# Maximize Contrast when taking photo



## hartz (Jan 9, 2012)

Hello gurus.

Is there a better way to increase contrast, beside through post-processing?  Eg by choosing a lower or higher ISO?  What settings affect contrast in the resulting photo?

Essentially I've taken some photos of rays of sun through the clouds, but in the photos the rays are barely visible.  I remember it looking beautiful, really standing out very well "to the eye" and I am unable to capture it like that.  The same thing happens when I try to take photos of a rainbow.  Even contrast enhancing in post-processing do not help enough (or my PP skills just suck, very possible that that is the explanation)

This was quite a while ago, I can go find the photos again, I suppose I should do so now that I actually get around to asking the question that has been bugging me for so long (Though it is on an external drive somewhere now)

I've long been saving photos as both JPEG and RAW - RAW for the extra bits of color detail (in case I need to save a photo from less than perfect WB or other in-camera processing), JPEG because most of the time I just can't be bothered with the effort to make the pictures look better than what the camera does by itself.

I took the photos that I'm talking about with a Nikon D3000, but due to stupidity :blushing: I was forced :greenpbl: to upgrade to a D5100 recently (I left the camera outside overnight and it rained).  Loving the new camera.  Can override "Focus Priority".  Easier access to Picture Controls.  Everything I want except a live histogram! 

On the other hand I sometimes wonder whether a lower contrast would not be better, particularly for skin (smooth blemishes).  But without loosing detail! (Keep the eyes pretty)

I am lazy and so do very little post processing, I would much rather just learn the best way to set the camera so that I need a little work as possible afterwards!  But if post processing is the only way to make these kinds of photos look better then so be it :mrgreen:


----------



## Buckster (Jan 9, 2012)

The Nikon D5100 offers six preset "Picture Control" options. You can adjust Sharpening, Contrast, Brightness, Saturation and Hue for any of the settings.  Consult your manual for how exactly to do that.

Most of us learn to process our photos as a normal step in our workflow.  That's the development stage.  That said, I generally use a slight "S" curve adjustment to achieve the contrast I want.  Most editing programs offer a simple contrast adjustment slider, which makes it even easier, though it has somewhat less control than curve adjustments.


----------



## hartz (Jan 9, 2012)

Hello Buckster.

Do you mean to say that the only option to enhance contrast and color in a DSLR photo is through the Picture controls and/or post processing?  No effect from ISO, aperture, etc?

Thank you!

P.S. I have read the manual and do use the preset picture controls and even fine-tune them, though I keep forgetting how I changed each of them.  Going into the menus to check it takes too long ... My photos are mostly candid snapshots.


----------



## Buckster (Jan 9, 2012)

hartz said:


> Hello Buckster.Do you mean to say that the only option to enhance contrast and color in a DSLR photo is through the Picture controls and/or post processing?  No effect from ISO, aperture, etc?


Not that I know of.  A lens shade can help in some cases, but I don't think it's going to be the ultimate solution for you.


----------



## brush (Jan 9, 2012)

Post processing will yield the best results of course, but if you don't want to be bothered with that piece I don't see anything wrong with using the picture controls in camera to acheive the contrast you want. I don't know about the Nikon but in my Canon I can set Sharpness, Contrast, Saturation, and color tone. There are 6 factory presets and room to store 3 custom ones.


----------



## EchoingWhisper (Jan 9, 2012)

If you wanna increase contrast, do that by increasing ISO but do have in mind that your highlights might/will be blown out and noise will be strong, levels would do about the same with you deciding which place to blown out without the added noise. If you do post process your photos, try to use levels/black clip & white clip in curves more and use the S-curve less cause the S curve somehow makes the picture have the 'digital look'.


----------



## 480sparky (Jan 9, 2012)

Do you shoot in raw?


----------



## jwbryson1 (Jan 9, 2012)

It's my understanding that underexposing a sunlit sky by 2/3 to a full stop will give you better details in the image.  I'm not sure how that will translate to contrast in PP.  Shooting in RAW is the way to go.


