# Want to Increase The Dynamic Range of Your EOS 5D Mark IV Raw Files?



## Canon Rumors Guy (Feb 10, 2018)

```
FastRawViewer and RAWDigger have created a utility that will split the Dual Pixel RAW files from the Canon EOS 5D Mark IV do increase dynamic range of the highlights about +1EV in a single explosure.</p>
<p><a href="https://www.fastrawviewer.com/DPRSplit"><strong>FastRAWViewer</strong></a> explains how this works:</p>
<blockquote><p>Canon 5D Mark IV’s sensor has a somewhat unusual pixel arrangement: each pixel is composed of two subpixels. If Dual Pixel RAW mode is enabled in the camera, the resulting CR2 file contains two images, or two frames: one composite, made from reading both subpixels, summed; and the other is made out of one set of subpixels.</p>
<p>The intended use of this arrangement is to enable some extra editing after the shot: because of the parallax between the subpixels, Canon Digital Photo Professional software allows one to preform microadjustment of focus, bokeh shift, and ghosting reduction.</p>
<p>However, there is one more possible use for a dual-pixel raw, which is not covered by the manufacturer: <strong>the second frame, the one that is made out of one set of subpixels, collects half of the light that the composite frame does, as if it was exposed one stop lower compared to the composite frame.</strong></p>
<p>In essence, in Dual Pixel Raw mode, the camera records into one file some <em>equivalent of two shots, <strong>bracketed by (approximately) 1 EV</strong></em>.</p></blockquote>
<p>This tool will give the EOS 5D Mark IV about +1 EV of usable dynamic range, making it one of the best stills cameras on the market in that regard.. The advantage to this over bracketing your shots, is there’s no risk of motion blur as it happens in one exposure.</p>
<p>As <a href="https://www.canonnews.com/need-1ev-more-highlight-room-from-your-5d-mark-iv-fastrawviewer-has-the-tool">Canon News notes</a>, there will be a slight parallax error, which means a close and far element will appear at slightly different angles to each other.</p>
<p>Read more about and download the application <a href="https://www.fastrawviewer.com/DPRSplit"><strong>here</strong></a>.</p>
<span id="pty_trigger"></span>
```


----------



## BeenThere (Feb 10, 2018)

Would there be slightly more noise in the 1/2 pixel frame because some noise is canceled when adding two sub frames together (The composite frame)? I don’t see any other downside to the technique other than the extra processing steps/time.


----------



## midluk (Feb 10, 2018)

The high ISO performance of this half pixel would likely be like that of a crop sensor with a crop factor of 1.4. 
And out of focus highlights will very likely be only half visible in the half image.


----------



## IglooEater (Feb 10, 2018)

I’d love to see this worked through. There will be a parallax errors of course, but how much will that influence the output? More than one stop more DR I’m guessing..?


----------



## BeenThere (Feb 10, 2018)

Parallax from two points 1/2 pixel apart would be negligible. Camera shake is at least that much.


----------



## 3dit0r (Feb 10, 2018)

Intriguing. Would love to see some results if someone has a play. Just about to order my 5D mark IV so can’t try it myself right now.


----------



## rrcphoto (Feb 10, 2018)

midluk said:


> And out of focus highlights will very likely be only half visible in the half image.



true. if it wasn't a bayer sensor.


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (Feb 10, 2018)

I decided to try this, its actually sunny out, so I took some photos with both white and dark objects in them, expecting that the white would be blown out. It turns out that the 5D IV didblow out the whites in the final image, but not beyond recovery.


The Result of combining the extracted image with the CR2 was AWFUL! The outline of the trees that is present in the extracted frame. YUK!


1. The Image from Lightroom with no adjustments, white post blown out but not beyond recovery.









2. The extracted Bright frame, not as blown out as the original.








3. The composite frame using photomerge in Lightroom. Notice the outline around the trees looks awful!









4. A photo adjusted just clicking the autotone button in Lightroom. Much Better.


----------



## rrcphoto (Feb 10, 2018)

Mt Spokane Photography said:


> I decided to try this, its actually sunny out, so I took some photos with both white and dark objects in them, expecting that the white would be blown out. It turns out that the 5D IV didblow out the whites in the final image, but not beyond recovery.
> 
> 
> The Result of combining the extracted image with the CR2 was AWFUL! The outline of the trees that is present in the extracted frame.



well, your image would have been partially distorted by parallax. were you trying to do that on purpose?

and it looks like LR didn't handle the blending well at all tbh.


