Suppose you have read somewhere that the dynamic range of your camera at a certain ISO setting is 11 stops. And here comes the immediate question – how can one use such a treasure to its full potential? Optimal exposure for RAW is the answer. But now we need to explain what we mean when we say, “optimal exposure for RAW”. Let’s start with one of the problems, which arises as a result of non-optimal exposure for RAW. Here is a typical wide dynamic range low-light scene. According to Sekonic spot-meter, it is wider than 11 stops:
We made two shots of the same scene – one (#4152) was exposed according to the in-camera exposure meter set to matrix metering mode. The other shot (#4153, Figure 1.) was exposed 1 2/3 EV hotter (spot-metered from white dome, for the procedure to determine the amount of correction please read on, or you can simply bracket). Matrix metering seems to have gotten fooled by the specular highlights on that white dome, hence it underexposed a little more than usual.
We opened them both in FastRawViewer, applied Shadow Boost to both of them to open the shadows, and applied +1.67 EV exposure correction to shot #4152 (the one that was exposed according to in-camera exposure meter recommendation, so that both of the shots had the same overall brightness).
As we can see on to the RAW histogram for shot #4153 (Figure 2) the capture definitely has more than 11 stops. Now we look at shot #4152.
As we can see, shot #4152 exhibits significant noise everywhere below midtone. The thing with a camera’s dynamic range is that those exciting numbers become valid only when the signal reaches the maximum; that is, the exposure is the hottest possible for the given camera at a given ISO. Imagine a bucket having a volume of 2 gallons. If you do not fill it up to the top, some volume is wasted. It’s the same with a camera. If your whitest white is not exposed to the maximum, the top portion of the dynamic range is not being used. This immediately means that in order to use the dynamic range of the camera to its fullest and simultaneously to have as little shadow noise as possible, the whitest whites where you want to keep some texture details need to be exposed so that they are just below clipping. In a sense, one can say that dynamic range characterizes the depth, and starts from the top, while the bottom is sort of fuzzy because of individual tolerance to noise, viewing conditions, size of the output, etc.
Back to our bucket analogy – if one tries to pour, say, 2.5 gallons in it, an overflow happens, and half a gallon will end up on the floor. In digital photography we know this as highlight clipping. That is, if we try to expose a pixel hotter than its capacity allows, everything that is above the capacity will pour out, causing blown-out highlights. By the way, if one tries to set exposure low to keep from clipping all the light sources and specular highlights, he is, most probably, also wasting a couple of stops of dynamic range.
Unfortunately the metering systems of our cameras are not designed to provide the proper placement of the highlights right out of the box (this is partially because to do so, the camera’s AI needs to make a guess as to what a photographer considers to be “important highlights”, and if it guesses wrongly, it may arrive at an unacceptable exposure). One can try different metering modes with the camera, with mixed results when it comes to optimal exposure for RAW. You can use RawDigger or FastRawViewer to see how close you are; be prepared for more misses than hits, in part because the complex metering modes are optimized for JPEGs rather than for RAW. Reliability and repeatability, however, come with manual metering in the spot meter mode. While placing important highlights at the top, let’s take advantage of one very well-known and stable feature of the camera: cameras are calibrated in such a way as to provide the exposure that will result in the rendering of whatever was under the spot meter as “middle grey”.
For a JPEG middle grey is defined as 118 RGB in sRGB color space, which corresponds to the proverbial 18% grey (and L* = 50 in Lab color model, too). For RAW, middle grey is not fixed by common standards, and camera makers have some freedom while placing it. Why is this so? Modern cameras have relatively low noise, and customers often complain that the highlights in their exposures are blown out. To provide extra room for the highlights, camera makers tend to calibrate the exposure so that it shifts middle grey down to 13% (instead of 18%), and often even lower than that. This is what often causes the rumors that camera makers cheat with ISO. In fact it is not cheating, because in most cases the ISO speed is defined for the processed output (JPEG) and not for RAW. Lets look at the shots of the scene we have already used in the article “Why Bother Shooting RAW if Culling JPEGs?”.
Shot #1861 was exposed according to the in-camera exposure meter and it has the hottest possible exposure for JPEG. Shot #1866 had exposure increased by 1 2/3 EV, and it has the optimal exposure for RAW (Exposing to the Right / ETTR). If we look at the shadows of those two shots after running them through ACR (shot #1866 was converted without any adjustments; while shot #1861 was converted with +1.67 exposure correction applied in ACR, to “match” the exposure difference between the shots), we see that there’s quite a difference in the shadows between these two shots. By the way, the smaller the sensor is, the more difference optimal exposure will make.
A tone curve applied when rendering a JPEG takes care of matching of whatever the middle grey is in RAW to the standard 18% grey in JPEG. But if we are shooting RAW and trying to exploit the dynamic range of our cameras to its full potential we need to set an exposure which is close to optimal, and place the highlights in the RAW where they belong – at the top of the dynamic range of your camera.
In other words, the top of the dynamic range of the scene (and by scene we mean everything you want to capture, and not the irrelevant / specular highlights) needs to be placed at the top of the dynamic range of the camera.
Back to the question of achieving this goal in a reliable and repeatable manner:
- First, we need to know the value for the middle grey in RAW numbers. This varies by camera model and sometimes by ISO setting.
- Next we need to know the maximum value that the RAW file may contain. This also varies by camera model and may depend on ISO setting; it may be the same as the maximum value for ADC (12 bits, 4095; 14 bits, 16383), or it may be less.
- Finally we need to calculate the result – the number of stops between the middle grey in RAW and the maximum in RAW for this specific camera and given ISO setting, to use this number as the exposure compensation when metering off the highlights that we want to keep.
Again, to use the result we need to meter from the whitest white in the scene where we want to preserve some texture and details, and apply exposure compensation in the camera that equals the number we have just determined. Consequently, the important whitest whites of the scene will receive the maximum allowed exposure, thus being placed at the top of the dynamic rage of the camera. This way you have achieved optimal exposure, also known as ETTR. The whole thing hinges on the theory that whatever is presented to an exposure meter will be recorded as middle grey as soon as the exposure meter recommendations are followed. Let’s check this theory.
We made six shots of the ColorChecker (Figure 1):
For each shot, we spot-metered one of those neutral grey patches at the bottom row, starting from the white patch, setting the exposure according to the recommendations of the spot meter. Next, we opened those shots one by one in RawDigger, sampled the patch we spot-metered, and checked the RAW values for this sample.
As you can see, the RAW values for the patch under the meter are very close to each other:
Because the camera was set to record both RAW and JPEG, we can check the RGB values in Photoshop too. As expected, they also turned to be very close to each other and to the target value for the mid-tone for JPEG, RGB=118.
