I usually do it in low contrast situations or in situations where only the highlights really matter and I am happy to see the rest of the image reduced to almost a silhouette.
Why would you choose to do it in high-contrast situations? Are you reducing the contrast substantially?
Not going to get into an English equivalence debate with you. Do whatever makes you happy.
To tame the highlights and then add contrast in shadow and highlights manually.
Or in other terms, you're happy to lay down the law about what you think it means, but not happy to discuss whether or not that could possibly be wrong.
How are you obtaining a linear tone curve?
Well, you've covered the ground by admitting that you can't 'exactly' replicated a scene and you could make a 'reasonable replication'. But you can't make any sort of replication, under your definition of 'replicate'. A photograph is an optical illusion, depending on a number of perceptual tricks to work. These work to a smaller or larger extent, and can produce a convincing illusion of viewing the scene, but what they can't do is replicate it.
Last time I was in London, I passed several restaurants that had a sign in the window offering to serve me a "proper" burger. If I had known it was a grandiose burger, I may have gone in.
I like to think of it as there are different exposure strategies. Which one is used determines what sort of post-processing, either in-camera or with software, is required. My personal experience was first with regular "middle gray" anchoring, and I found I regularly had to mitigate blown highlights with whatever highlight reconstruction tools my raw processor offered. Recently, I've been using my camera's highlight-weighted matrix metering with a +1EV exposure compensation to keep highlights in the sensor's ability to resolve, but then I have to spend time in post-processing with a custom tone curve to pull up the lower tones. Very scene-dependent.
Pick yer poison...
OT, but you've just reminded me of the difference between a UK Wimpy's burger and a classically grandiose Texas burger
I am using the Cobalt Repro profile. Free linear profiles and instructions on how to make them yourself are available here:
Linear Profile Respository
I would be interested in the answer to that because I was looking at linear processing this very week. In the GIMP, one can select 'Linear' in the color management menu but I don't know exactly what that does ...
Don't worry, if it goes on too long I'll put myself in the Dumpster.
Thank you for that link.
GIMP uses ICC profiles for color management. ICC profiles contain two things: 1) a color matrix, and 2) a tone curve. Selecting "linear" would mean that a profile with what I'll call an "identity" tone curve is selected, where the tone curve really doesn't do anything to the image. Such a profile will effectively only do the color transform.
Thanks Geoff. Some time ago I got Linear RIMM V4 from the ICC website, so might be able to play with that in the GIMP or even RawTherapee ...
... meanwhile, I just posted this "over there" .
You've answered your own question 😀
I would describe a photo as a representation of a scene. To say a photo replicates a scene suggests a physical recreation; a process more akin to 3D printing than photography.
Interesting.
I've been using the phrase, optimal exposure, as meaning the maximum exposure within my needs for depth of field and rendering of movement that does not blow out important highlights.
Optimal, is an adjective often understood as meaning the best or most advantageous. Proper, is an adjective often understood as meaning suitable or acceptable.
Some use proper as synonymous for correct or right. In that context, if a person believes there is only one correct or right answer, proper could be viewed as synonymous with optimal. Personally, I use the term in the former context: his conduct was not perfect but it was proper.
In many people's usage - including mine - proper is not synonymous with optimal.
Truth be told, I sometimes strive to achieve a proper exposure. In other words, I'm not always seeking the best exposure. It's not always a priority to maximize exposure within my creative goals for a photo. I often seek an acceptable exposure within the constraints of my creative objectives.
The difference may be as little as 1/3 to 2/3 stop of light, but it's measurable and, in the opinion of at least some, of enough significance to merit a distinction between an optimal and proper exposure.
I would slightly modify the above-quoted definition to read: a proper exposure is one that produces acceptable noise, depth of field and motion blur without blowing out important highlights.
In other words it's an exposure that puts enough light on the sensor that noise visibility in the photo will be acceptable, that doesn't put so much light on the sensor that important highlight details are irrecoverlable, and that meets my needs for depth of field and rendering of movement.
It's subjective - perhaps, more a characterization than a definition - but I have difficulty separating the photographer's personal aesthetic and goals from the pursuit of an acceptable or optimal exposure.
If I could reference the Blackjack analogy that I used in my Lenrentals post, I don't generally try for 21 when I'm picking the exposure. 18 or 19 is fine with me.
