[Stikin2pentax]

Hi,
I've been looking into the 'PTTR' (Pushing To The Right) method as I was obviously keen to learn more about the idea. Having now more or less brought myself up to speed on it, I'm somewhat curious to learn what others think?.
I appreciate the fact that there's a fine line between pushing a histogram more to the right and clipping the resulting image as a consequence, and that practice will eventually bring the desired results. Nonetheless for that, however, I can't help feeling that this technique is unwittingly promoting the use of post-processing as a kind of 'get out of jail' card rather than emphasising the skills required to get it right at the time...

...Perhaps photography has fallen victim to the same unforeseen curse that the magic wand of technology has bestowed upon everything else it touches...why bother going the extra mile when a computer program can sort it out for you instead?

[gaiach]

Reply to Pushing to the Right

I share your frustrations! In any art, whether photography, music, etc., there comes a decision point regarding how much technology to use to improve your 'product'. It's a very personal decision.

For instance, in music I refuse to attend a concert where the performer is lip-synching! I would much rather go to a live performance that is not perfect, than attend a 'perfect' concert that is 'faked'.

It is the same with photography. If I want to purchase a photo, I may admire the 'enhanced' photos, but I will purchase the one that is 'real'.

The question is not as easy when it is your own work. You always want to make it the best possible you can produce. Electronic help does improve our products. It's a very personal decision whether you use it or not, or whether you balance your use of it.

Another question might be posed - is using electronic means to correct or improve photos any different than using filters on your lens? Do you consider filters to be a technological aid? What do you consider to be part of your art, and what do you consider to be additional aids?

I use the electronic aids in order to produce better photos for my business website and reports, but I don't consider that to be art!

[vlad]

I sometimes use ETTR, but it's main drawback for me is that the colors recorded to the right of the histogram are not the same as those recorded to the left, even if you post-process them to the same exposure levels afterwards.

[amwalker3]

Sorry to be boring and naive but I've never heard of PTTR. Could someone explain? It sounds like deliberately over-exposing - but why? My very basic experience of Photoshop tells me it's easier to recover detail from under-exposed images, and often impossible to get anything back from blown-out, over-exposed ones. I'm obviously missing something important here - please don't be too scathing in your reply.

Alan.

Hi,
I've been looking into the 'PTTR' (Pushing To The Right) method as I was obviously keen to learn more about the idea. Having now more or less brought myself up to speed on it, I'm somewhat curious to learn what others think?.
I appreciate the fact that there's a fine line between pushing a histogram more to the right and clipping the resulting image as a consequence, and that practice will eventually bring the desired results. Nonetheless for that, however, I can't help feeling that this technique is unwittingly promoting the use of post-processing as a kind of 'get out of jail' card rather than emphasising the skills required to get it right at the time...

...Perhaps photography has fallen victim to the same unforeseen curse that the magic wand of technology has bestowed upon everything else it touches...why bother going the extra mile when a computer program can sort it out for you instead?

[jaclegau]

When i started doing photography, some time ago, my mentor was Ansel Adams and I wanted top be able to do black and white images that were , in my words, living. Ansel Adams did a lot of retouching on his photographs and they were considered works of art. He played with his negatives, used filters and anything that could help him attain what he wanted to do and show.
In this digital era, it is easier to retouch a photo and I do a lot on some pictures and less on some others. Do I consider them works of art ? That is what I try to show and I am still trying to get to Ansel Adams standards. To me, refusing to use lightroom or photoshop is refusing to push our limits, to use software to achieve what we want, what we want people to see.

Reply to Pushing to the Right

I share your frustrations! In any art, whether photography, music, etc., there comes a decision point regarding how much technology to use to improve your 'product'. It's a very personal decision.

For instance, in music I refuse to attend a concert where the performer is lip-synching! I would much rather go to a live performance that is not perfect, than attend a 'perfect' concert that is 'faked'.

It is the same with photography. If I want to purchase a photo, I may admire the 'enhanced' photos, but I will purchase the one that is 'real'.

The question is not as easy when it is your own work. You always want to make it the best possible you can produce. Electronic help does improve our products. It's a very personal decision whether you use it or not, or whether you balance your use of it.

Another question might be posed - is using electronic means to correct or improve photos any different than using filters on your lens? Do you consider filters to be a technological aid? What do you consider to be part of your art, and what do you consider to be additional aids?

