

 

<blockquote><p>Exactly, that’s all anyone who had discussed ETTR correctly has said, less noise.

Nothing about better rendering or pleasing color, etc.</p></blockquote>

 

<p>Ah, swell. Who gives a frying fork about making better pictures? Clearly we’ve all been

severely misguided in this vain attempt to make better pictures. It’s time we abandoned it all in

favor of reducing that evil, evil, evil noise.</p>

 

<p>Do I really need to go on? I mean, really? Seriously?</p>

 

<p>Cheers,</p>

 

<p>b&</p>

[digitaldog]

<blockquote>

<p> It’s time we abandoned it all in favor of reducing that evil, evil, evil noise.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Sounds like you should write another post debunking shooting at anything <strong>but</strong> ISO 3200, after all, think of the additional control over DOF, lack of camera shake and not having the “hassle” and “complexity” you find exposing now resulting in ignoring the ISO settings on a camera. </p>

<p>Maybe Canon can make a 5DMIII for you that just has the P mode and all other settings fixed. We’d hate to see more confusion over all the complicated decisions you have to make taking a picture. Or maybe an Canon ELF is better suited to your photographic abilities....</p>

 

<blockquote>

<p>Do I really need to go on? I mean, really? Seriously?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I see no reason based on the peer review analysis of your debunking. </p>

[ben_goren]

<p>Andrew Rodney wrote:</p>

 

<blockquote>

 

<p>Sounds like you should write another post debunking shooting at anything but ISO 3200, after

all, think of the additional control over DOF, lack of camera shake and not having the “hassle” and

“complexity” you find exposing now resulting in ignoring the ISO settings on a camera.</p>

 

<p>Maybe Canon can make a 5DMIII for you that just has the P mode and all other settings fixed.

We’d hate to see more confusion over all the complicated decisions you have to make taking a picture.

Or maybe an Canon ELF is better suited to your photographic abilities....</p>

 

</blockquote>

 

<p>Or, maybe, perhaps, just possibly, I’ll simply stop trying to overexpose my pictures in order

to reduce noise that nobody but the ETTR measurebators find objectionable and which no non-photographer will ever even see, and go back to trying to nail exposure in-camera. And, by

“nail,” I mean, “get the same exposure in the camera as I want to see in the

print.”</p>

 

<p>You know? What I’ve been advocating all along?</p>

 

<p>ETTR makes exactly as much sense as suggesting one should always shoot at f/11 and hyperfocal distance because you can always blur the background in post. After all, isn’t it a good idea to capture as much information as possible so you can decide what to do with it later?</p>

 

<p>Thanks, but no thanks. It’s a bad theory and even worse art.</p>

 

<p>Cheers,</p>

 

<p>b&</p>

[william l. palminteri]

<blockquote>

<p ><a href="../photodb/user?user_id=820080"><em>Ben Goren</em></a><em> </em><a href="../member-status-icons"><em><img title="Subscriber" src="http://static.photo.net/v3graphics/member-status-icons/sub7.gif" alt="" /><img title="Frequent poster" src="http://static.photo.net/v3graphics/member-status-icons/3rolls.gif" alt="" /></em></a><em>, Mar 16, 2010; 10:09 a.m.</em></p>

 

<p><em>Andrew Rodney wrote:</em></p>

<blockquote>

<p><em>Exactly, that’s all anyone who had discussed ETTR correctly has said, less noise. Nothing about better rendering or pleasing color, etc.</em></p>

</blockquote>

<p><em>Ah, swell. Who gives a frying fork about making better pictures? Clearly we’ve all been severely misguided in this vain attempt to make better pictures. It’s time we abandoned it all in favor of reducing that evil, evil, evil noise.</em><br>

<em>Do I really need to go on? I mean, really? Seriously?</em><br>

<em>Cheers,</em></p>

 

<p><em>b&</em></p>

</blockquote>

<p>The whole orchestra's out of tune, but the master tape is -88 dB S/N ratio !<br>

