How to get the best raw exposure, part 2

I prefer to look at it differently. Learn how your camera works. Use that knowledge to make the best pictures you can given the circumstances and the intended usage.

That's wise advice and we should all learn out tools.

We are both good photographers and both strive to "make the best pictures you can" (to quote you) and I agree. We would agree on lighting, composition and those other things that add up to make a good image.

However, where we diverge is what 'make the best picture you can" means.

You define making the best pictures you can as slowing down and striving the achieve the best technical file that the tech in your hands can deliver.

Whereas I define making the best pictures I can as nailing a decisive moment by setting my cameras up to be instantly ready for anything, at the expense of the very best IQ file technically.

This should be no surprise, as we photograph different things with different priorities.

It's not a question of not understanding anything, to me it's ALWAYS about relating that back real world scenarios.

It think that's entirely situational. If I were faced with the kinds of assignments that you are, I might do pretty much the same as you do (although I think I'd probably use lower ISOs in dim light).

If you were doing the kind of work I do, you might work more like me.

The discussion about getting the best raw exposure is not about getting the best picture. This thread is about getting the best technical quality.
Knowing how to get the best image technical IQ does not guarantee a good final result.
Ansel Adams said famously: There's nothing worse than a sharp image of a fuzzy concept. He was also famous for pursuing technical excellence with vigor.
It is a pity when talent is wasted because of a lack of technical knowledge.

This passive-aggressive stuff of labeling me as stupid without actually saying it is getting a bit tiresome. You keep hinting I'm missing something but never say what. It's somewhat frustrating. For example "You seem to think of it as any technique that gives a 'good exposure'" --- which is implying that it is nothing of the kind and I'm daft to think so. I'm putting up with it because I want to make sure I'm really not missing something.

And again guessing what you think I mean and ignoring what I tell you I mean. There is no reason why you should persist in trying to get me to admit I have the wrong conception of what ETTR is. It's a meaningless quest. My conception may or may not be correct, but it is sufficient for the task at hand. We want to use exposure settings that provide us with the maximum data and least noise in our files. That's my definition of "good exposure" - perfectly simple, perfectly unambiguous and perfectly straight forward:

1. Shoot raw
2. Base ISO
3. Give the sensor as much light as possible without saturating it.
4. To give the sensor that much light choose aperture and shutter that maxes out the histogram to the right without creating a peak and blowing highlights.

The method used to achieve the desired exposure #4 above is often called ETTR. That's a good term for what we are doing. And there is no harm in calling the goal of said exposure ETTR either. Anybody knows what is meant. One does not need to speak in precise terms to be understood. Context is sufficient to cover minor inaccuracies.

Now do you disagree with any of 1 - 4? If you do, let's talk about what you disagree with and skip all this unhelpful "lacking understanding", "making category errors" judgemental ad hom stuff.

EDIT: And please don't let this become the Danno vs Donald MkII show....

By the way, with Sony a1x, a7x cameras, you can use auto-ISO in A mode and control headroom with your thumb on the EC wheel. Crank in negative EC as the light level drops.

Deriving best practices from knowledge and situation.
Knowledge of demosaicking suggests to avoid it for certain types of work ;)

At last we have found a form of words to put across the point that we basically agree. I agree with everything you say technically. If I were working like you I'd adopt these best practices. And you largely agree with my approach for my genres. Although you'd tackle my genres slightly differently. Which is of course fine!

All I've ever wanted to do is to join the dots of best practice vs genre specific needs.

I don't want novices and the less experienced to end of confused and daunted, or to feel that they cannot be successful without putting the science first and foremost.

Now imagine you are working in a well-equipped studio doing repro work for a good museum and for good money, does it change your definition?

Sometimes the context may be clear to you but not to others. That is why, especially online, the precision of expression and thoughts is essential. It requires a bit more work but is an excellent practice to deepen understanding of the issue.

Totally agreed. And Ansel Adams was correct. "There's nothing worse than a sharp image of a fuzzy concept". Equally, you could say "there's nothing worse than a technically perfect perfect raw file that missed the decisive moment"

All I've tried to do with this and similar threads is bring it all back to nailing an actual shot. I don't disagree with the science:)

There is no reason to dismiss technical knowledge even if in the end it may not be the most important part of image-making.

I think we're on the same page here. The science should be used to make the images you want to make, not to dictate what images you end up with.

Yup.

You seem to be testing something here. I'm afraid I'm going to disappoint you, I've never been in a studio, well equipped or otherwise, I don't know exactly what repro work means or what is involved. My best guess is your question has something to do with being able to control the level of the ambient light?

I think we've always been on the same page. Just that we've been coming at it from opposite directions until we meet in the middle.

Hopefully that middle ground is a place that resonates with the less experienced and doesn't scare them off :)

I never test people.
Repro - is making reproductions (of, say, paintings).
I use stacking to effectively lower ISO to something like 6; I use magenta filters on the flashes to get better exposure of red and blue channels (but I do it for outdoors too when needed, putting a filter in front of the lens or into the filter compartment), I can use multi-spectral images, and in certain cases - if a document is fragile, and flashes are out of question - monochrome camera with 5 to 9 colour filters.