----------



## IglooEater (Feb 10, 2018)

Mt Spokane Photography said:


> I decided to try this, its actually sunny out, so I took some photos with both white and dark objects in them, expecting that the white would be blown out. It turns out that the 5D IV didblow out the whites in the final image, but not beyond recovery.
> 
> 
> The Result of combining the extracted image with the CR2 was AWFUL! The outline of the trees that is present in the extracted frame. YUK!



Huh, thanks for the comparison!

I’m curious- do you think it would be better if one was* to stop down to make the background was in focus? Or would it not change because the difference distance between foreground and background remains the same?

*were or was correction possibly needed from Alan or Orangutan


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (Feb 11, 2018)

rrcphoto said:


> Mt Spokane Photography said:
> 
> 
> > I decided to try this, its actually sunny out, so I took some photos with both white and dark objects in them, expecting that the white would be blown out. It turns out that the 5D IV didblow out the whites in the final image, but not beyond recovery.
> ...



If it was distorted by parallax, that's how it is going to be for users, I don't know how to prevent it, 10 ft away from the post.

Lr does not work well for combining images, but the result is awful, more than usual so something is going on.

The bottom line is that for reasonably over exposed images, just adjusting the raw 5D MK IV in Lightroom works better and is easier. I did not attempt to purposely over expose a image, just like I don't take photos with a lens cap on or boost exposure 5 stops.


Because Lightroom is pretty bad at merging images, I downloaded a trial of Helicon. Its much better, but still will need some tweaking. Here is the file just as it came out. No outline of the trees!


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (Feb 11, 2018)

I also tried zerene Stacker, but it could not handle the DNG files generated by DPRSplit.


----------



## rrcphoto (Feb 11, 2018)

do you have the dng's? could i get them - I'll try them through photomatix.


----------



## EzDingo (Feb 11, 2018)

Quick test... 

1. Original RAW unprocessed

2. Original RAW + 100% highlight recovery

3. Original RAW + 100% highlight recovery with window area masked from Frame 2 of dual pixel file with again 100% highlight recovery.

Note both frames were processed to match exposure. In other words the darker frames exposure was raised to match the lighter frame making masking the window in seamless and simple for this quick test.


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (Feb 11, 2018)

rrcphoto said:


> do you have the dng's? could i get them - I'll try them through photomatix.


The original photo plus extracted dng is here. I merged the cr2 original and the dng (both are basically tiff images). 


https://www.dropbox.com/sh/jvh7khyc5xlcnv3/AACK0Rwh-rBKC8QFoXo4qRTua?dl=0


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (Feb 11, 2018)

I tried Photomatix using the free Demo.

It is close to doing the adjustment in lightroom by pushing the auto tome button. I really like the result. There is a slight ghosting around the trees, I think a skilled user could eliminate that.


----------



## Lucidmike78 (Feb 11, 2018)

I did some landscape type shots with my 16-35 F4 IS at f8. After Photomerge, the sky and the clouds looked incredible. Much better than using a CPL and or Clarity slider in Lightroom. There is something to this Dual Pixel RAW tool. I'm looking forward to playing with it.


----------



## [email protected] (Feb 11, 2018)

Hey, thanks for posting those real results. It looks like there's really something to it, if you use the right software, and you spend a gob of time on it. For the once-in-lifetime shot that needs saving, well worth it. Love this forum exactly because people like Mt Spokane add real data to the mix. Appreciate it!


----------



## ritholtz (Feb 11, 2018)

[email protected] said:


> Hey, thanks for posting those real results. It looks like there's really something to it, if you use the right software, and you spend a gob of time on it. For the once-in-lifetime shot that needs saving, well worth it. Love this forum exactly because people like Mt Spokane add real data to the mix. Appreciate it!


Can canon implement this merging feature into their firmware?


----------



## rrcphoto (Feb 11, 2018)

Mt Spokane Photography said:


> I tried Photomatix using the free Demo.
> 
> It is close to doing the adjustment in lightroom by pushing the auto tome button. I really like the result. There is a slight ghosting around the trees, I think a skilled user could eliminate that.



photomatix has been my go-to software for this for years.

I may give auroaHDR a try but it will take alot for me to get rid of photomatix.