Now that we are confident that the spot meter indeed guides the exposure in such a way that whatever shade of grey we put under the spot meter, the result will be the same number in RAW, with the number representing middle grey in terms of camera calibration for RAW. Because the theory proves to be true, you don’t need to meter and shoot all 6 patches: one is enough, or you can use a grey card.
- To get the most accurate reading for the middle grey in RAW, it is more practical to use a light grey patch / card (ColorChecker Passport has a separate grey page for white balance, it has L*=81, or, in other words, it is 60% grey, bright enough to use with confidence) or matte white. The reason for using lighter tones is to keep flare as low as possible for both metering and capture. The higher reflection values of the lighter samples are less prone to flare compared to lower reflection values for dark grey and black samples.
So to get GMiddleGrey, make a shot with exposure setting according to the spot meter recommendation for a white or a light grey patch, open the shot in RawDigger, place a sample on the patch from which you metered, and read average value for the Green channel, Avg G. In our case, GMiddleGrey = 1435.
- Now let’s determine the maximum value for the G channel that RAW can contain (maximum values may be different for different channels).
There are basically 2 ways to determine the maximum:- One way, which does not require additional shots, is to include from the beginning some source of relatively small specular highlights in the scene (a shiny metal ball, for example, is what is often used); however, this can create flare in the shot, and that flare will throw the metering off; maybe just a little, but sometimes significantly.
- The other way is to simply shoot with long exposure, ensuring that part of the shot reaches clipping.
The truly clipped region will usually have a very small sigma (σ, standard deviation, Std.Dev.) value, in the order of single digits, in many cases very close to 0. The mean (average, Avg) value of the green channel for the clipped region is the maximum raw value we are after. On Figure 5, the average for green (Avg G) is 14,594.4; the standard deviation for green (σG) is 59.4. This means that there is no clipping.
Figure 10 – RawDigger. Shot #2254. Large sigma (σ) values for all channels On Figure 6, the average for green (Avg G) is 15,478.7; the standard deviation for green (σG) is 2.03. That is the G channel clipping all right, and increasing exposure further will not help decrease σG in any significant manner – see the next Figure, #7.
Figure 11 – RawDigger. Shot #2255. Small sigma (σ) value in Green (and Red) channels On Figure 7, the average for green (Avg G) is 15,477.3; the standard deviation for green (σG) is 1.81; that is, the green channel G is clipped, like it is on the previous one:
Figure 12 – RawDigger. Shot #2256. Small sigma (σ) values in all channels Nevertheless, the Avg G from the previous shot, #2255 (Figure 6) is a better choice: as you can see the Avg G is larger here, and this is because we triggered intense anti-blooming on shot #2256 (Figure 7), and it acts like solarisation, also known as a Sabattier effect. On film, increasing exposure results in decreased density of the negative; however, it is much milder on digital.
So, we will consider Avg G for a sample area from shot #2255 (Figure 6) as maximum raw value: Gmax = 15,478.7
- Finally, let’s calculate the value of exposure compensation (the number of stops, EV, between the middle grey in RAW and maximum / clipping point in RAW) for the given camera at a given ISO. We are going to use the formula:
EV = log2(GMax / GMiddleGrey) (1)
If you are interested in what the corresponding percent of grey is, you can calculate it as
percent = 100% * GMiddleGrey / GMax (2)
In our case GMiddleGrey = 1435 and Gmax = 15,478.7, so using the formula (1) we get:
log2(15,478.7 / 1435) ≈ 3 1/3 EV
That is this value of exposure compensation turns to be +3 1/3 EV (meaning the calibration for our camera puts the mid-tone in raw to 9.27%, nearly a stop lower than the “expected” 18%).
Let’s shoot with calculated exposure compensation and see… For the next shot #2257, we metered off the white patch, applying to the meter readings the exposure compensation we just determined, +3 1/3 EV. Now we open it in RawDigger and check raw values of the white patch:
As you can see, for a white patch average RAW value for Green channel (Gavg) is 14592.5. That is we are very close to the clipping point but still below it.
If we look at the JPEG of the shot #2257 (Figure 9) we will see that we “overexposed”: R=G=B=255. That is, of course, not so. OOC JPEGs do not use the full dynamic range available in RAW.
If you hate calculations, you can use a brute force approach. Shoot some neutral patch or grey card, setting the exposure as per your camera’s spot-meter recommendations and start adding exposure compensation, EC (you can set EC initially to +2 1/3 EV, which corresponds to calibration of the mid-tone in raw to 20% grey; we suggest this because calibration shouldn’t be higher than 20%) until the raw values for the patch or card comes close to clipping, within 1/3 EV from it.
Incidentally, you can often hear advice to meter off of the 18% grey card to set the correct exposure. This exposure is not likely to be optimal for raw, as in most cases it does not place the highlights high enough on the DR scale, but let’s check it.
Shot #2253 was metered from the N5 patch of ColorChecker (which by design has L*=50, or, in other words, it is 18% grey) with zero exposure compensation. As you can see in RawDigger, the white patch is recorded 1 stop below clipping, and we have not achieved optimal exposure (Figure 10). Not even close.
If we check OOC JPEG for the same shot (Figure 11) we will see that while middle grey was correctly placed at 118 (sample 2), the RGB values for the white patch (sample 1) are (220, 220, 225), that is, seriously below maximum value.
Sekonic 758 in incident metering mode recommended 1/4s for shutter speed, matrix and center-weighted metering in the camera suggested 1/6s and 1/5s, respectively, while the shutter speed for ETTR, as we already know from shot #2257, is 1/2.5s. All out-of-the-box metering turned to be inefficient in terms of ETTR, but very consistent with the ≈1 EV difference we observed between calibration for raw for this camera (≈9%) and calibration for JPEG (≈18%).
We are very happy to hear that a new camera has ½ of a stop more DR than a previous model. We consider those ½ stop to be a huge improvement. However, if we are not using ETTR, we will be getting from this new camera the same or even lower image quality an ETTR practitioner is getting from the previous model.
Hello.
After reading a lot about ETTR and UniWB, I decided to give it a try. At first I made a custom UniWB profile and a fitting picture-control setting for my D7200. Then I shot the same scene (under same conditions) with 3 different settings.
1) With Auto1 WB from camera, PC=FLAT, spot metering and +/- 0 EV.
2) With UniWB, custom PC, spot metering and +/- 0 EV.