----------



## KmH (Jan 9, 2012)

The in the camera picture controls are rude and crude. They can only be applied to a photo globally and have a severly limited number of adjustment values.

Post process edits can be applied locally within an image, and the edits can be made using much more precise values.

The camera does not 'see' the way you do. The cameras image sensor has much less dynamic range than your eye does, and any photograph loses one of the 3 dimensions we can see (depth), and is only 2-D.

It sounds like you are describing Crepuscular rays - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.

Under exposure helps improve color saturation, but at the expense of adding image noise.


----------



## JClishe (Jan 10, 2012)

jwbryson1 said:


> It's my understanding that underexposing a sunlit sky by 2/3 to a full stop will give you better details in the image. I'm not sure how that will translate to contrast in PP. Shooting in RAW is the way to go.



Not necessarily, it depends on what your histogram is telling you.

If you're severly clipping your highlights, then yes, you need to underexpose. But the highlight region of your histogram contains more data than any other region, so generally speaking you want to overexpose, not underexpose. This is where the concept "expose to the right" comes from. A few weeks ago Big Mike linked to this article (http://www.luminous-landscape.com/tutorials/understanding-series/understanding-histograms.shtml), I highly suggest reading it and the other articles that are linked from within that one.


----------



## Derrel (Jan 10, 2012)

Contrast can be applied in-camera by setting the "Tone Curve" parameter to a higher-than-normal setting.

Of course, that can result in blowing out of highlight details earlier than would happen if the in-camera tone curve were set to LOW or NORMAL.

When the tone curve is set to a HIGH setting for example, the highlight warnings on the Histogram will clip and blink much earlier than if the tone curve were at LOW. It is actually a MUCH BETTER idea to set the tone curve to a low or low-ish setting, capture as much dynamic range as possible in-camera, and only then to maximize contrast LAST, at the computer stage.


----------



## unpopular (Jan 10, 2012)

hartz said:


> Is there a better way to increase contrast, beside through post-processing?




Why would you want to leave information about the scene behind?


----------



## hartz (Jan 10, 2012)

unpopular said:


> hartz said:
> 
> 
> > Is there a better way to increase contrast, beside through post-processing?
> ...



Firstly, you mistake data for information.

Secondly search for other posts by me - I am an absolute advocate of "keep all the data as long as possible".

What is aesthetically pleasing?  If the highlights and low-lights in a photo doesn't matter, then throw away the detail in those and focus the available 14 (or how-ever-many) bits that you have on the mid tones where it matters.  It depends on the picture.





jwbryson1 said:


> It's my understanding that underexposing a sunlit sky by 2/3 to a full  stop will give you better details in the image.  I'm not sure how that  will translate to contrast in PP.  Shooting in RAW is the way to go.



OK now I want another rainbow so I can go try this out.

JCliche : Thank you for the reading material suggestions.  I will experiment with over and under-exposing to see when I get the best contrast in those rainbows and "crepuscular rays".  But now I am sure I will have a week of bright sunshine and no clouds or rain :-/

Derrel:  Somehow you are encouraging me to just do it on the computer in PP. 

KmH:  Thank you.  

brush: Thank you.

480sparky: Yes.


----------



## EchoingWhisper (Jan 10, 2012)

Another way is to use a body+lens+filter combination. Some lens and filter are more contrasty than others.


----------



## unpopular (Jan 10, 2012)

hartz said:


> unpopular said:
> 
> 
> > hartz said:
> ...



not really, but ok. I hear ya.



> What is aesthetically pleasing?  If the highlights and low-lights in a photo doesn't matter, then throw away the *detail in those and focus the available 14 (or how-ever-many) bits* that you have on the mid tones where it matters.  It depends on the picture.



This is an interesting concept that I will have to mull over a bit. I think it is valid in theory, but not so much in practice. Gamma correction comes to mind, but I can't quite place why into words; it boils down to how not all tones are equally distributed in the final image.

I also kind of feel like you're suggesting that one must always compromise shadow detail in order to maintain contrast. This isn't necessarily true, but you do need enough shadow detail to work with in order to bring about the local adjustments necessary, at least in ways that do not compromise image quality.