I use the electronic aids in order to produce better photos for my business website and reports, but I don't consider that to be art!

[Stikin2pentax]

Reply to Pushing to the Right

I share your frustrations! In any art, whether photography, music, etc., there comes a decision point regarding how much technology to use to improve your 'product'. It's a very personal decision.

For instance, in music I refuse to attend a concert where the performer is lip-synching! I would much rather go to a live performance that is not perfect, than attend a 'perfect' concert that is 'faked'.

It is the same with photography. If I want to purchase a photo, I may admire the 'enhanced' photos, but I will purchase the one that is 'real'.

The question is not as easy when it is your own work. You always want to make it the best possible you can produce. Electronic help does improve our products. It's a very personal decision whether you use it or not, or whether you balance your use of it.

Another question might be posed - is using electronic means to correct or improve photos any different than using filters on your lens? Do you consider filters to be a technological aid? What do you consider to be part of your art, and what do you consider to be additional aids?

I use the electronic aids in order to produce better photos for my business website and reports, but I don't consider that to be art!

I guess we're learning why PTTR is something of a controversial subject. I've nailed it a couple of times in practice, but overshot the mark most frequently and clipped it to death! You raise an interesting point in relation to filters, but in truth I personally wouldn't consider a coloured piece of glass to be a technological aid as despite both representing visual deception. When you stack them against each other, computer programs are premiership (world series) stuff whilst filters are basically Sunday league (Little League). Filters require on-site thought and understanding whereas a program lets you sit in a comfortable chair and play with the image time after time until it looks like (or looks something like) the image you envisioned at the time of the shoot.
Pushing a histogram more to the right in order to pull back and balance the details on a computer later isn't, however, any more wrong than enhancing your photograph in general I guess, especially when the technology is readily available for us all to do so. The problem (as I see it) is, however, that photo-manipulation programs are slowly and inexorably cutting chunks from the 'hands on' photographic learning curve.

[bluenose]

Hi I have reading-up and using the histogram often lately. Pardon the kindergarden question. When I am out taking a picture and using the histogram for exposure , is the right the way the sensor is seeing it or on the right as I see on the LCD?
I do very little post-processing.

[Stikin2pentax]

Hi I have reading-up and using the histogram often lately. Pardon the kindergarden question. When I am out taking a picture and using the histogram for exposure , is the right the way the sensor is seeing it or on the right as I see on the LCD?
I do very little post-processing.

Hi Bluenose,
It is what the censor has recorded. What you see on your LCD afterwards is a visual translation of what the censor saw when you pressed the shutter.
Does that make sense?

[bluenose]

Thank you Stikin2pentex. Makes very good sense. After this Right on the LCD IS RIGHT.

[Stikin2pentax]

Thank you Stikin2pentex. Makes very good sense. After this Right on the LCD IS RIGHT.

Hi,
Yes, right (the light tones) are always on the right side of your LCD screen, and also on your post editing program as well.
I am also paying more attention to the histogram, and have set my camera to show it with each photograph in order to more quickly understand how each will look.

Good luck dude.

[peter.walker]

Beware the LCD! This will reflect any alterations tou have put into your camera regarding LCD brightness, colour balance etc. I use ETTR regularly with RAW files and am quite happy with it as a technique for getting most detail in the shadow areas without having to increase exposure in Photoshop. As for the manipulation, choosing paper grade to change contrast? tilting baseboard on enlarger to correct converging verticals? cross processing? It's all been done before, it's just that now it's more accessible and reproducible.

[bluenose]

Thank you Stikin2pentex. Makes very good sense. After this Right on the LCD IS RIGHT.

Hi,
Yes, right (the light tones) are always on the right side of your LCD screen, and also on your post editing program as well.
I am also paying more attention to the histogram, and have set my camera to show it with each photograph in order to more quickly understand how each will look.
Thank you again, I will stay going in the RIGHT direction.

[Stikin2pentax]

Beware the LCD! This will reflect any alterations tou have put into your camera regarding LCD brightness, colour balance etc. I use ETTR regularly with RAW files and am quite happy with it as a technique for getting most detail in the shadow areas without having to increase exposure in Photoshop. As for the manipulation, choosing paper grade to change contrast? tilting baseboard on enlarger to correct converging verticals? cross processing? It's all been done before, it's just that now it's more accessible and reproducible.