3) With UniWB, custom PC, spot metering and + 2 EV (as ETTR “margin” by camera histogram)
After that, I analysed them with RawDigger and did some basic adjustments in Capture NX-D…
And, of course, the 3rd picture was (far way) the best! Not just in shadows, but also in highlights. RawDigger’s histogram indicated me that I used the sensors capacity as much as possible for this scene. When the other 2 shots were sunken in the dark on the left side. In direct comparison, after finished processing in CNX-D, they looked like from different worlds.
By chance I took a look at the file-sizes – 24MB (NEF 1 and 2) vs. 30MB (NEF 3) – which was another indicator to me that this method really works. 6MB more data captured by the sensor (without noticeable clipping in any direction) must be visible in the result – and it was!
On basis of this “eye-opening-experience” I continue to follow this way. Even with small greenish LCD-preview-pic beside the LRGB-histogram on my camera…
An excellent informative article and learnt more from comments section than from the main article , got cleared lot of misunderstandings of the concepts and doubts. The complete article including comments is great and informative including Betty’s clarifications on the subject except the unnecessary silly issues. Clearly Harvey did not know the difference between various metering modes and meter readings or might have misunderstood the subject, if that is the case ,there is noting wrong in accepting it , instead of diverting the to the discussion something else. Let me thank Iliah Borg, Nasim, Pete A and Betty for the most informative article and comments. Hope to see many more such articles.
KVS Setty: There is nothing wrong with my understanding of metering modes and meter readings. Don’t know why you need to poke your head into an old silly argument.
Peter, are you suggesting that I was having a conversation with myself?
I should add that my initial comment to Betty, which was about her condescending tone, was not a point of contention. The only debate that ensued from that was between Betty and Kevin regarding the identity of Betty’s gender. Further, the fact that Betty omitted Kevin’s name from the group of names she listed is evident that she was not referring to those comments.
Additionally, Pete, now that you are sticking your head into this, I don’t believe that initiated any conversation with you. I did not pick a fight with you.
“Peter, are you suggesting that I was having a conversation with myself?”
It does seem that way.
Much better for all concerned.
“I should add that my initial comment to Betty, which was about her condescending tone, was not a point of contention.’
It was to me.
I found it very hurtful…I had to take an extra Prozac to take the pain away…?
“Additionally, Pete, now that you are sticking your head into this…”
Pete has my permission to stick his head into this. His head is filled with wisdom.
On the other hand Harvey, your head is filled with brown stuff and it would be better if you stuck it back where it came from.
Hope the above is not too condescending…?
Pete, I said that Betty was the “one who first addressed me on the debate”. The operative words being “on the debate”. She stuck her head into my discussion between Iliah.
Harvey
PL is a global forum.
If you want to engage in private debate, stay off the internet.
Yes, I am aware that it is a public forum. Sadly, I allowed myself to get dragged into a childish debate in a public forum. That’s not something that Betty or I should be proud of. It does not look good on Photography Life either.
Harvey
“Yes, I am aware that it is a public forum.”
Good, then in future, you will, I hope, accept that comment from any quarter is OK.
The only childish part of this debate was not so much your being plain wrong on a scientific/photographic subject, or even your not taking the opportunity to learn, but that you instead chose to try to prove yourself right by picking a semantic fight with an acknowledged expert in his field of expertise! How silly is that.
– And of course your subsequent peevish whingeing, squirming and abusiveness to divert attention from the fact that you were in a hole.
“The only childish part…”. That is your opinion. An opinion which is blind to your narcisstic behaviour.
How do you know what I have, and have not, learned? Do you possess a special device that can read the knowledge base in my brain? But of course a narcissist does not need such a device.
I did not pick a fight with Iliah. We had a discussion, which he, smartly, long gave up.
Harvey
“The only childish part…”. That is your opinion”
Yes Harvey, it’s my opinion; that a half baked amateur trying to prove an expert wrong on his own subject is about as silly as it gets.
I don’t see what my narcissism has to do with it.
“How do you know what I have, and have not, learned?”
I don’t, but hope springs eternal and will perhaps this time triumph over reality.
Fingers crossed.
“Do you possess a special device that can read the knowledge base in my brain?”
No special device needed.
A plank is a plank – plain for all to see.
“I did not pick a fight with Iliah. We had a discussion, which he, smartly, long gave up.”
Call it what you will.
He told you, more than once, that you were flat wrong.
He smartly gave up because trying to educate a plank is futile.
I was not attempting to prove Iliah “wrong”. Rather, he was attempting to prove me wrong, based on a technicality that lacked context. The fact that our final contentious point was the definition of “semantics”, rather than my assertion that meter readings are dependent on the metering mode, is evidence to what I have said. Iliah never disputed the fact that meter readings are dependent on the metering mode.
“The first step toward change is awareness. The second step is acceptance”, Nathaniel Branden.
You have made the first steps in your recovery from narcissism. Good on you.
Harvey
Stop rewriting history.
Brush up your photography.
Don’t worry about me, I will be just fine.
“I was not attempting to prove Iliah “wrong”. Rather, he was attempting to prove me wrong, based on a technicality that lacked context.”
…..Iliah was attempting to prove you wrong….Yeah, right…….?
Iliah never disputed the fact that meter readings are dependent on the metering mode.
“The adjustments take place based on meter readings, not mode.”
You are living in a parallel universe, a sort of LaLa land where memory and reality merge into delusion.
Meter readings don’t take place in a vacuum, independent of other variables. For the sake of exactitude, there are a number of variables, in the process, which both Iliah and failed to mention. So, perhaps we were both “not correct”. At no point did Iliah explain the process from A to Z.
At this point, who, other than Betty, cares if one, or both of us, was not correct. After all, to err is human. I have been incorrect on numerous matters numerous times in my life and I will be incorrect numerous times in the future. It is part of being human. No shame in that.
Your quote of Iliah was his initial point of contention, not his response to my follow up point, which he failed to answer head on, presumably because doing so would have been an admission that he was nitpicking, which would have been okay if he had taken the time to educate by explaining the process from A to Z. Unfortunately, he appeared to be more motivated in proving me “not correct” on a technicality, rather than educating. This is why we had a problem.
So, no, I do not live in a parallel universe.
The subject of Iliah’s article is more than adequately conveyed in the title of his article: How to Use the Full Dynamic Range of Your Camera.
The detailed explanation of the subject is more than adequately conveyed in the article itself and in Iliah’s replies to the readers who wish to learn.
It is impossible to explain any advanced concept, from ‘A to Z’, to people who have not only failed to understand steps A, B, C, and D; they also delight in taunting those of us who do fully understand the advanced concept from first principles.