So I really do not think it is the best course of action to try to get everything "right" in camera. As others have said, you're really relying on how the engineers at Canon or Nikon or Sony or whoever produced your RAW editor think is the ideal way to render every single image that comes it's way - usually this is just a simple gamma translation. It is much better, IMO, to expose for maximum detail across all tonal regions so that you can render the image the way YOU see it.

I suppose that this is what it ultimately boils down to: sometimes the way those engineers see things are flat and lifeless (lol)


----------



## RichardsTPF (Jan 10, 2012)

Is it true that CPL help improving contrast? I know CPL is mainly used to reduce reflections from non-metallic surfaces. If there is sufficient light, do you think CPL is a good idea?

Can someone tell me how Picture Control works? I think PP has more control and does better job than pre-programed Picture Control.


----------



## Destin (Jan 10, 2012)

Underexposing by a small amount will indeed give more color saturation, and more perceived contrast. Shooting at a low iso, outdoors during the day, I always try to underexpose by 1/3-1/2 stop in camera to get more saturated colors and avoid blowing highlights. 

However once I get above say, iso 400, or start shooting a darker scene, or at night, ETTR is the rule I use -that is, overexposing by 1/3-1/2 stop in order to achieve less noise in my photos. 

ETTR, and slight underexposure are both proven techniques for getting better photos, it simply depends on your end goal, and what you are shooting. You learn with experience when to use each one, and why.


----------



## EchoingWhisper (Jan 11, 2012)

Destin said:


> Underexposing by a small amount will indeed give more color saturation, and more perceived contrast. Shooting at a low iso, outdoors during the day, I always try to underexpose by 1/3-1/2 stop in camera to get more saturated colors and avoid blowing highlights.
> 
> However once I get above say, iso 400, or start shooting a darker scene, or at night, ETTR is the rule I use -that is, overexposing by 1/3-1/2 stop in order to achieve less noise in my photos.
> 
> ETTR, and slight underexposure are both proven techniques for getting better photos, it simply depends on your end goal, and what you are shooting. You learn with experience when to use each one, and why.



Never ETTR other than on base ISO, the only thing you get is blown highlight, you don't get better noise results.


----------



## unpopular (Jan 11, 2012)

I have the ETTR thing down pretty precisely. Like everything you can't just meter any old way and expect reliable results. You can't just increase exposure by some random amount, not withstanding the scene itself.

If you meter for the hilights and place them at the outer limits of the cameras latitude, then you do not get blown hilights. I don't know for sure about overall noise, I seem to be getting better noise performance, and theoretically you should - but I am ensuring I have maximum latitude. Certainly my shadows are much less noisy and more flexible as a result.


----------



## Destin (Jan 11, 2012)

EchoingWhisper said:
			
		

> Never ETTR other than on base ISO, the only thing you get is blown highlight, you don't get better noise results.



That's absolutely bogus. One of the most important reasons to ETTR is to reduce noise in high ISO photos, as the brighter the photo, the less visible the noise is. 

By definition, ETTR is exposing as far to the right as possible without blowing highlights. Therefore, if you're blowing highlights, you aren't ETTR'ing properly. 

At high isos your dynamic range is less than at base iso, so you may not be able to push your exposure as far to the right without blowing highlights. That doesn't mean that ETTR isn't useful at high isos though, I use it there all the time, and it works very well to reduce the visible noise in photos.


----------



## EchoingWhisper (Jan 11, 2012)

Destin said:


> EchoingWhisper said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



When you increase ISO you brighten the photo, then you pull it down it becomes the same. I mean, you should ETTR using shutter speed and aperture but not ISO.


----------



## hartz (Jan 11, 2012)

unpopular said:


> I also kind of feel like you're suggesting that one must always compromise shadow detail in order to maintain contrast. This isn't necessarily true, but you do need enough shadow detail to work with in order to bring about the local adjustments necessary, at least in ways that do not compromise image quality.



