You are proposing a false dichotomy: choose to preserve highlights or choose ETTR. Some of the replies to this thread propose the same choice.
This proposed choice presupposes that ETTR is a method that increases exposure, regardless of highlights. This is wrong. In fact, in scenes with a high DR above middle grey, ETTR may require that you use a lower exposure than the normally metered exposure.
The thing is, the very definition of ETTR is to expose no higher than just before you blow highlights. If you are blowing highlights, you are failing to ETTR. You are exposing beyond the right. If you are preserving highlights but without leaving any excess headroom, you are using ETTR.
ETTR also has the goal of increasing exposure in the shadows.
Yes that is generally
part of the goal. The full goal is better stated as to minimize noisiness by maximizing exposure, without blowing highlights.
Classic ETTR pushes the histogram to the right to a point that often requires darkening a substantial portion of the image in post to achieve a desired lightness.
I disagree that "classical ETTR" fails to include moving the exposure left if required to preserve highlights, or ignores highlights while moving to the right.
I was referencing an exposure that maximizes the light delivered to the sensor while not blowing highlights; one that could look too low in contrast, washed out a bit, but correctable by reducing image lightness after the shutter actuation. In darkening the image, a more pleasing contrast, along with improved color and detail rendering would be achieved.
A very simplified example of this would be a photo of a patterned or textured surface having a narrow dynamic range. ETTR can potentially produce an image looking too light. Reducing lightness in post will correct this, reveal detail, and may have less prominent noise than an on-meter exposure delivering less light to the sensor.
Sure.
When you use ETTR, one of three things happens.
The exposure is the same as regular metering would give you. No global post-capture adjustment to lightness is required, though you may wish to bring shadows up somewhat.
The exposure is less than what regular metering would give you. Post-capture lighteningg is required over most of the image.
The exposure is greater than what regular metering would give you. Post-capture darkening is required over much of the image. This is the situation you described any may be the most common of the three. However, all three situations are ETTR.
The first two scenarios you describe what I would characterize as the exposure strategy ETTR was developed in response to. Bear in mind, that observation is by someone who does not profess to practice ETTR. I've done enough reading about it to know the basic strategy and to have formed the opinion that ETTR was developed in response to an on-meter exposure strategy, which can produce a fine looking, relatively noise-free image, but does not necessarily capture the maximum amount of light one could potentially use to make an image without blowing out the highlights.
It works best and is most applicable in situations with relatively narrow dynamic range.
Yes.
Exposing to protect highlights is often employed in high dynamic range situations.
Sure, but it is still an instance of ETTR.
Is there a difference between the strategy of exposing to protect highlights and the strategy of ETTR?
I'm not sure. It depends on what is meant by "exposing to protect highlights" I don't think the term is as precisely defined as ETTR. Does it include any and all cases where exposure is less than what would blow desired highlight detail, or only the exposure immediately below where desired highlight detail is blown. IDK. If the latter then there is no difference in strategy. If the formere, tehn ther is a differnce becaeu multipel lower exposure are allowed.
"Exposing to protect highlights" is a phrase I've heard and read multiple times but, like you, I'm not aware of any formal definition. The way I've seen the phrase used in ETTR discussions in the DPR forums, I've gotten the distinct impression that folks consider it to be different from ETTR...though, I don't recall that anybody has outlined the differences.
If so, how would you describe that difference? If not, why is a phrase like exposing/exposure to the right needed?
If the former case holds, to describe the maximum exposure subset of "exposing to protect highlights". If the latter case holds there is no need related to strategy, but there may be a need related to goal. The goal of ETTR is to minimize noisiness by maximizing exposure while preserving desired highlight detail , The goal of exposing to protect highlights leaves the noise consideration out.
Agreed, here. In fact, I'd go a bit further to say that exposing to protect highlights leaves open the possibility of shadows being rendered so dark that significant lightening is needed. It's at this point that some photographers choose to exposure bracket and blend or merge the range of exposures to produce a single image.