Taunt away to your heart’s content — we really don’t mind because *this* universe is never going to alter its laws of physics to comply with *your* wishful thinking :-)
Harvey
“Meter readings don’t take place in a vacuum, independent of other variables.”
Strictly speaking Harvey, yes they do.
The only variable, as far as the meter is concerned, is the light falling on it.
You are utterly confused about the ‘other variables’ because you don’t understand the differences between metering, metering modes, calibration, exposure, ISO, and Auto ISO, nor how they relate (or don’t relate) to each other. Until you do, there is little point in your trying to engage in a discussion on photography, still less insult an expert with your idiotic, semantic nitpicking.
With regard to your complaint that “At no point did Iliah explain the process from A to Z.”… Iliah said:
“Dear Sir:
I answered your comments several times, with explanations. But this site is hardly a place to quote camera manuals at length. By the way, “adjusts the ISO based on the metering mode set in-camera” is not correct. The adjustments take place based on meter readings, not mode.”
You are lucky he was that polite.
‘The whole process’ was not explained to you because the article assumes more than a rudimentary grasp of photographic principles. When it became clear that you do not understand even the most basic terms used, there was little point in him wasting his time further or quoting a camera manual at you. RTFM Harvey.
It’s not Iliah’s job to teach you elementary photography from first principles in the middle of a discourse on ‘How to Use the Full Dynamic Range of your Camera’. If you want the ‘whole process’ to be explained to you, go and do the PL Level 1 Course and tell them there about all the ‘variables’ involved in metering.
Be prepared for laughter.
I had hoped that at some point in this, a light might have come on for you, but no, the fuse box has evidently blown and you seem content to sit whistling the intellectual equivalent of Yankee Doodle in the dark.
I just watched the 15 minute trailer for PL Level 1. There was not a single thing mentioned that I have not already learned.
Harvey
Learning is one thing, understanding is quite another.
Understanding has to pass the test of peer review and reproducibility.
Expert peers with impeccable credentials have told you you are wrong.
Reproducing what you have learned (about metering, metering mode and auto ISO) leads to a self evident nonsense.
Draw your own conclusions.
With respect, you need more than a 15 minute trailer.
“I just watched the 15 minute trailer for PL Level 1. There was not a single thing mentioned that I have not already learned.”
That which can be asserted without evidence, can be dismissed without evidence:
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/…%27s_razor
Again with the condescending tone. Can’t I say anything without drawing a personal attack?
Harvey
“Again with the condescending tone. Can’t I say anything without drawing a personal attack?”
You take care of your tone and I’ll take care of mine.
No personal attacks from me, Harvey. Just so we are clear:
A personal or ad hominem attack is an attack on the person rather than on their argument; most commonly on their character or some personal attribute such as physical appearance, character, gender, race, family background etc, with the aim of undermining their case without actually having to engage with it.
This is not be confused with an attack, no matter how vitriolic, humorous or sarcastic, on another’s argument, statements, actions or beliefs. Barbed writing is a legitimate tool in written debate and the fact that the recipient may take it personally or is offended, does not make it ad hominem.
Ad hominems are used by immature or unintelligent people because they are unable to counter their opponent using logic and reason.
For instance, the comments, “Betty, is it physically possible for you not to be such a huge jerk?” or “You are one angry, bitter, negative, condescending narcissist.” are good examples of ad hominem attacks.
Pete, this is not a court of law. I simply made a genuine comment. If you don’t believe it, that is your prerogative. I honestly don’t care. I don’t have to prove anything to you or anyone here. It’s not like I am trying to sell you, or anyone here, something, for which my credentials and knowledge base may come into question. My personal knowledge base is completely irrelevant to this website. I am not a contributing author here. So, nobody here should really give a darn what I do and do not know. It is not relevant to this site. I am simply a reader of this (and many other) site(s).
Better, suggested a course to me. My genuine reply implied that the course appears to have little to no benefit to me, based on what I already know. I find it sad that a genuine comment, draws such cynicism and criticism.
“My personal knowledge base is completely irrelevant to this website.”
I’m very glad that — after posting 42 tiresome comments on Iliah’s article — you have finally been able to accept the truth.
Harvey
That’s just an evasive, circular, self serving, apologia.
If you had made a genuine comment, you would have accepted the genuine explanations that Iliah, Pete and I offered. I wrote at least three quite detailed comments for you.
Your response, (besides expending an inordinate amount of energy criticising my ‘tone’), was to dismiss what been offered in good faith as ‘nitpicking’, ‘semantics’ and ‘silly banter’ while at the same time referring to me as a troll, a jerk and a narcissist; all the while insisting that your misguided contentions were correct and that Iliah was ‘just trying to prove you wrong’.
So finally you are right – this is not a court of law, you don’t have to prove anything, your knowledge base is completely irrelevant and nobody here really gives a darn what you do or do not know.
I did not know anybody was keeping score of the number of posts.
Harvey
Now you do.
Pete A is the kind of guy who puts a high value on accuracy.
“I did not know anybody was keeping score of the number of posts.”
No person is “keeping score of the number of posts”: the website server computer is displaying most, but not all, of your posts; and it is extraordinarily easy to ask a web browser to count the number of posts written by you.
Betty, I did not read a word you just wrote. You know why? I don’t care. Life is good and too short to waste bickering over nothing.
Harvey
“Betty, I did not read a word you just wrote.”
You wrote a reply to something you did not read?
I honestly don’t understand all the confusing, or am I confused?
What I know is that you want to have the histogram to the right as much as possible without clipping to get the highest SNR.
Dear Pim,
There are 2 caveats to what you’ve said.
First, having JPEG histogram on the back of your camera to the right is not enough, as you can see from www.fastrawviewer.com/culli…w-vs-jpegs the raw may still be very significantly underexposed.
Second, promoting the histogram to the right using ISO control does not have desired effect past certain ISO value, and is never an adequate compensation for low exposure.
Thanks for your reply, great article by the way.
Sure you need to use the histogram of the raw file actually. As for your second point, I think I dont understand ISO exactly, you mentioned earlier that there are camera models that decrease noise with raising ISO. Do you by any chance know where the technical details are explained behind this?
I would say that with raising the ISO, you double the amount of light and noise, and thus an increase of sqrt{2} in SNR…
Dear Pim,
ISO is an internal setting applied after the actual exposure took place, and as such it does not affect the amount of light. In the camera only shutter speed and aperture (exposure-time factors) control the light to the sensor. In auto exposure modes (except for Manual + Auto ISO) doubling ISO cuts the light in half.