Very definitely not always.  I'm happy with the Jpegs my camera produces 95% of the time.  90% of the rest of the time I'm too lazy to fix the picture.  But as long as I've had a camera with the capability, I've been shooting JPEG+RAW... just in case, and because if I spend the time to turn this on and off, I lose the (snap)shot.

In particular, I think this sort of knowledge (expose to the right) is handy in cases such as these.  I've tried taking pictures of rainbows and those cresp-something rays, and failed.  Now I am armed with some knowledge so that next time I'll have a better chance of getting it right.



unpopular said:


> So I really do not think it is the best course of action to try to get everything "right" in camera.



I agree, but as I've explained I've had cases where I could not fix it in post processing, and the crux of it appears to lie in the fact that not enough data was collected in the right range of tonal and/or luminosity levels.



unpopular said:


> As others have said, you're really relying on how the engineers at Canon or Nikon or Sony or whoever produced your RAW editor think is the ideal way to render every single image that comes it's way - usually this is just a simple gamma translation. It is much better, IMO, to expose for maximum detail across all tonal regions so that you can render the image the way YOU see it.



The problem with this is in the limitations of the sensor (including the pre-amp and A-to-D phase).  And I gather it is the luminosity levels, not the tonal regions, which affects this specific area most.



unpopular said:


> I suppose that this is what it ultimately boils down to: sometimes the way those engineers see things are flat and lifeless (lol)



Speaking of those engineers:  Why isn't the "auto" mode on a high-end camera as good as the auto mode on Point-and-shoot cameras?  Forget about the technological superiority of the collected data provided by the high-end camera.  This is about the simply usable, often beautiful results from these cameras!  I feel the contrast and saturation and noise reduction done by P&S cameras surpass that of high end cameras.  I understand that this is only true in AUTO mode, that it assumes you do not want to do something special with post processing, and achieved by throwing away large amounts of data.  What counts though is the end product.


----------



## hartz (Jan 11, 2012)

unpopular said:


> I have the ETTR thing down pretty precisely. Like everything you can't just meter any old way and expect reliable results. You can't just_ increase exposure_ by some random amount, not withstanding the scene itself.
> 
> If you meter for the hilights and place them at the outer limits of the cameras latitude, then you do not get blown hilights. I don't know for sure about overall noise, I seem to be getting better noise performance, and theoretically you should - but I am ensuring I have maximum latitude. Certainly my shadows are much less noisy and more flexible as a result.



Could you please explain all of this much more verbosely!  What about the scene do you consider?  Do you suggest metering for the highlights?  The camera have a latitude?  

Why is "noise performance" so important to everybody?  Stop looking at my pixels, look at my photos.


----------



## unpopular (Jan 11, 2012)

The camera I happen to own is a notoriously noisy body, so I kind of need to be careful. But noise performance is not nearly as important to me as shadow performance.

I would love to see some of your photographs. Do you have a link?

Before I start on how I meter, I just want to say that I do not think that getting everything "right in camera" is meritless, it's a valid technique which many photographers choose - after all, if you're getting good results out of camera that's fine, all it means is that you have different values in what is important in an image; it's not technically a "wrong".

Now, that said, when I don't get lazy and actually expose properly, often times I will utilize about 75% of the histogram on less contrasty scenes and 90% of the histogram on more contrasty scenes, with exposure always extending _almost_ to absolute white. 

You had said that you opt to use the entire available histogram on what was important. At first I thought that this was an interesting exception - but in fact you too are using the same amount of space, except that instead of placing the image further up and lighter, you're placing it further down and darker, more like how the image is to be ultimately rendered. We're using the same amount of theoretical bits, only that they are placed in different regions. 

The issue comes up when you want to make local adjustments to the shadows. With all your shadows now squeezed into the lower, excessively noisy part of the histogram, it is very difficult to make useful and clear information out of them. You could adjust exposure in such a way that emphasizes them but by exposing for the highlights I absolutely ensure that everything recordable by the camera is present in the raw file. If anything is blocked up, I know that if I tried to lighten it the highlights would blow out because they are already placed at the upper limits of latitude.