I think the trick for this is use TIFFS.. 

take the regular exposure - leave alone.
take the -1EV exposure .. adjust for highlight clipping
blend exposures.

using DPRAW is HTP on steroids.


----------



## rrcphoto (Feb 11, 2018)

[email protected] said:


> Hey, thanks for posting those real results. It looks like there's really something to it, if you use the right software, and you spend a gob of time on it.



it's really not that much work really. and even though it doubles the size of the RAW if you are shooting a wedding,etc or something with alot of white, it just may save you by giving you that additional exposure.


----------



## privatebydesign (Feb 11, 2018)

I'm not seeing anything groundbreaking.


----------



## aceflibble (Feb 11, 2018)

What I'm seeing from y'all testing is a lot of overestimating what 1 stop difference in dynamic range looks like.

And heads up, if you're comparing it to the recovery sliders in Lightroom, bear in mind that the LR sliders at 100% typically work out to be 2-2.5 stops. (Exactly how much depends on the file in question; neither slider can be measured in hard stops and they don't scale in a linear fashion). So if you can match that with this methodology, that means you're able to push this further than the initial 1-stop claim. (Which isn't surprising because usually combining two images which are 1 stop apart in exposure does usually work out to equal about 1.5 stops of added range, as the dynamic range of each exposure doesn't simply scale up/down linearly, either.)

tl;dr version: This appears to work, parallax aside. I'd agree with anybody who says they don't see the point because it's more effort than simply using recovery sliders for basically the same end result, but I don't agree with anybody who isn't impressed that this can work, or suggests it doesn't work. Getting 1 stop _or more_ recoverable data isn't to be sniffed at.


----------



## privatebydesign (Feb 11, 2018)

(


JP4DESIGNZ said:


> I also uploaded 2 pics of a church nearby using DPRSplit.
> https://goo.gl/UWVrwh



Neither exposure is blowing highlights so the differences are not realizable.

Here is both frames adjusted in LR to optimal, they are essentially the same. The second screen shot is the before after of the image with the higher exposure, nothing is blown.

To be sure the only way you can realize any benefit from this Dual Pixel ability is if you ETTR and the 'normal' exposure blows highlights and the 'secondary' exposure doesn't, then you can realize the 1 stop more range in those non-blown highlights from the secondary frame.


----------



## cgc (Feb 12, 2018)

I think that the current DPRAW implementation by Canon has not the properties required for a job requiring critical quality. Beyond than blending issues there are other artifacts which can be noticeable:

http://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic/1453555/0

For example, take a photo of a evenly illuminated white wall and look at the -1EV exposed frame: its lighting levels won't be uniform (a side will be brighter than the other):

http://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic/1447974/3&year=2016#13705105


----------



## Pax2You (Feb 12, 2018)

I originally tried combining the posted files (thank you by the way) using an hdr merge in Affinity but I had ghosting with the automatic alignment and artifacts when I tried the "remove ghosting" option. So I took a different route. I did an image stack and chose "Mean". This created a more realistic exposure merge. I then manually aligned the image before exporting as a Tiff then tweaking in LR 5.7. You can definitely see the offset between the images. I didn't sharpen at all and didn't do more than basic processing. This method gave me no apparent haloing or artifacts. Interesting....


----------



## mclaren777 (Feb 12, 2018)

EzDingo said:


> Quick test...



Thank you for testing this out.


----------



## EzDingo (Feb 12, 2018)

NP... As the original article mentions [IF] any part of the image is actually clipped then there is about 1 stop of extra highlight detail to be had from the dual pixel alternate frame. Trying to process these 2 frames in a HDR method does not seem logical to me compared with direct masking back in some extra highlights if required.


----------



## bludragon (Feb 12, 2018)

Can anyone explain the math behind this one? I mean, if the normal image is made up by summing the two values from each half of a dual pixel, which each collect half the light, how is it better than just halving brightness in the original image?

The only way I could see it helping is if the file format runs out of bits to store the max value from combining the dual pixels. That is the case for jpegs which drop some of the highlight detail, but I'd be surprised if it is the case for regular RAW files.


----------



## SecureGSM (Feb 12, 2018)

https://www.rawdigger.com/howtouse/canon-dual-pixel-mode-highlights-are-there



bludragon said:


> Can anyone explain the math behind this one? I mean, if the normal image is made up by summing the two values from each half of a dual pixel, which each collect half the light, how is it better than just halving brightness in the original image? ...