Some cameras, mostly those that are based on Sony sensors, have very low read noise numbers at low ISO settings, thus raising ISO has very little effect on noise in shadows (read noise). However even with these cameras one still needs to be careful with the idea of shooting without adjusting ISO at all, as raising ISO 2-3 stops up from base helps decrease banding artifacts and shadow tint (magenta, usually), which is the result of black level drift.
Other cameras, like Canon dSLRs and most of current Nikon 1-digit bodies (including Df, but excluding D3X), have relatively high read noise levels at base ISO, and read noise goes down significantly with ISO going up to a certain point which is sometimes called “point of invariance”. The graphs on www.photonstophotos.net/Chart…Shadow.htm go very flat starting from that point of invariance.
Iliah,
Thanks a lot for your excellent article. I have been waiting for it ever since February and even feared you would never publish it due to the rather weary response to your midtone articles.
I have a couple of questions, though. In the article above you indicate that the exposure compensation value to be determined using your method depends on the camera model and possibly on the ISO value. Are there any ranges of ISO values with similar, comparable exposure compensation values for a given camera model? If yes, is there any shortcut for determining these ISO ranges (not the compensation values) for a given camera model, e.g. by using the sensor data published by Bill Claff (or do you even know these ranges for some camera models and are willing to publish them;-) ? If yes, how? I am just thinking about how to reduce the work to be done as well as the compensation values to remember to a manageable amount.
In addition to the excellent articles on PL, even the comments sections contain very useful and helpful hints, so I always try to read them. Although your article is about exposure, there are a lot of hints w.r.t. ISO in the comments above. Unfortunately, though, I do not understand them completely. And even after reading Bill Claff’s Sensor Analysis Primer (thanks for the link) I am still confused, especially w.r.t. PDR Shadow Improvement, which you also explained above.
Is my following interpretation correct? In case the dynamic range (DR) of a scene fits into the DR of a D810 at ISO 200, it is wise to use ISO 200 instead of ISO 64 (although the D810 as a larger DR at ISO 64) because below ISO 200 the PDR Shadow Improvement is less and above the PDR Shadow Improvement does not increase significantly (provided you expose to the right, as explained above). If this is correct, then it would be wise to set ISO to 3200 on a D5 (provided the DR of the scene fits in to the DR of the D5 at ISO 3200), which if find really puzzling. (Please excuse my awkward formulations. This is because I do not know what PDR Shadow Improvement really is, nor how it is defined nor in what unit it is measured.)
Iliah, how about writing an article on PL about ISO? Given my lack of understanding as well as the questions and quarrels above, this might be a good idea! (And no, Bill Claff’s Primer doesn’t suffice, for it does not explain the different photographic scenarios to consider.)
Dear Carsten,
> Thanks a lot for your excellent article.
Thank you for your kind words.
> I have been waiting for it ever since February and even feared you would never publish it due to the rather weary response to your midtone articles.
Sorry for the wait. As to the responses, in my experience they are not an accurate indicator of interest or attitude; on top of that, some things need to sink in, and that can take time: months and years.
> In the article above you indicate that the exposure compensation value to be determined using your method depends on the camera model and possibly on the ISO value.
First, let me be clear, it is not _my_ method ;) Metering for highlights is actually one of the things spot-meters were designed for; with film, one can observe the result directly to calculate the exposure shift (similar to the brute force approach I mentioned in the article), or one can use a densitometer (that is what RawDigger is for digital).
> Are there any ranges of ISO values with similar, comparable exposure compensation values for a given camera model?
Normally, camera metering (midpoint) is calibrated the same way for all ISO settings, leading to the same compensation value. Exceptions are: “Lo” settings (those are below the base ISO setting and are usually implemented through the shift of midpoint; in practice there is very little reason to use those, be it for raw or JPEG); some higher ISO settings, for example on Fujifilm cameras, also implemented as midpoint shift, but in the opposite direction, towards less exposure (no point in using those if one shoots raw); intermediate ISO settings on some cameras may need additional checking, see, for example, our article www.rawdigger.com/howto…so-setting
> In case the dynamic range (DR) of a scene fits into the DR of a D810 at ISO 200, it is wise to use ISO 200 instead of ISO 64 (although the D810 as a larger DR at ISO 64)
The first choice is to raise the exposure. That is, decrease shutter speed and/or open aperture up (ISO setting is not a part of exposure). The more light you allow onto the sensor during exposure, the lower the noise.
If the exposure can’t be increased further (because of considerations like shake, the speed of the subject’s movement, depth of field, risk of AF misses) it makes sense to start increasing the ISO. There are very few exceptions to this rule, but they are hard to analyse in a reply, and they probably merit a separate article, probably one not interesting to most.
Why would one increase ISO setting at all on ISO-less (ISO-invariant) cameras, or beyond the point of invariance (no further shadow improvement with the raising of the ISO setting)? – because read noise (and shadow improvement calculated from the decrease of read noise, measured in photographic stops on Bill’s site) is not all that matters when one starts to lift shadows, even for the best ISO-less cameras that are currently available. When the levels in shadows are scarce on EV scale, the relative error is large, resulting in black point drift, colour skews, banding, loss of contrast. Those problems are often not visible until we start to bring the shadows out. My rule of thumb is that for low light scenes, given that I’m limited by shutter speed and aperture, I set ISO about 2-3 stops above the point of invariance to ensure that the shadows are editable. If I’m not planning on opening the shadows, that’s another matter.
> it would be wise to set ISO to 3200 on a D5
D5 is not even close to ISO-less below the ISO setting of 2500. The colour in the shadows improves up to 2x of that, ISO 5000.
> how about writing an article on PL about ISO?
I have it in mind, but “The Arithmetic of White Balance and Why Should I Care” comes first ;)
> Normally, camera metering (midpoint) is calibrated the same way for all ISO settings, leading to the same compensation value.
Just one compensation value to determine and to remember – perfect.
> The first choice is to raise the exposure.
This is clear, for this is what your article above is all about. But was it? Apparently not, because for some reason I thought I could expose to the right at base ISO and then increase ISO to the point of invariance (i.e. ISO 200 for a D810, if I read the PDR Shadow Improvement data correctly) in order to improve the shadows. This would cause the highlights to clip, though. So, my interpretation explained above is just nonsense. Thanks for sorting this out.
> Why would one increase ISO setting at all on ISO-less (ISO-invariant) cameras, or beyond the point of invariance (no further shadow improvement with the raising of the ISO setting)? – because read noise […] is not all that matters when one starts to lift shadows.