Often times when discussing ETTR it is either a kind of trial and error, or it is suggested to up the exposure by some predetermined amount. Being the anal zone system type of guy I am, this just didn't cut it for me. +2/3 stop doesn't say anything about the contrast ratio of the scene - and more important, there is that pesky question of how do I meter in digital?

I started out approaching digital like b/w film, exposing for the shadows and compensating for their appropriate placement (typically -2 or -3ev for placement at Zone II or III). I quickly found, however, that doing so often leads to blown highlights since there isn't an analog to adjusting development time. I started having to meter off the highlights, just to ensure that my shadow placement was within latitude. This worked, but was unsatisfying and was kind of a pain.

So I started exposing as if shooting slides, compensating for the highlight placement and allowing the shadows to fall where they will. Around this time I started reading about ETTR and realized that this was essentially what I was doing. I then started to realize that if I metered off the lightest region and placed it in the brightest exposure possible, I would maximize ETTR in a way that is specific to the scene rather than some arbitrary "one size fits all" approach.

So, I found that my camera is capable of exposing 3-4 stops above meter depending on color balance. This does not matter if the brightest region is middle grey or a white puffy cloud on a summer afternoon. If I spot meter the lightest region and provide about 5ev more more exposure, then it will be placed at the brightest point my camera can record. From my experience, this places the metered point at Zone 8 with detail extending to nearly but never extending to, absolute white.

In extremely low contrast situations where the darkest region is greater than 50%, it may be technically better to place the lightest region according to, or closer to, it's desired placement to avoid stretching the shadows across such a huge latitude. But for more typical scenes this technique does work and provides for excellent shadow integrity, detail and signal over noise. 

It does require post processing to properly place the shadows. I am also working on a method to place shadows according to their brightness and intended placement, however I need to do some additional tests to see if this is practical.


----------



## EchoingWhisper (Jan 12, 2012)

unpopular said:


> The camera I happen to own is a notoriously noisy body, so I kind of need to be careful. But noise performance is not nearly as important to me as shadow performance.
> 
> I would love to see some of your photographs. Do you have a link?
> 
> ...



I really like your way. But I am not doing it yet, because it is a bit unpractical now.


----------



## unpopular (Jan 12, 2012)

EchoingWhisper said:


> I really like your way. But I am not doing it yet, because it is a bit unpractical now.



That's ok. I think I'm the only one who does... I am curious though why this is not practical for you?

I can think of several situations where this technique is not suitable. To make it work you're getting very close to the cameras latitude and it is very easy to over expose, and because exposure is based on reflected light and not available light, you can't really "set-it-and-forget-it" So for situations like active portraits and photojournalism, my technique is not at all suitable. You also tend to get pretty slow shutter speeds.


----------



## Derrel (Jan 12, 2012)

Unpopular...do you use the Tone Curve adjustment on your camera? I feel that that "is" the closest control we have in digital to the equivalent function of development time. LOW tone curve is low gamma, Minus Development. Maximum Tone Curve represents hard Plus Development. NORMAL tone curve is normal development. The tone curve's setting plays a HUGE part in the histogram's information, since all cameras create the histogram from a JPEG image that is processed in-camera, and not from the RAW file.

Some of the newer, consumer- and enthusiast-oriented cameras, like the Nikon D7000 for a specific example, were/are/have been accused of "over-exposing" scenes, when in reality what it is is a difference in how the JPEG-creation engines in those cameras are handling the exposure PROCESSING, especially with regard to tone curve or contrast settings. Thom Hogan mentions this in his D7000 review primarily because it was a big internet "scandal" when newbies who were used to shooting their little D40 in Vivid mode, and with the settings cranked to HIGH on everything, got ahold of a camera that had an inherently "snappier" way of processing images.

Also, I am kind of wondering if your Sony's metering is keyed or indexed to the tone curve when the camera is in evaluative metering mode, etc..