----------



## hne (Feb 12, 2018)

bludragon said:


> Can anyone explain the math behind this one? I mean, if the normal image is made up by summing the two values from each half of a dual pixel, which each collect half the light, how is it better than just halving brightness in the original image?
> 
> The only way I could see it helping is if the file format runs out of bits to store the max value from combining the dual pixels. That is the case for jpegs which drop some of the highlight detail, but I'd be surprised if it is the case for regular RAW files.



Each half-pixel is going through an analog-to-digital converter and ends up in a 14 bit memory slot as a number between 0 and 16383, for example 8375 being 10 0000 1011 0111 and 8402 being 10 0000 1101 0010. The two half-pixels are then added together into a new 14 bit memory slot, 8375+8402=16777 or 100 0001 1000 1001 which wouldn't fit in 14 bits. The value is clamped to largest number you can encode with 14 bits: 16383=11 1111 1111 1111. Blown higlight.

If you have dual pixel raw turned on, you'd have two pictures in your .CR2, one with blown hilights being clamped to 11 1111 1111 1111 and one with 10 0000 1101 0010. The number of extra stops of hilights is 0.034285: (ln(16777)-ln(16383))/ln(2)

The largest gain from this is when you almost blow out both half-pixels: 11 1111 1111 1110+11 1111 1111 1110=111 1111 1111 1100 (3276 in decimal) which gives .9999 stops extra hilight detail which means very close to double the brightness recorded. The math behind the number of stops: (ln(32764)-ln(16383))/ln(2) ≃ .999912

In short, as long as your hilights are at most blown by just a hair under a stop, this would make them recoverable, albeit with a minor parallax shift. Anything over 1 stop would still give an extra stop of hilights in the gradient towards the blown-out region.

Canon could implement this hilight recovery directly in camera, if they were to add a 15th bit to the .CR2 format.
But then, the .CR2 format also wastes a few bits on a non-zero black point (which is really good for shadow denoise) so we wouldn't get 15 bits of DR just like that.


----------



## Sharlin (Feb 12, 2018)

So the (sub)photosites have some headroom in well capacity, being able to represent higher values before saturating than the ADC and post-ADC digital electronics. Basically the sensor has a ”native” ISO lower than 100.


----------



## privatebydesign (Feb 12, 2018)

Sharlin said:


> So the (sub)photosites have some headroom in well capacity, being able to represent higher values before saturating than the ADC and post-ADC digital electronics. Basically the sensor has a ”native” ISO lower than 100.



No, they have half the well capacity, it is a maths issue.

If a 14 bit ADC had a range from 0-10, 10 being clipped, then if each half is below 5 the highlight will have detail in the main frame. If both sub pixels register 8 then in the main frame the value would be >10 so blown, but the value from the sub frame is 8, so it retains highlight detail.

The point is the main frame has the FWC of two sub pixels added together to make the output value limited at 14 bits, this means if the value of the sub frames pixel is less than 1/2 the 14 bit ceiling you will get additional highlight detail out of the sub frame. As we all know 1/2 or x2 is equal to 1 stop, so in theory there is a possible 1 stop improvement in highlight detail using this technique.


----------



## Iliah Borg (Feb 12, 2018)

Gentlemen:

We made some changes, 
http://updates.fastrawviewer.com/data/DPRSplit/DPRSplit-0.8.2.10-x64-Setup.exe
http://updates.fastrawviewer.com/data/DPRSplit/DPRSplit-0.8.2.10.dmg

- font size on the first run (and margins for Windows) are set based on the screen size. If the base font size setting is changed to smaller, the application window is also changed to smaller, accordingly. Works OK with 1200 by 800 pixels screens. The control is in Preferences.

To ease the pain for those who want to use both frames to get less noisy shadows from the "main" (composite, A+B) frame:
•	Adjust EXIF shutter speed by -1EV for second frame (for HDR merge) – simulates reduction of exposure by 1 stop by setting the shutter speed in the EXIF of the auxiliary frame 1 stop faster. This may be useful (and even necessary) while merging first and second frame in certain HDR stacking applications that analyze frames for exposure parameters.