Ok, since there are other contributing factors not reflected in the PDR Shadow Improvement data and since I do not know of any additional data showing them (and wouldn’t be able to interpret them correctly anyway), I am back to my previous mode of operation: having and using the ISO dial on my D810 makes sense – if I cannot further improve exposure, I will raise ISO in order get a properly “exposed” image and can then do whatever I want in post processing. See my last reply below, though. :-)
> D5 is not even close to ISO-less below the ISO setting of 2500. The colour in the shadows improves up to 2x of that, ISO 5000.
I just took a second look at the PDR Shadow Improvement data, and yes, the point of invariance seems to be at ISO 5000 with an improvement of almost 3 1/3 stops. Nevertheless, my original interpretation is nonsense.
> > how about writing an article on PL about ISO?
> I have it in mind, but “The Arithmetic of White Balance and Why Should I Care” comes first ;)
Deal – I will wait for both of them now.
> First, let me be clear, it is not _my_ method ;)
Sure, but you are the one who clearly describes this method and provides the tools needed ;)
Thank you mr. Borg for a very thorough, and insightful article.
Reading this thread this morning, it struck me, that being right often differs vastly from being polite or even just nice. It also is a great example of how to shut down debate. The article discusses (as far as I can see) how to best to utilize the dynamic range in a sensor. The condescending tone in various replies obscures this, and just leaves you sad.
Below is my sensored version of my deleted response.
Oxforddictionaries.com: “semantics: 1.1 The meaning of a word, phrase, or text: such quibbling over semantics may seem petty stuff”.
Merriam-Webster.com: “SEMANTICS: the meanings of words and phrases in a particular context”.
When debates lack “context” they can become “petty”.
Hopefully, this sensored version does not get deleted.
whinge [verb]: complain persistently and in a peevish or irritating way.
Pete, I just learned a new word. Thanks.
Next time a police officer pulls me over for speeding, perhaps I ought to borrow a page from Iliah’s book of logic and argue that the speed of the car was not dependent on me because the engine was blind to me and my foot. The trouble with such an argument is that I will get laughed out of court.
Harvey
A car, like a camera, requires intelligent input.
Without that, all bets are off.
When I first learned how to drive, I did go online to find out how the engine, clutch etc roughly work…
Why was my response deleted?
Betty, yes, I was aware how the varying metering modes work. I’ve also metered off a grey card, amongst other things, numerous times.
My underlying point, however, is we are getting caught up in semantics again. Particularly when some metering modes utilize an algorithm (or weighting), which ultimately influence Auto ISO. If the metering mode did not influence the Auto ISO (or the automatic, and semi-automatic, modes, such as P, A, S), then there would be no need for an algorithm (or weighting based approach).
Harvey, You previously stated: “Regardless of Auto ISO being blind to the metering mode, nonetheless the metering mode is the starting point, which influences the ISO set by Auto ISO.”
No! The starting point is mastering photography from first principles. Only when this has been achieved does the in-camera meter, with its various modes, serve any other function than pandering to the intellectually lazy for the sole purpose of increasing company turnover.
Unless you completely understand the metering algorithm that you have selected then it isn’t “the starting point”, it is yet another unknown and unpredictable variable in your image capturing process.
semantics (n.)
“science of meaning in language,” 1893, from French sémantique (1883); see semantic (also see -ics). Replaced semasiology (1847), from German Semasiologie (1829), from Greek semasia “signification, meaning.”
www.etymonline.com/word/semantics
semantic (adj.)
1894, from French sémantique, applied by Michel Bréal (1883) to the psychology of language, from Greek semantikos “significant,” from semainein “to show by sign, signify, point out, indicate by a sign,” from sema “sign, mark, token; omen, portent; constellation; grave” (Doric sama), from PIE root *dheie- “to see, look” (source also of Sanskrit dhyati “he meditates;” see zen).
www.etymonline.com/word/semantic
Harvey’s semantic filibustering is a modus operandi that is frequently deployed for the purpose of hampering, rather than helping, scientific discourse.
Harvey
I just did a quick and dirty test regarding your problem.
I took my D800E out of the cupboard and shot three frames of my Eizo (very uniform) 318-4K monitor of my default dark grey background only using matrix, centre weighted and spot readings.
The exposure was F5.0 1/50sec Auto ISO.
Unsurprisingly, the indicated ISO stayed at ISO 640 for all three exposures and all three histograms in the back of the camera were identical.
Either you are doing something weird or your camera is doing something weird.
Go figure…
Betty, repeat the process, trying it with different scenes. You should get varying results, depending on the reflectivity of the various subjects in the scene.
For the sake of exactitude (which some here apparently expect), my previous comment regarding “depending on the reflectivity of the various subjects in the scene” was assuming consistent lighting throughout the scene. Of course, varying light levels across the scene is another factor.
Harvey
“Betty, repeat the process, trying it with different scenes. You should get varying results, depending on the reflectivity of the various subjects in the scene.”
Dear Lord, give me strength…
That’s what I was trying to tell you in my previous answer.
You seem not to understand what a metering mode is, let alone how to use it. You either genuinely don’t know or you are taking the proverbial.
**Of course** you will get different results with different modes – if they all gave the same result there would be no point in having different modes.
Each of these modes meters *different areas of the scene*. The meter will only meter what you give it to meter and will then render whatever that is, a mid tone grey.
If you are matrix metering you are asking the meter to average all the tones in the frame and render them mid tone grey (simplified version).
If you ask the same question of a spot meter, it will make *whatever is under the spot in that scene* a mid tone grey regardless of whether the object under the spot is white or black or anything in between.
If you don’t understand metering (and you clearly don’t), stay away from spot metering and use matrix. It will keep you out of trouble pending the day you know what you are doing.
You are ripe for Nasim’s Level 1 Photography Course.
This is no knock against Nasim’s course, as I am sure it’s a good course. With that said, I don’t need a course in metering. Actually, nailing accurate exposures, manually, with spot metering is one of my strong suits. Please stop assuming what others here do and do not know. It is annoying. Anyway, I am done arguing on here.
Harvey
“I don’t need a course in metering. Actually, nailing accurate exposures, manually, with spot metering is one of my strong suits.”
Spot metering is one (you mean there are more?) of your strong suits! Silly me, I should have known.
Heavens above Pete A, Iliah and I clearly have much to learn from your unique grasp of this subject, after all, getting a different result every time one switches metering modes is the holy grail of photography, an inexhaustible source of surprise, delight and creative opportunity. Perhaps you might contribute an article on how you achieve your unique and ever varying results?
“Please stop assuming what others here do and do not know.”
You come on Photography Life and ask a series of questions that would embarrass a quantum mechanic and then have the nerve to come out with that?
Rest assured, there is no need to assume anything.