The significance of this vis-a-vis my question about ETTR and exposing to protect highlights being the same or different, is that my sense is folks who employ ETTR do so with the intent of exposing shadows such that noise is significantly reduced in comparison with an on-meter exposure. This is not, as you observed, a consideration in exposing to protect highlights.
Another difference may be that ETTR, by definition, is best applied - some might say, only applied - at base ISO. Whereas the strategy of exposing to protect highlights may be said by some to be applicable at any ISO. This opens a big can of worms as soon as one takes closer look at the strategy. It's not strictly used to manage
exposure to protect highlights. It's used to manage both exposure settings and ISO as strategy to protect details in highlights. So, while the common parlance is to say, "exposing to protect highlights," its more accurately described as managing both exposure and image lightness to protect highlights.
Even with exposure pushed to an extent that maximizes brightness in the highlights without blowing them out, shadows are typically at least a full stop too dark
How can you say that?
It's a common occurrence in the landscape photography I've done at sunrise and sunset.
But lots of other people do other sorts of phtography, so what frequently applies for for your use case doesn;t become a general fact.
There are a lot of photographers who shoot the same genres as me. My experiences can't be all that different. I mean, we're all on the same planet, using similar gear, to photograph similar things in similar light, right?
It's also not uncommon when photographing birds that have high dynamic range color patterns. Imagine a white head exposed to direct sun and black or dark brown wings in shadow.
and require significant lightening in post. The majority of the image is typically darker than preferred by several tenths of a stop.
Again, this precision is not based on any definition of ETTR or "protecting highlights" I have ever seen.
I raise the issue because it's a common occurrence in the photography I do.
I don't doubt it. But what does this have to do with whether exposing to protect highlights is a distinct alternative to ETTR. As discussed, ETTR is at least a subset of exposing to protect highlights, and at most it is, in practice, the very same thing.
I'm just trying to understand what the difference is between ETTR and exposing to protect highlights. The difference that stands out to me, is that ETTR seems more focused on reducing noise in shadows while exposing to protect highlights seems less concerned with that outcome. I don't know if it's significant or not; it's just the difference I've noticed in how folks talk about the two strategies.
This is not classic ETTR.
I think "classic ETTR" is something you imagine exists.
In short you just seem to be justifying the false dichotomy.
The situations you describe as being other than "Classic ETTR" still fall within the definition of ETTR.
In fact, it's a situation in which a photographer will sometimes opt to exposure bracket and composite the final image.
The phrase, "classic ETTR", is one I chose as a reference to what I consider a textbook example of ETTR: capturing more light at base ISO than is needed for a good image. Highlights are not blown but the resulting image is darkened in post. It's a strategy that minimizes noise visibility in the final image.
This is where I've identified a difference between exposing to protect highlights and ETTR. ETTR prioritizes maximizing signal-to-noise ratio without blowing highlights while exposing to protect highlights accepts an outcome of deep shadows so long as highlights aren't blown.
So you are suggesting that exposing to protect highlights includes a range of exposures lower than ETTR. OK,, but why doe that make this range of exposures a required alternative to ETTR? The suggestion what that it was sometimes
necessary to "expose to protect highlights"
instead of using ETTR. The implication was that ETTR didn't protect highlights. As long as you are using ETTER, you
are protecting highlights.
I'm suggesting, based on my subjective observations of how folks talk about these strategies, that they prioritize shadows differently. I'd also suggest that they may prioritize detail in the highlights differently. By this, I mean that I may not even try to push a white area above an "on-meter" reading just to be absolutely sure I'm not losing any detail in the eagle's head. My perception of ETTR practitioners is that "true" ETTR involves pushing exposure beyond an "on-meter" exposure.
Again, these are my personal observations of how folks have talked about ETTR, its use and application in comparison with how folks talk about using a strategy of exposing to protect highlights. I readily admit the differences are subtle. In fact when you posted your first comment, it got me thinking about whether or not the two strategies are, in fact, different and if so, how.