For the first beta, we were careful not to confuse the raw converters that do not process the extreme highlights correctly. Now we offer a finer control in Preferences:
•	Data Maximum: controls the content of the DNG White Level tag:
o	Normal White –«white» will be set to the Normal White value found in makernotes of CR2 file.
o	Specular White (default) – «white» will be set to the SPecular White value found in makernotes of CR2 file.
o	Data Max (or specular) – «white» will be set to the actual maximum found in raw data of the CR2 file or to Specular White, if Specular White is higher. 
o	Data format max – 16383 (minus the black level if the processing mode is set to subtracting black). This option may result in color artifacts in the highlights (such as pink clouds) if the raw converter incorrectly clips the highlights after applying white balance.


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (Feb 12, 2018)

I tried the updated app. I used lightroom, helicon, and photomatix on the same image. I liked it for the test because of the very dark bird feeder and the almost blown out white post.

Once again, Lightroom = Fail, no need to show another repeat.

Helicon, excellent output, it will need a little tweaking to boost the shadows.

Photomatix, I liked the "Realistic" output because it is warmer and boosts the shadows.

Top = Helicon, Bottom = Photomatix..


----------



## Iliah Borg (Feb 12, 2018)

Thank you for testing.

Here is the "main" frame, magenta highlighting indicates the green channels of raw data being blown out, red highlighting is where both green and blue channels are clipped, black spots are indicating clipping in all the channels. From "Statistics" you can see how many pixels / % of each of the colour channels are clipped.





Now, the "auxiliary" frame, clipping is very tolerable:





Settings:


----------



## zim (Feb 12, 2018)

Sounds like a really interesting ‘development’ but FWIW here’s the file processed through Affinity Photo develop module. I’m a big fan of AP but not of the develop module, it has IMHO many issues I much prefer DXO Pro for RAW development but my version doesn’t support the 5D4.
Anyway my take on this image is that it’s no test for the 5D4 sensor which with the most basic of adjustments (highlight adjustment and a little tone curve) in AP can recover those highlights. I didn’t really pay much attention to shadows and I didn’t use Overlays which would have given me much more control of the image.

Don’t you need something a bit more extreme to show if there are any benifits to dual pixel RAW?


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (Feb 13, 2018)

Iliah Borg said:


> Thank you for testing.
> 
> Here is the "main" frame, magenta highlighting indicates the green channels of raw data being blown out, red highlighting is where both green and blue channels are clipped, black spots are indicating clipping in all the channels. From "Statistics" you can see how many pixels / % of each of the colour channels are clipped.
> 
> ...



So it looks like I was able to recover almost all of the 18% clipped pixels - Impressive! I focused on the black portion of the feeder, so the camera did boost the exposure because of the dark area. I expected that. It was set to evaluative metering, but still gave some priority to the center of the frame.


----------



## Iliah Borg (Feb 13, 2018)

Mt Spokane Photography said:


> So it looks like I was able to recover almost all of the 18% clipped pixels - Impressive! I focused on the black portion of the feeder, so the camera did boost the exposure because of the dark area. I expected that. It was set to evaluative metering, but still gave some priority to the center of the frame.



I think yes, the pole looks natural, without dull grey spots resulting from reconstructing highlights through interpolation.

Some folks prefer Lumariver HDR ( http://www.lumariver.com ) because it results in DNG file with virtually no ghosting.


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (Feb 14, 2018)

Iliah Borg said:


> Some folks prefer Lumariver HDR ( http://www.lumariver.com ) because it results in DNG file with virtually no ghosting.



Unfortunately, its Mac only. I was really unhappy in 1992 when my company standardized on pc's, but I've become so adept at using one that a Mac might seem strange 25+ years later.


----------



## Iliah Borg (Feb 14, 2018)

Mt Spokane Photography said:


> Iliah Borg said:
> 
> 
> > Some folks prefer Lumariver HDR ( http://www.lumariver.com ) because it results in DNG file with virtually no ghosting.
> ...



Ah. I'm sorry for forgetting to mention this limitation in my post.


----------



## IglooEater (Feb 14, 2018)

privatebydesign said:


> Sharlin said:
> 
> 
> > So the (sub)photosites have some headroom in well capacity, being able to represent higher values before saturating than the ADC and post-ADC digital electronics. Basically the sensor has a ”native” ISO lower than 100.
> ...



So could canon have given the sensor an extra stop of DR by using a 16 bit ADC? Edit: removed a dumb question


----------



## privatebydesign (Feb 14, 2018)

IglooEater said:


> privatebydesign said:
> 
> 
> > Sharlin said:
> ...