When you ask a question like, “..why does my Auto ISO on Sony give me different ISO values depending on the metering mode (i.e. Multi, Center, Spot for Sony), given the same scene in the same light?” AND you manage to get into the same mess metering from a grey card, it’s painfully obvious you don’t know your arse (English spelling in case you want to get into semantics) from your elbow.
Pete A put it best…
“There is no polite way of saying this: You do not understand anywhere near enough about digital photography to know what it is that you do not yet understand.”
Now go away and stop wasting everyone’s time.
Betty, is it physically possible for you not to be such a huge jerk? Your barrage of vitriol doesn’t warrant any more of my time responding. Surely, there will be others here for you to pick on. It surprises me that you have not been banned from this site yet. The day that happens, this site will be better for it. You are one angry, bitter, negative, condescending narcissist. I am out of here.
Harvey
There’s only one jerk here – the one who doesn’t know his mode from his meter.
Betty, if you spent less time here picking fights with people and more time actually shooting, you may have known by now how to properly operate your camera, including its metering modes.
Harvey
Golly Brian, I wonder if then you could help me?
Could you explain why my Auto ISO gives me different ISO values depending on the metering mode (i.e. Multi, Center, Spot ), given the same scene in the same light? Even with a grey card!
I point my meter at things and that ISO thingy keeps going all over the place. It’s really baffling and from reading your conversations with Pete and Iliah, you obviously you have a much deeper understanding of this difficult subject than any of us.
?
Betty, no, I certainly don’t know more than the experts who write for this site. Photographers like Nasim and Iliah are certainly experts, both of whom I have learned from. They are in a different league than I am. I know that. And I am thankful that they are here to educate.
With that all said, I do know enough to get the results I am looking for in the field. Yet, I am constantly looking to learn more and improve.
Anyway, good night.
Harvey
“Photographers like Nasim and Iliah are certainly experts, both of whom I have learned from. They are in a different league than I am. I know that. And I am thankful that they are here to educate.”
Well that’s a step in the right direction.
If you listened to the experts more instead of trying to prove them wrong, you might make faster progress.
I was not trying to prove Iliah “wrong”. I was just pointing out that he was nitpicking by saying I was “not correct” based on a technicality that lacked context. Anyway, talking about this ad nauseum is not enjoyable. I would rather be out shooting and processing my photos in Capture One (which I recently upgraded and absolutely love).
Harvey,
I am sure Iliah wasn’t nitpicking or indulging in semantics – he undoubtedly has better uses for his time, but sometimes what at first sight appears to be a ‘technical quibble’, actually goes to the heart of someone’s lack of understanding. In this case, about metering, metering modes and auto ISO – and how they interact – or don’t.
The fact that you dismiss it as a technicality or silly banter just serves to show how off base you seem to be on some of this. So my advice would be first, to be sure of your facts before telling an expert he is quibbling and second, do some research on metering because what you have said about your methods and results strongly suggests there is a gap in your understanding.
Neither was I, or am I, picking a fight with you or anyone else.
Science doesn’t hold polite opinions on matters of fact. You’re right or you’re wrong or you don’t know – all of which is OK as long as your motivation is to learn.
I just call it as I see it based on the science – for which I frequently get berated. Curiously, there is one characteristic common to people who shout the loudest – they frequently know the least. And when they fail to make their case with facts grounded in science, they often unfortunately resort to ad hominem abuse of one kind or another.
Some choose to continue their photography using methods based on their ingrained beliefs. That’s OK if that’s what they want to do, but when they declare their beliefs as fact, a correction is in order lest they mislead others and of course, it offers them an opportunity to ‘see the light’.
So, no hard feelings and happy shooting.
Betty, I am frequently berated on this website for the same and/or similar reasons. I have previously stated on this website:
QUOTE [2015-08-30]
I usually spend many hours writing [as in: editing, rewriting, and creating many typos during the process!] each of my long technical comments.
The reason that I do this is because I think Nasim has created a website that might qualify as being one of the best [as in both technically accurate and easy to understand] encyclopaedias of photography that is available on the World Wide Web — it’s a gold mine of interesting information and education.
When I read comments on articles claiming that the author is wrong, or is just promoting a product, I think it is important to challenge such claims, rather than ignoring them. Leaving such claims unchallenged will likely cause non-expert readers of this website to doubt its authenticity.
END QUOTE
QOUTE [2016-04-12]
I’m sometimes very harsh to those who write comments because I deeply value the Photography Life website for being by far the most accurate encyclopaedia of photography that I have ever encountered. Why is it so accurate? Because Nasim adheres to the core scientific principles that enable science to be self-correcting, therefore, this website is an extremely valuable resource, both now, and for future generations.
END QUOTE
I shall do my utmost to honour those statements, to the very best of my ability, for the remainder of my life.
Betty, are you speaking on behalf of Iliah? I think he is perfectly capable of speaking for himself. If you recall, the debate between Iliah and I ended off on the definition of “semantics”, not based on “science” as you describe.
I still believe that Iliah was nitpicking. Perhaps he does not see it that way. For example, in the world of computer science, in which RAW software is written, a certain exactitude is required when writing with computer language. Even something as seemingly minor as misplaced punctuation can create a bug in a computer program. So, I do understand why Iliah may have a tendency to nitpick.
Harvey
“Betty, are you speaking on behalf of Iliah?”
No Harvey, I wouldn’t presume to do that. I was speaking on my own behalf – as always. It is however perfectly possible to hold a discourse based on what was said by someone else.
To refresh your memory…and get back to the point.
“Iliah said, “adjusts the ISO based on the metering mode set in-camera” is not correct. The adjustments take place based on meter readings, not mode.”
To which you replied, , “Iliah, aren’t we getting caught up in semantics regarding meter readings vs. meter mode? After all, aren’t meter readings dependent on the meter mode?”
That is you diverting a genuine scientific point into a spurious semantic one to cover the fact that you have no grasp of the concept he was putting to you and revealing your ignorance in all its glory.
“I still believe that Iliah was nitpicking.”
Of course you do.
That’s because your mind is closed to the possibility that you might simply not understand. You evidently prefer to cling to your ‘beliefs’ rather than face the discomfort of admitting the possibility that you might be afflicted with chronic anatomical dyslexia (inability to tell arse from elbow).
In fact you are so determined to be ‘right’ that you reject correction from two acknowledged experts in the field and ignore the self evident nonsense that happens when you apply your muddled thinking to your own photography – preferring instead to scurry down a rabbit hole of ‘semantics’ where you think you can cover your basic photographic illiteracy under a cloak of dictionary definitions.
The semantic point you are missing however, is the fact that you do not get the point.
Betty, I am not debating with you over your interpretation of another writer’s intent.