PERFECT !</p>

<p>Ben, that sunrise photo is <em><strong>spectacular</strong></em>.... </p>

<p>Bill P. vs. the Forces of Doom</p>

[digitaldog]

<blockquote>

<p> I’ll simply stop trying to overexpose my pictures in order to reduce noise </p>

</blockquote>

<p>Since you prefer noise, then yes, don’t expose optimally. In fact, under expose. It appears that exposing for the raw data is too difficult for you which after all these posts is understandable. </p>

<blockquote>

<p>And, by “nail,” I mean, “get the same exposure in the camera as I want to see in the print.”</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Oh god, lets not go there. Then we’d have to explain the vast differences between scene and output referred (raw and JPEG), teach you about the huge differences in dynamic range between the two. The differences in color gamut, viewing that image on an emissive display vs. a reflective print and the various differences in paper stocks. <br>

Its taken over 200 posts just to attempt to steer you to understand the basics of Photography and exposure. </p>

 

<blockquote>

<p>ETTR makes exactly as much sense as suggesting one should always shoot at f/11 and hyperfocal distance because you can always blur the background in post. </p>

 

</blockquote>

<p>Stop, please. You gone way over your own head with the nonsense about “nailing” exposure to the print. You go even farther using big works like <em>hyperfocal distance</em> and you’ll explode your own head. Seriously, go back to work or taking snapshots and leave the teaching, theory and discussions of photography to those that know what they are talking about. </p>

<p>Go ahead, get the last word in. I simply can’t take any more of the bandwidth waste you are responsible for here. </p>

[william l. palminteri]

<blockquote>

<p ><a href="../photodb/user?user_id=361342"><em>Andrew Rodney</em></a><em> </em><a href="../member-status-icons"><em><img title="Subscriber" src="http://static.photo.net/v3graphics/member-status-icons/sub9.gif" alt="" /><img title="Frequent poster" src="http://static.photo.net/v3graphics/member-status-icons/2rolls.gif" alt="" /></em></a><em>, Mar 16, 2010; 10:34 a.m.</em></p>

 

<p><em></em></p>

 

<p><em>....leave the teaching, theory and discussions of photography to those that know what they are talking about.</em></p>

</blockquote>

<p>And that would be, of course, you?</p>

<p>Bill P. vs. the Forces of Doom</p>

[dan_south]

<blockquote>

<p>With my Nikon cameras, if I'm not manually metering I can always add +2/3 stop exposure compensation and the highlights will still be fine, even if the histogram on the rear of the camera looks clipped.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I guess that would depend on the location of the highlights in the frame. If the highlights are in the center or over the currently activated focus point, they'll have more of an effect on the meter than if they fall on the edges of the frame.</p>

<p>My D700 regularly burns out highlights in Aperture Priority Mode/Matrix Pattern with no exposure compensation applied. I'm not talking about clipping the histogram; I'm talking about areas of unrecoverable detail in the RAW file. In many cases I have to switch to Manual mode and reshoot after toning down the exposure. That said, the D700's meter reads about 2/3-stop brighter than any of my other cameras or meters. I think the Nikon engineers may have tried to build ETTR into the camera. Unfortunately, in the process they created a body that's become infamous for blowing out highlights, especially in the red and blue channels.</p>

 

[mike dixon]

<blockquote>

<p><a rel="nofollow" href="../photodb/user?user_id=361342"><em>Andrew Rodney</em> </a> <em> </em> <a rel="nofollow" href="../member-status-icons"><em><img title="Subscriber" src="http://static.photo.net/v3graphics/member-status-icons/sub9.gif" alt="" title="Subscriber" /> <img title="Frequent poster" src="http://static.photo.net/v3graphics/member-status-icons/2rolls.gif" alt="" title="Frequent poster" /> </em> </a> <em>, Mar 16, 2010; 10:34 a.m.</em> <br /> <em></em> <br /> <em>....leave the teaching, theory and discussions of photography to those that know what they are talking about.</em><br>