Therein lays the crux of my original point I guess...are we using these 'acceptable' post processing programs as a means of short cutting certain aspects of the photographic learning curve. Nearly every photographic magazine out there today focuses on both improving your DSLR skills and how to correct, recover or enhance the results via your computer, and more than one have touched upon P(or E) TTR. I can't comment on such a technique in terms of 35mm, but in terms of digital photography this method is totally geared to, and reliant upon, computer based editing for acquiring the desired result(s).
I have read the odd pro-tog (as opposed to the majority) advocating the need to learn how to get it right at the time, yet most of what we now read seems to subtly imply to the 'up and coming' that so long as we get the basics right, computer post editing will take care of the rest.
Somewhere amidst all of this there appears to be just a hint of contradiction?

[photowalker]

Beware the LCD! This will reflect any alterations tou have put into your camera regarding LCD brightness, colour balance etc. I use ETTR regularly with RAW files and am quite happy with it as a technique for getting most detail in the shadow areas without having to increase exposure in Photoshop. As for the manipulation, choosing paper grade to change contrast? tilting baseboard on enlarger to correct converging verticals? cross processing? It's all been done before, it's just that now it's more accessible and reproducible.

Therein lays the crux of my original point I guess...are we using these 'acceptable' post processing programs as a means of short cutting certain aspects of the photographic learning curve. Nearly every photographic magazine out there today focuses on both improving your DSLR skills and how to correct, recover or enhance the results via your computer, and more than one have touched upon P(or E) TTR. I can't comment on such a technique in terms of 35mm, but in terms of digital photography this method is totally geared to, and reliant upon, computer based editing for acquiring the desired result(s).
I have read the odd pro-tog (as opposed to the majority) advocating the need to learn how to get it right at the time, yet most of what we now read seems to subtly imply to the 'up and coming' that so long as we get the basics right, computer post editing will take care of the rest.
Somewhere amidst all of this there appears to be just a hint of contradiction?

Hello Everyone. I am a proponent of ETTR and use it all the time. I very rarely shoot JPEGs. I have User Modes (U1 and U2 on my D7100. U1 is for RAW and U2 is for JPEGs). Don't use this technique if you shoot JPEGs. It won't work! Don't use this technique if you are against Post Processing. Also your file sizes are very large, especially after processing in Adobe Photoshop and OnOne Perfect Photo Suite. I believe in the work ethics of Ansal Adams and Bresson. They did a whole lot of Post Processing sometimes measured in days. They exposed for the shadows and developed for the highlights. With ETTR you expose for the highlights and develop for the highlights.

Please read Andrew Rodney's "Exposing for RAW" at DigitaPhotoPro.com. Select the Digital Photo Pro Magazine. Type "Exposing for RAW" in the search box. The article will be about half way down the list. He explains this technique a lot more than I can.

There is a point about ETTR that no one has mentioned so far. The camera's use gamma-processing (contrast developed) and RAW files are linear processed. The histogram shown on your LCD is based on the JPEG created from the RAW file. The LCD cannot be trusted to tell you the actual state of clipping in the RAW file. I have tested this extensively with my camera (Nikon D7100). When the JPEG shows clipping I have a half to full f/shop left before the RAW image clips. The Picture Controls (or Pictures Styles) definitely affect the JPEGs on the LCD. You can't believe what you see on the LCD with reference to the RAW image. I have set my Picture Controls (Nikon) to Neutral and reduced the contrast and brightness so the LCD more closely resembles the RAW file that I will get when I import it. It works! I shoot with my exposure compensation set to +1.5 stops all the time. Or in Manual and reduce the Shutter Speed until I get clipping (blinkies on the LCD). Now here's the big kicker in all this: my RAW Image file sizes are 6 to 8 MegaBytes larger than the normally exposed images (with camera meter zeroed out). A normal picture from my camera is approximately 26 Mbits (24 mega-pixels sensor, 14 bit encoding, Adobe RGB Color). All my ETTR pictures are in the range (depending on subject) of approximately 33 to 36 Megabyts. Check the sizes of your RAW files before and after using ETTR. That's is a whole lot more information about the image that can be used to create stunning photos. And, yes, you have to post process these images. Unprocessed pictures look really washed out, but not clipped on the highlights. I use Adobe Lightroom and have an Import Preset that adds the 1.5 stops back in. Keep in mind that I have an extra 6 to 8 MegaByts of information to work with for post processing. I would like to refer you, again, to Andrew Rodney's "Exposing for RAW" at DigitalPhotoPro.com. I read this article and ran my own tests to confirm what he is saying. It works. You may not be getting a truly maximum exposure possible from the sensor without using the ETTR RAW Pictures. This isn't for everyone! It is technically demanding, but the rewards are great. My pictures look as good as a small medium format camera produces. Have fun. Test this technique for yourself and read Rodney's Article.

