the last word

Photography meets digital computer technology. Photography wins -- most of the time.

  • site home
  • blog home
  • galleries
  • contact
  • underwater
  • the bleeding edge
You are here: Home / The Last Word / ETTR in perspective

ETTR in perspective

May 24, 2012 JimK 4 Comments

As we’ve seen in the previous posts and in one comment thread, the main reason – some say the only reason – to use the expose-to-the-right method is to achieve minimum noise. If you’re using an iPhone, that’s important all the time. With a point and shoot camera, it’s important most of the time. With a micro four-thirds camera, it’s important some of the time. With an APS-C sensor, it’s important in dim light. With a 24x36mm sensor, it’s rarely important, especially if you res your images down to 12 megapixels or less.

On a pixel-for-pixel basis, the sensor technology being equal, the signal to noise ratio (SNR) is proportional to the square root of the photosite area. This means the SNR is proportional to the pixel pitch.

It’s not really fair to compare noise in cameras with wildly varying resolution. Fortunately, we don’t have to. Consider two cameras using full frame sensors with the same technology, one 40 megapixels, and the other 10 megapixels. The sensor with more pixels will have half the SNR of the sensor with fewer, if the measurements are performed under the same conditions. If we res down the 40 megapixel to 10 megapixels, to a first approximation it will have the same SNR as the 10 megapixel camera. So, technology and output resolution held constant, the SNR of a camera is proportional to the linear dimensions (length, width, or diagonal – your choice, if the aspect ratio is the same) of the sensor.

So, if a full frame camera, measured under a standard set of conditions with its output file res’ed to a certain resolution has an SNR of x, an APS-C camera will have an SNR of 0.7x. A micro four-thirds camera will have an SNR of half of x. A Leica D-Lux 4 will have an SNR of one quarter x. An iPhone will have an SNR of one-eighth of x. Going the other way, a medium format camera will have an SNR of somewhat less than 2x, and a 4×5 scanning back will have an SNR of a little less than 4x.

Can we quantify the SNR effects of ETTR? Indeed we can. Let’s take an image that’s exposed perfectly to the right. No clipping or blown highlights, but information in the very top histogram bucket. Let’s pick a pixel group in that image, and measure its SNR. Let’s say it measures y. If we underexpose one stop from the perfect ETTR image, that pixel group will have an SNR of 0.7y.  If we’re two stops under, the SNR is half of y. Four stops under, and it’s a quarter.

So, from a noise point of view, you can turn your full frame SLR into a micro four-thirds camera by underexposing by two stops, a point-and-shoot by underexposing by four stops, and into an iPhone by underexposing by six stops.

Admittedly, I’m painting with a truly broad brush here. The sensor technology in the iPhone is probably different from that in a D4 by more than just geometry. Still, I think it’s a useful way of looking at ETTR.

Then there’s the issue of having too little noise. There seems to be a groundswell of people saying digital is bad because it’s too good. A couple of representative examples:

Christian Popkes:“Digital photography is actually too perfect, too ideal – somehow sterile.” http://h41140.www4.hp.com/mac_connect/uk/en/christian_popkes.html

“Holger”: “Digital may be sharper, grain-free, flexible. But to me it simply is too perfect…”  http://www.apug.org/forums/archive/index.php/t-68235.html

If you buy that point of view, then ETTR may be moving your work in the wrong direction.

 

The Last Word

← Histogram depopulation in image editing, part 6 Adobe Pixel Bender →

Comments

  1. John says

    May 25, 2012 at 2:15 pm

    There are valid times where ETTR can be important to use on APC and “full frame” cameras.

    When the dynamic range of the scene is wide. You would then want to use ETTR Capture as much of the lower tones. The overall range could then be compressed in Lightroom.

    Not as well known is using ETTR to maximize the exposure (best SNR) of a flat, narrow dynamic range scene. By pushing the exposure as far to the right, without blowing any highlights, you will have minimized noise. This is important if you want to spread out the tones to enhance the contrast.