Harvey
There was never any discussion of another writer’s intent. The discussion was about what was said and what was said directly to you could not be clearer:
>> “adjusts the ISO based on the metering mode set in-camera” is not correct.
The adjustments take place based on meter readings, not mode.<>Yes, we are getting into semantics. Semantics, in fact, is the study of meaning.
“aren’t meter readings dependent on the meter mode”
ISO Auto knows nothing of the mode. Only the readings matter.<<
But you know better.
And of course you’re not going to debate further – you are filibustering because you’ve run out of places to hide.
I could retort and debate with you until the world ends. But I won’t. I would rather spend my time productively.
Harvey
“I could retort and debate with you until the world ends.”
I am sure you could spout hot air till the cows come home, but a filibuster is not a debate.
Filibuster: An action which obstructs progress especially by speaking at inordinate length.
“I would rather spend my time productively.”
I would like to suggest you start by learning the difference between metering and a metering mode and then go on to study how one of these is intimately connected to auto ISO and how the other isn’t.
Someone who has nothing better to do with her time than troll this site, picking fights with people, putting others down in a condescending way, telling me how to better use my time productively. Isn’t that fresh?
Harvey
Ah yes, now we have it – the ignoramus’ last stand.
When all else fails, when the argument is shown to be hollow and the semantic diversions no longer work, what does an ignoramus do to assuage a bruised ego?
Yes of course, turn to the ad hominem attack.
Now the follower of a site becomes a ‘troll’, commenting becomes ‘picking a fight’, making a suggestion becomes ‘being condescending’ and making a factual correction becomes ‘forcing one’s opinion’ – all peppered with a gentle rain of insulting epithets…
It’s really very sad in that had you simply asked for clarification, one of the experts would gladly have given you a fulsome explanation and you could have learned something of lasting benefit.
Instead, you chose to question their bona fides, put your own ignorance on display and have learned nothing.
Wikipedia: “In Internet slang, a troll (/ˈtroʊl/, /ˈtrɒl/) is a person who sows discord on the Internet by starting arguments or upsetting people, by posting inflammatory,[1] extraneous, or off-topic messages in an online community (such as a newsgroup, forum, chat room, or blog) with the deliberate intent of provoking readers into an emotional response[2] or of otherwise disrupting normal on-topic discussion,[3] often for their own amusement.”
Harvey
I see you continue to be big on semantics.
Well, setting aside the fact that you began the whole thing by trying to disseminate your home brewed nonsense, let’s refer to your definition:
1. You were the one who started the arguments – with Iliah, Pete A and myself.
2. You were the one went off topic with your silly, semantic detours.
3. You were the one who was abusive.
I will leave it to you to work out who the troll is.
Oh, and dealing with terminal stupidity is anything but amusing.
1. If you check the history of comments, you will see that it was indeed you who first addressed me on the debate. As for the others you mentioned, I will leave it up to them to speak for themselves.
2. The question of who was the first to go off topic is a matter of semantics.
3. If I had nothing better to do with my time, I am sure that I can compile paragraphs, if not pages, of abusive comments made by you, Betty, here on Photography Life.
Harvey wrote on 2016-07-26: “If you check the history of comments…”
Here’s a short summary thus far:
2016-07-15
At the risk of drawing criticism for what I am about to say, I feel that Betty’s tone is rather condescending to a number of posters. Based on the comments of some other posters, I believe that I am not alone in this sentiment. I feel that Betty has a lot to add in terms of content. If only she can be more polite to other posters who take the time to comment here.
2016-07-20
… Anyway, I am done arguing on here.
2016-07-21
Betty, is it physically possible for you not to be such a huge jerk? Your barrage of vitriol doesn’t warrant any more of my time responding. Surely, there will be others here for you to pick on. It surprises me that you have not been banned from this site yet. The day that happens, this site will be better for it. You are one angry, bitter, negative, condescending narcissist. I am out of here.
2016-07-24
I still believe that Iliah was nitpicking.
2016-07-25
I could retort and debate with you until the world ends. But I won’t. I would rather spend my time productively.
2016-07-26
Someone who has nothing better to do with her time than troll this site, picking fights with people, putting others down in a condescending way, telling me how to better use my time productively. Isn’t that fresh?
2016-07-26
If I had nothing better to do with my time, I am sure that I can compile paragraphs, if not pages, of abusive comments made by you, Betty, here on Photography Life.
Pete A
Thank you.
Harvey
1. As Pete A points out, you ‘stuck your head in’ at the outset to make an unprovoked, personal criticism.
2. The matter of who first went off topic is anything but a matter of semantics.
As plus resident expert on semantics, you should know that.
3. Using humour, sarcasm, irony is part of the cut and thrust of debate. Guilty.
The inability to distinguish between that and abuse is infantile.
Yes, I am aware that it is a public forum. Sadly, I allowed myself to get dragged into a childish debate in a public forum. That’s not something that Betty or I should be proud of. It does not look good on Photography Life either.
Harvey
No one dragged you into anything.
You got there under your own steam by ‘provoking’ the expert writer of an excellent article; implying he did not understand the terminology used in his own field of expertise.
True, Betty, that you had not yet provoked me when I first mentioned that your tone is condescending. Although you had not yet provoked me, that does not mean that your condescending tone did not affect me and others here; I, and surely many others, come here to read information and learn, not to read about people putting others down in a very disrespectful way.
So, Betty, if your condescending comments are simply your attempts at humor, sarcasm, and irony, then why is nobody here laughing at what you say?
Harvey
First and with respect, if there was less concern with tone and more with content, there would be less hot air and more intake of useful information.
Second, joining a discussion is not a ‘provocation’. If you feel provoked, you would be better served attending an anger management class than an internet forum.
Third, condescension is in the eye of the beholder.
Unfortunately, some feel ’condescended’ when their unsubstantiated beliefs are questioned.
That is something for them to come to terms with; it is not for me, Pete A or others to pander to their pseudoscientific delusions under PL’s banner.
I can’t help feeling that some of the ruffled feathers would get a good deal less ruffled had the comment came from a Bill rather than a Betty. But perhaps I am being oversensitive? (It’s one of my failings).
If you care to actually read my opening comments in most discourses, they are almost invariably polite, straightforward and factual. This is frequently taken as ‘condescension’ and often ’provokes’ a heated defence – more often than not accompanied by abuse of one kind or another. At that point the gloves come off. Some no doubt gain some amusement or even learn from what ensues, others not.
C’est la vie.
Betty, you are condescending. Very condescending. I don’t think you realize just how condescending you are. And it has nothing to do with your gender. Nothing at all. It has everything to do with the way you talk to people.