[Barbara G.]

photowalker - thank you for joining us and welcome! Nice to also read your info you posted! Please make yourself at home here...

[photowalker]

Thank you Barbara. I've been watching this thread for a while and thought it was time to add my two cents. I'm enjoying this.

[Stikin2pentax]

Thank you Barbara. I've been watching this thread for a while and thought it was time to add my two cents. I'm enjoying this.

Hi Photowalker.
I have to appreciate a man who knows his onions Curiously, my overall point in relation to PTTR has become somewhat buried amidst the tech' aspects of this issue. I still think far too much emphasis is now being placed upon 'corrective surgery' (so to speak) rather than going the extra yardage in order to nail it at the time and on site. I've been catching myself quite often thinking 'Oh...that's near enough, I can always 'tweak it' on the computer'. In other words I feel that I'm now beginning to take post processing technology for granted, rather than spending extra time in the field trying to find out what I've done wrong and correct it.
I suspect that I'm not the only relative newcomer to DSLR taking similar unwitting shortcuts on the photographic learning curve?

[photowalker]

Thank you Barbara. I've been watching this thread for a while and thought it was time to add my two cents. I'm enjoying this.

Hi Photowalker.
I have to appreciate a man who knows his onions Curiously, my overall point in relation to PTTR has become somewhat buried amidst the tech' aspects of this issue. I still think far too much emphasis is now being placed upon 'corrective surgery' (so to speak) rather than going the extra yardage in order to nail it at the time and on site. I've been catching myself quite often thinking 'Oh...that's near enough, I can always 'tweak it' on the computer'. In other words I feel that I'm now beginning to take post processing technology for granted, rather than spending extra time in the field trying to find out what I've done wrong and correct it.
I suspect that I'm not the only relative newcomer to DSLR taking similar unwitting shortcuts on the photographic learning curve?

Hello Stikin2pentax. I think your point of the technology aspects are taking over photography is absolutely true and I love it. The only way I know to get rid of this aspect is to go back to film or shoot JPEG. These are great tools for learning to get it right in camera! I did for a while and I missed the creativity and ease of my RAW Digital processes. But I learned more about getting it right "in camera" and on site. I wasted a lot of film and money, but I did learn a lot that I apply to my digital images. I did a lot of dodging and burning to get a great picture which I learned from and got better results with each roll of film. I feel that was "corrective surgery" during the learning stages. I believe that is your point. Could it be that people (photographers) are not taking enough time to compose and deliver their intended message in their image?. I definitely believe that part of the process needs to be done in the camera - not in post. If photographers use post production to correct their composition and/or altering it's intent - then it's corrective surgery which can be learned from and try harder in the future. I want to get as much information (ETTR) as I can in my image and then enhance it to appear the way I remembered it, but that's not corrective surgery in my mind. I'm not altering the composition or intent! That is Post Production Creativity. I've rambled on enough. Please let me know if I'm off base here. Thanks for responding and clarifying your intent. I really appreciate it.

[Stikin2pentax]

Hi P.W,
No...you were firmly within base, and expanded nicely. Your approach was right in trying to nail it on site and thus encapsulates my point. the fact that in doing so enhanced your skills with computer post processing also makes perfect sense to me. I'm at a stage whereby I can cheat with post processing in order to cover many of my 'on site' shortcomings, but 'cheat' would be the optimum word as by no stretch of the imagination have I sorted my ability to wring the best out of my camera!
Your book may be missing a leaf, as I intend to steal one from it and -as you did-focus upon my camera and the 'moment that's in it' rather than fiddling around with my efforts via computer corrections later.

Nice exchanging with you P.W and look forward to doing so again.