----------



## EchoingWhisper (Jan 12, 2012)

unpopular said:


> The camera I happen to own is a notoriously noisy body, so I kind of need to be careful. But noise performance is not nearly as important to me as shadow performance.
> 
> I would love to see some of your photographs. Do you have a link?
> 
> ...



My camera - D5100 is a super dynamic range camera, but I can't even save my highlights in Lightroom once I go above +3 to 4 EV using spot metering on the brightest part, how did you go to 6 EV?


----------



## unpopular (Jan 12, 2012)

Hmm. I'll look into this. I actually have quite a few controls to look at.

However, my most recent calibration was on a brightly lit white reference and the clipping was pretty close to what the camera was saying.

I am having some issues with my preview not being accurate all the time, but I think that has more to do with the crappy spot meter; I am really regretting having sold my starlight at this point. 

I did make one typo, RE: color balance inaccuracy, it should be 3-4 stops, not 4-6. I get confused because I dial up the meter to +2 and then count 5-6, 1/3ev "clicks" since my meter only reads out to ±2, which is a real major pain.

I want to upgrade to the NEX-7 or, if I can afford it, that new Fuji rangefinder.

---

ETA: tests don't show any effect. I I could prob get 1/4ev more exposure but calibrating the lens also, but that just seems silly.


----------



## unpopular (Jan 12, 2012)

hey michael - that was a typo, see above


----------



## EchoingWhisper (Jan 12, 2012)

unpopular said:


> hey michael - that was a typo, see above



Never thought digital cameras have such bad dynamic range. Hehe... Which means I get 4 EV of highlights and 10 EV of shadows if DxOMark's test is true... Damn it.


----------



## unpopular (Jan 12, 2012)

Yeah. And about a third of those shadows will be such a disaster they are practically unusable. Still, better than chrome.


----------



## EchoingWhisper (Jan 12, 2012)

unpopular said:


> Yeah. And about a third of those shadows will be such a disaster they are practically unusable. Still, better than chrome.



Yes, exactly one third. Up to ISO 6400 it's good - meaning 6 EV of shadows. More than that it's disaster but not really unusable.


----------



## unpopular (Jan 12, 2012)

At -6 I start clipping, I consider my useable latitude to be pretty much ±4. So really -10 is good even if you can only use a portion.

Woot, I'm getting a whole stop more than Velvia!


----------



## unpopular (Jan 12, 2012)

.. wow. this thread has taken a turn to nerdsvilles.

anyway. it's bedtime. tty folks later.


----------



## hartz (Jan 12, 2012)

I am probably going to have to (re)read this a few times to understand it all.  When I have more time.  Now just one quick comment on this:



unpopular said:


> You had said that you opt to use the entire available histogram on what was important. At first I thought that this was an interesting exception - but in fact you too are using the same amount of space, except that instead of placing the image further up and lighter, you're placing it further down and darker, more like how the image is to be ultimately rendered.



When I view my histograms, they just often strech over the entire range, clipping at both ends.  Is this not normal for "most" scenes where there is a lot of light and also shadows?

Yesterday I sat and played with Saturation and Hue in the "Vivid" picture control, adjusting them individually to try and see which does what and figure out when to use which.  But while doing this I also kept looking at the histogram and tried to adjust the exposure to avoid clipping the highlights.  I found this to be impossible - there was always a few spots where the highlights would flash warning.  And by the time I got it "minimized" so much of the histogram shows in the lower ranges (is this what is called zones?) that I fear I'm just doing exactly the opposite of ETTR.

I'll upload the raw files somewhere tonight (I can set up a web site for this) so that you can see what I mean with the histogram covering the whole range.

Hmmm, My D3000 had a preview screen showing the color channel histograms separately.  It seems the D5100 I have now only have a combined luminosity histogram - (still brand new, I'm still trying to just find everything in the menus)


----------



## unpopular (Jan 12, 2012)

In some scenes, you just cannot avoid some clipping. Scenes with very high dynamic range, such as a forest path with the sky peaking through the trees will likely clip on both sides and the only means for such an image is to take more than one exposure and combine the two in one way or another. Generally, you are better off decreasing exposure to compensate for blown diffuse light since most of the time subjects aren't going to be the highlights, but having little bits of specular - those little tiny dots of flashing clipped areas - is really not too bad and some would argue even desirable if you're shooting with the intention of getting everything right in camera.