Yes. 14 bit files are holding Canon sensor capabilities back nowadays, more bit depth would realize more DR even with todays dual pixel sensors.


----------



## Sporgon (Feb 14, 2018)

privatebydesign said:


> IglooEater said:
> 
> 
> > privatebydesign said:
> ...



But would 16 bit really make any practical difference ?


----------



## privatebydesign (Feb 14, 2018)

Sporgon said:


> privatebydesign said:
> 
> 
> > IglooEater said:
> ...



If you look at the difference between some of the example images where there are clipped highlights, yes. Those of us that know how to wring out the very best from Canon sensors know we have to ETTR, having another stop of headroom is exactly how we can utilize that extra DR on a practical level on scenes that do have that DR range.

Do we need that extra stop most of the time? No we absolutely don't as many scenes simply don't have the DR to use it, but that doesn't mean we couldn't use it on the scenes that could need it. 

My cameras, although being dual pixel, don't have the option of saving the dual format, but if I did I would shoot it in situations where the scene could use it.


----------



## Sporgon (Feb 14, 2018)

privatebydesign said:


> Sporgon said:
> 
> 
> > privatebydesign said:
> ...



I wasn't referring to the practical use of the theoretical one stop extra, but rather given current tech will 16 bit really realise that extra full stop ? Going from 14 bit to 16 bit is such a tiny fraction of an increase.


----------



## snoke (Feb 14, 2018)

Sporgon said:


> I wasn't referring to the practical use of the theoretical one stop extra, but rather given current tech will 16 bit really realise that extra full stop ? Going from 14 bit to 16 bit is such a tiny fraction of an increase.



16/14 = 1.14 - 14% increase
14% tiny?

This not real problem.
Real problem is more stops always highlight.
More stops never more shadow or dark.


----------



## Sporgon (Feb 14, 2018)

snoke said:


> Sporgon said:
> 
> 
> > I wasn't referring to the practical use of the theoretical one stop extra, but rather given current tech will 16 bit really realise that extra full stop ? Going from 14 bit to 16 bit is such a tiny fraction of an increase.
> ...



If you research bit depth you'll see why the move from 14 to 16 is very slight, just as 12 to 14 was. 8 to 12 was significant.


----------



## BeenThere (Feb 14, 2018)

snoke said:


> Sporgon said:
> 
> 
> > I wasn't referring to the practical use of the theoretical one stop extra, but rather given current tech will 16 bit really realise that extra full stop ? Going from 14 bit to 16 bit is such a tiny fraction of an increase.
> ...


I probably would not do it, but if you can add a stop of exposure to what you would normally use, then you have boosted the shadows by a stop.


----------



## IglooEater (Feb 14, 2018)

BeenThere said:


> snoke said:
> 
> 
> > Sporgon said:
> ...



Well, not exactly. Practically yes, in that you can expose brighter and then pull from deeper in the shadows than before. Technically, your shadows stay the same relative to the brightness of the scene. It would be closer to having an iso 64 with better dr than iso 100. So you do have to expose brighter to get that extra shadow detail.


----------



## IglooEater (Feb 14, 2018)

privatebydesign said:


> IglooEater said:
> 
> 
> > So could canon have given the sensor an extra stop of DR by using a 16 bit ADC? Edit: removed a dumb question
> ...



Thanks 

While I’m asking, could Canon have resolved our parallax issue by writing both subframes instead of one subframe and the combine frames? I understand DPRAW was not built with that in mind, I’m just curious. Might one convert to 16 bit depth and average the two subframes?


----------



## sebasan (Feb 16, 2018)

Maybe is a silly question, but, for the use of this feature, you have to take an exposure which blows the highlights of the picture by one stop, am I right?
Thanks.


----------



## IglooEater (Feb 16, 2018)

sebasan said:


> Maybe is a silly question, but, for the use of this feature, you have to take an exposure which blows the highlights of the picture by one stop, am I right?
> Thanks.


 Yes. The goal here is achieving an extra stop of DR. That is achieved even without blowing the highlight. To actually use that extra DR one needs to blow the highlights 99% of a stop. It’s just the same as ETTR’ing, but actually going almost a stop too far deliberately.


----------



## sebasan (Feb 16, 2018)

IglooEater said:


> sebasan said:
> 
> 
> > Maybe is a silly question, but, for the use of this feature, you have to take an exposure which blows the highlights of the picture by one stop, am I right?
> ...



Thanks for the answer.


----------