<br /> Bill P. vs. the Forces of Doom<br /> And that would be, of course, you?</p>

 

</blockquote>

<p>Photo.net is fortunate to have contributors who are professional educators and who have published extensively on their topics of expertise. It's unfortunate that they should encounter such antagonism here from those whose area of "expertise" is browbeating their "opponents" in forum combat.</p>

<p>Seriously, who benefits from ridiculous distortions casting a simple procedure for reducing noise as the enemy of creative photography?</p>

[francisco_disilvestro]

<p>I would like to add a comment about how to know if the highlights are clipped or are recoverable in Post Processing.<br /> The only way to know if the highlights are clipped out of the sensor is to look at the linear histogram, before the gamma correction.<br /> Usually what you see in tools like LR, ACR, Photoshop, are gamma corrected histograms, and if you are using a small color space like sRGB then it is even worse. This is the cause why the in-camera histogram is not reliable in determining clipped highlights, even if you use UniWB.<br /> A simple tool to see the linear histogram is <a href="http://www.cryptobola.com/PhotoBola/Rawnalyze.htm">Rawanalyze</a> . The explanation about histograms in Rawanalize is <a href="http://www.cryptobola.com/PhotoBola/Histogram.htm">here</a> . Once you check the linear histogram of some of your raw files, you will see that images that show clipped highlights in LR or ACR even using ProphotoRGB, may still have room for 2/3 stop of overexposure before clipping highlights. On the other hand, specular highlights are almost always clipped.<br /> I would really like to see the linear histogram of Schewe's Niagara Falls picture</p>

[william l. palminteri]

<blockquote>

<p ><a href="/photodb/user?user_id=3861002"><em>Francisco Disilvestro</em></a><em> </em><a href="/member-status-icons"></a><em>, Mar 16, 2010; 12:00 p.m.</em><br>

<em>The only way to know if the highlights are clipped out of the sensor is to look at the linear histogram, before the gamma correction.</em></p>

</blockquote>

<p>Francisco, If I see what appears to be a clipped area, I check the pixel values of the suspects. If there are numerous adjacent pixels with endless 255's I can rest assured that the area is (probably) blown out and unrecoverable.<br>

The chance of the entire area being correct at 255 generally is not the case.<br>

Your thoughts?</p>

<p>Bill P. vs. the Forces of Doom</p>

<p> </p>

[francisco_disilvestro]

<p>William, The question is where are you reading those numbers? If it is after gamma correction and color space encoding, then you cannot be completely sure those areas were blown out right out of the sensor.</p>

 

[francisco_disilvestro]

<p>Just as an example of the effect of color space encoding, a while ago I started a thread in the Nikon forum about clipping the red Channel <a href="../nikon-camera-forum/00V23x">http://www.photo.net/nikon-camera-forum/00V23x</a><br>

If you look at the sRGB version, almost all the picture shows clipping in the red channel, or really large areas where the value of the red channel = 255<br>

Just by using the ProphotoRGB space you see that there is not clipping at all, and the exposure seems just right.<br>

When I checked this image in Rawanalyze (sorry, I can't post the screen capture at this moment), that image had about 2/3 stop room for overexposure. Even more interesting, is that the channel that had the least room for overexposure (2/3 stop) was not even the red. It was the green</p>

 

[william l. palminteri]

<blockquote>

<p ><a href="../photodb/user?user_id=3861002"><em>Francisco Disilvestro</em></a><em> </em><a href="../member-status-icons"></a><em>, Mar 16, 2010; 12:17 p.m.</em><br>

<em>William, The question is where are you reading those numbers? If it is after gamma correction and color space encoding, then you cannot be completely sure those areas were blown out right out of the sensor.</em></p>

</blockquote>

<p>Francisco, you're right. Since I like to leave myself a little headroom in the exposure, I always check the encoded and gamma corrected image.<br>

I see what you're doing, and now it makes more sense to me.<br>

Thanks.</p>

<p>Bill P. vs. You know who.....</p>