    Reply
  2. Jim says

    May 25, 2012 at 2:22 pm

    I’ve got no argument with any of that. I was speaking in generalizations, and you’ve pointed out places where I was over-general. I expect that others will find fault with my admittedly greatly simplified SNR calculations.

    Jim

    Reply

Trackbacks

  1. Auto ETTR in P&S cameras | The Last Word says:
    November 30, 2012 at 8:24 am

    […] from all cameras. You could argue that the ones with the smallest sensors need the most help. See here for an […]

    Reply
  2. Raw histogram approximation — why bother? | The Last Word says:
    December 10, 2012 at 9:51 am

    […] dealt with some of that here. Here’s a salient excerpt: So, if a full frame camera, measured under a standard set of […]

    Reply

Leave a Reply Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

March 2023
S M T W T F S
 1234
567891011
12131415161718
19202122232425
262728293031  
« Jan    

Articles

  • About
    • Patents and papers about color
    • Who am I?
  • Good 35-70 MF lens
  • How to…
    • Backing up photographic images
    • How to change email providers
  • Lens screening testing
    • Equipment and Software
    • Examples
      • Bad and OK 200-600 at 600
      • Excellent 180-400 zoom
      • Fair 14-30mm zoom
      • Good 100-200 mm MF zoom
      • Good 100-400 zoom
      • Good 100mm lens on P1 P45+
      • Good 120mm MF lens
      • Good 18mm FF lens
      • Good 24-105 mm FF lens
      • Good 24-70 FF zoom
      • Good 35 mm FF lens
      • Good 60 mm lens on IQ3-100
      • Good 63 mm MF lens
      • Good 65 mm FF lens
      • Good 85 mm FF lens
      • Good and bad 25mm FF lenses
      • Good zoom at 24 mm
      • Marginal 18mm lens
      • Marginal 35mm FF lens
      • Mildly problematic 55 mm FF lens
      • OK 16-35mm zoom
      • OK 60mm lens on P1 P45+
      • OK Sony 600mm f/4
      • Pretty good 16-35 FF zoom
      • Pretty good 90mm FF lens
      • Problematic 400 mm FF lens
      • Tilted 20 mm f/1.8 FF lens
      • Tilted 30 mm MF lens
      • Tilted 50 mm FF lens
      • Two 15mm FF lenses
    • Found a problem – now what?
    • Goals for this test
    • Minimum target distances
      • MFT
      • APS-C
      • Full frame
      • Small medium format
    • Printable Siemens Star targets
    • Target size on sensor
      • MFT
      • APS-C
      • Full frame
      • Small medium format
    • Test instructions — postproduction
    • Test instructions — reading the images
    • Test instructions – capture
    • Theory of the test
    • What’s wrong with conventional lens screening?
  • Previsualization heresy
  • Privacy Policy
  • Recommended photographic web sites
  • Using in-camera histograms for ETTR
    • Acknowledgments
    • Why ETTR?
    • Normal in-camera histograms
    • Image processing for in-camera histograms
    • Making the in-camera histogram closely represent the raw histogram
    • Shortcuts to UniWB
    • Preparing for monitor-based UniWB
    • A one-step UniWB procedure
    • The math behind the one-step method
    • Iteration using Newton’s Method

Category List

Recent Comments

  • JimK on Fujifilm GFX 100S pixel shift, visuals
  • Sarmed Mirza on Fujifilm GFX 100S pixel shift, visuals
  • lancej on Two ways to improve the Q2 handling
  • JimK on Sony 135 STF on GFX-50R, sharpness
  • K on Sony 135 STF on GFX-50R, sharpness
  • Mal Paso on Christmas tree light bokeh with the XCD 38V on the X2D
  • Sebastian on More on tilted adapters
  • JimK on On microlens size in the GFX 100 and GFX 50R/S
  • Kyle Krug on On microlens size in the GFX 100 and GFX 50R/S
  • JimK on Hasselblad X2D electronic shutter scan time

Archives

Copyright © 2023 · Daily Dish Pro On Genesis Framework · WordPress · Log in

Unless otherwise noted, all images copyright Jim Kasson.