Which photo Can survive? Over or Under-exposed photo?

[alireza852019]

Hi...

Which photo has the chance to be recovered more successfully? An "over-exposed" photo or an "under-exposed" one?

Thanks

[Todd Shaner]

https://forums.adobe.com/people/Bob+Somrak  wrote

Quote isn't working today for me

If you're using FireFox a "refresh" fixed it for me. Type about:support in the search box and then click on 'Refresh Firefox.' more here: Refresh Firefox - reset add-ons and settings | Firefox Help

[Bob Somrak]

https://forums.adobe.com/people/Todd+Shaner  wrote

https://forums.adobe.com/people/Bob+Somrak   wrote

Quote isn't working today for me

If you're using FireFox a "refresh" fixed it for me. Type about:support in the search box and then click on 'Refresh Firefox.' more here: Refresh Firefox - reset add-ons and settings | Firefox Help

Thanks Todd.

Its now working for me as you can see.  This has been happening for a few days where it works randomly.  I hit quote and I end up with a BLANK quote box. I am using Apple Safari on Mojave 10.14.4.  I did clear Safari History and have the Safari Develop Menu installed where I can clear the caches.  It wasn't working this morning and now a couple hours later it works.  I updated to Mojave 10.14.4 a week ago so maybe Apple messed something up.   The STRANGEST thing is I could quote messages previous to the last one in the thread but NOT the last one.

[Todd Shaner]

I'm on Windows 10 so probably another Jive issue Adobe needs to fix. It first happened to me about a year ago.

Quote Previous Message Button Not Working

[Jao vdL]

thedigitaldog  wrote

Not the original article that defined ETTR, from Michael Reichmann way back in 2003:

https://luminous-landscape.com/expose-right/

Nothing bogus about what he wrote based on his learnings from Thomas Knoll. It's just time for the term to go away as we have tools and ways to examine the actual raw data to understand exposure. We don't need to futz with moving a lie about the data (a JPEG Histogram) 'to the right'. We simply need to ignore that Histogram and examine one that tells us exactly about the effect of exposure on that data. When Michael wrote this piece, such tools didn't exist.

And they still DON'T exist in ACR or LR and they easily could. 

We're going way of topic now but yeah that article has some problems. He is absolutely right on the effect and the philosophy but the reasoning and the physics quoted is not correct. The table for example where it is explained that the number of bits per stop goes down if you go deeper in the shadows. This is strictly correct, but it is not the reason to expose optimally. It simply does not matter because in the lowest stops because of photon physics and amplifier noise, the noise level is always above a single bit whether you under or overexpose. This happens because the signal to noise ratio goes as sqrt(N)/N where N is the number of detected photons. At low N, the SNR is always much larger than at high levels. So the linear capture is not a problem at all. What is an issue is that for small exposures, the SNR is high. That is simple physics, so you simply need to maximize exposure while avoiding highlight clipping in important areas. Nothing to do with bits/stop.

We really would need a raw histogram indeed. I would love that. only thing needed is to apply a log scale on the x axis and you get a really useful visualization of the data.

[Bob Somrak]

alireza852019  wrote

Hi...

Which photo has the chance to be recovered more successfully? An "over-exposed" photo or an "under-exposed" one?

Thanks

Getting back to the OP's original question, I think they need to define HOW MUCH over or underexposed they are talking about.  If it has blown highlights (that are unintentional) than it is a throw away unless you are willing to do some repair in Photoshop.  If it is extremely underexposed than how much noise and other issues are you willing to accept. I for one don't like blown highlights

[TheDigitalDog]

https://forums.adobe.com/people/Bob+Somrak  wrote

alireza852019   wrote

Hi...

Which photo has the chance to be recovered more successfully? An "over-exposed" photo or an "under-exposed" one?

Thanks

Getting back to the OP's original question, I think they need to define HOW MUCH over or underexposed they are talking about.  If it has blown highlights (that are unintentional) than it is a throw away unless you are willing to do some repair in Photoshop.  If it is extremely underexposed than how much noise and other issues are you willing to accept. I for one don't like blown highlights

Outlined above but again:

https://www.fastrawviewer.com/blog/in-camera-histogram-doesn%27t-represent-exposure

http://digitaldog.net/files/ExposeForRaw.pdf

https://www.fastrawviewer.com/blog/spot-meter-exposure

https://www.rawdigger.com/howtouse/exposure-for-raw-or-for-jpegs

[alireza852019]

Wowww! too many replies on my question. I'll read'em & answer those & pick the best & right answer asap!.

Thank you all.

Alireza

[D Fosse]

alireza852019  wrote

Wowww! too many replies on my question.

Too many? Not at all. Rarely have I seen a question so completely answered, all of it right on target. This is one of those few cases where I need to bookmark a thread for future reference, and so should you Excellent stuff, thanks everybody.