If in nearly every scene that isn't overtly low contrast you're getting clipping on either side, then your histogram warning is off. This feature is the most powerful aspect of digital photography, IMO, and I see the histogram as kind of an extension of the light meter. Unfortunately though it seems that it's not always accurate due to the fact it's measured off a processed image. 

If you can get UniWB to work, that may be one option. And you do have RGB histogram via the Playback Display Options menu, according to Nikon D5100 Review: 7. Menus: Digital Photography Review. Unfortunately I cannot find any NEF files from this camera online. So I will have to wait to help you get a near UniWB setting for your camera. But this should help a bit with the JPEG preview.

You can, and should, also know the latitude of your camera, and it is very easy to test for. If exposing for the high lights, Simply take a white sheet of paper, mark a small circle or square, about 1" wide, and under a strong light, preferably daylight corrected (or whatever temperature is most typical) find the highest exposure possible without any signs of clipping according to your preview by spot metering within the mark made. Do the same for the low end by deceasing exposure until just before clipping occurs. 

Now, set the camera to +1 time value _above _the recorded high value, and expose every 1/3 Tv for -1 Tv, now take an exposure for every full stop until you are at the lower end that you previously measured, then do the same for every 1/3 Tv for 1 Tv less than the low value you measured.

For example, if your preview is saying that no clipping will occur at +4, -6 then you would expose at 
+6, +5 2/3, +5 1/3, +5, +4 [...] -5, -6, -6 1/3, -6 2/3, -7

It may be helpful to rename these files to reflect their respective relative time values.

In the RAW processor, ensure that either you are using the proper white balance and process as generically as possible. Do not apply any sort of special curve that is not applied by default, or anything else. Check the clipping warning on the high and low end - these will be your minimum and maximum latitudes.

The other intermediate exposures also tell you very important information about your camera and your processing techniques. You may measure every value to have a better idea of how making exposure adjustments are actually affecting the image. I was surprised to find that my meter reading of 0ev does not actually relate to the center of my histogram, which is what I consider truly "middle grey", rather +1ev was much closer! Understanding where the camera places exposure is very important, IMO, to understanding how to effectively meter.


----------



## EchoingWhisper (Jan 13, 2012)

unpopular said:


> In some scenes, you just cannot avoid some clipping. Scenes with very high dynamic range, such as a forest path with the sky peaking through the trees will likely clip on both sides and the only means for such an image is to take more than one exposure and combine the two in one way or another. Generally, you are better off decreasing exposure to compensate for blown diffuse light since most of the time subjects aren't going to be the highlights, but having little bits of specular - those little tiny dots of flashing clipped areas - is really not too bad and some would argue even desirable if you're shooting with the intention of getting everything right in camera.
> 
> If in nearly every scene that isn't overtly low contrast you're getting clipping on either side, then your histogram warning is off. This feature is the most powerful aspect of digital photography, IMO, and I see the histogram as kind of an extension of the light meter. Unfortunately though it seems that it's not always accurate due to the fact it's measured off a processed image.
> 
> ...



This is complicated, at least for the white paper part.


----------



## unpopular (Jan 13, 2012)

It sounds more complicated than it is.


----------



## EchoingWhisper (Jan 13, 2012)

unpopular said:


> It sounds more complicated than it is.



Could you explain the white paper part again? I really don't know what do you mean by the latitude of your camera.


----------



## unpopular (Jan 13, 2012)

I will tomorrow - lots of stuff planned.


----------



## hartz (Jan 13, 2012)

unpopular said:


> I will tomorrow - lots of stuff planned.



Either I'm at a low on my biorythms or you guys are deliberately complex 

Only kidding.  Along with your explanation, please also explain what the values MEAN and more importantly:  How to apply this knowledge.

Thank you so much for sharing this info, I think I've learned more from this thread already than I have in months.


----------

