I just watched a video by Jan Wegener ("NO More BLOWN HIGHLIGHTS! Life-Changing Exposure Setting HIDDEN In The Menu!"). It makes HTP sound like the greatest thing since the invention of the wheel. There are a few points in the video that raise a flag though. It can increase noise in the shadows. It will SLIGHTLY slow down clearing the buffer. Looking outside the video, I see some comments suggesting problems with cRAW vs RAW and with electronic shutter vs mechanical shutter.
It sounds like Canon's HTP implementation is to underexpose one stop and then apply a tone curve to bring up the shadows and midtones; the former being baked into the raw file while the latter being metadata that can be overridden in PP.
Jan suggests that it has yielded positive results for him in about 90% of the occasions he has used it. Others have said the benefit is very limited and they have an "emergency" button set up to invoke it.
Have people here used it? If no but you seriously considered it, why did you opt to not use it? If yes, what are your thoughts? Do have it as part of your standard setup, one special custom configuration or an "emergency" button (in case of high contrast or highly mottled lighting, break glass)?
I don't use it. That said, I often do shoot with -1/3 to -2/3 stop exposure compensation if I feel that there will be highlights that I want to ensure don't get blown to the extent that they cannot be recovered in RAW conversion.
I have used HTP frequently over the years, and always have this setting mapped to one of my Quick Menus on my cameras.
There is nothing really magical or mysterious about it though, and I think it is only "hidden" if you weren't around when it was introduced (I believe in the EOS-1D Mark III, if memory serves).
When HTP is active, the camera underexposes the image by one stop and applies a compensating tone curve to boost the shadows and midtones back to nominal levels. This results in highlights having a more gradual rolloff and retaining more detail in high contrast scenes.
It is particularly useful if you shoot in-camera JPEGs in harsh lighting conditions, or if you want to ensure good detail in a wedding dress, for example.
I use it even when shooting RAWs, however, particularly with certain camera bodies that tend to struggle with blown highlights, like the 5D Mark IV. Other than exposure, this is the only in-camera setting that permanently affects the RAW image data (and it does so because it modifies the exposure).
While this can introduce slightly more noise in the shadows, this is far less of a problem in cameras with newer HDR sensors than it was in the past. Basically, you can use this without worrying too much with most bodies released in the last 10 years (other than maybe the 6D Mark II and RP).
I can't speak for other third-party conversion tools, but I can say that Adobe Lightroom and ACR both handle this setting transparently, applying the needed tone curves to the files such that they look normally exposed, just like Canon's treatment.
Obviously, a setting like this only makes sense in harsh, contrasty lighting. You would want to disable it in low light, indoors, or on overcast days.
It's not really different than things like Fuji's DR200 or Nikon's Active D-Lighting. Best used with JPEGS where a balanced exposure really matter out the gate.
I have a 5D4 and always underexpose when highlights risk being clipped and then adjust the shadows in post.The sensor is great and can handle that with ease. I don't use it, can't see the point.
This doesn't really answer your question, but I wish Canon had Highlight Weighted Metering like Nikon and Sony. It seems like (based on " target="_blank" rel="nofollow">Steve Perry's video) it is a better solution for highlight clipping.
I used it for a while when it first came out in the 1DIII back in 2007 but ultimately didn't feel it really provided a benefit over careful conventional exposure and a RAW-based post production workflow. I haven't looked at it since. If I was primarily a jpeg shooter, I might reconsider.
I tried it... once. To me, it makes a bunch more sense to determine exposure by myself. After nearly 20 years of digital, I'm getting rusty, but back in the stone age, I was comfortable with on-the-fly calculations for exposure and flash exposure. Then again, film has more tolerance for exposure 'guesses' than digital. HTP can't generate more DR with no downside. I'll handle it myself, thanks.
EverLearning wrote:
I just watched a video by Jan Wegener ("NO More BLOWN HIGHLIGHTS! Life-Changing Exposure Setting HIDDEN In The Menu!"). It makes HTP sound like the greatest thing since the invention of the wheel. There are a few points in the video that raise a flag though. It can increase noise in the shadows. It will SLIGHTLY slow down clearing the buffer. Looking outside the video, I see some comments suggesting problems with cRAW vs RAW and with electronic shutter vs mechanical shutter.
It sounds like Canon's HTP implementation is to underexpose one stop and then apply a tone curve to bring up the shadows and midtones; the former being baked into the raw file while the latter being metadata that can be overridden in PP.
Jan suggests that it has yielded positive results for him in about 90% of the occasions he has used it. Others have said the benefit is very limited and they have an "emergency" button set up to invoke it.
Have people here used it? If no but you seriously considered it, why did you opt to not use it? If yes, what are your thoughts? Do have it as part of your standard setup, one special custom configuration or an "emergency" button (in case of high contrast or highly mottled lighting, break glass)?...Show more →
I think in was 2008 I tried it once but not of any practical use for RAW. Just meter to keep your exposures under enough to save the highlights. There are always more U-Tubbers reinventing the wheel to make a buck.
Thanks for all the posts everybody. You basically confirmed the way I was leaning. I have the R5 1 (I should have mentioned that) and didn't think this was going to be worth it but it deal feel worth asking about (especially as Jan isn't one to be hyper about something of limited or questionable value). I shoot predominantly wildlife. There are definitely occasions where there are bright spots but there are also (more) occasions of high ISO. HTP doesn't seem like something to have configured all the time due to increased noise in the shadows and midtones and doesn't seem worth it to dedicate a custom config to.
LRC has given a number of options for taming bright spots with the masking tool and, when that can't do the job, the AI remove is amazing. I suspect the occasions where I can't compose the bright spots out of the image, can't crop them out of the image and can't diminish or remove them in PP will be very few.
If you shoot raw with the settings ISO 100, f/16 and 1/100 sec, then the raw image in the raw file will be the same as the one you take with ISO 200 HTP, f/16 and 1/100 sec. Or with modern Canon cameras, the same as ISO 50, f/16 and 1/100 sec.
Useful tools for you are:
- Magic Lantern and its Raw based exposure feedback
- darktable with raw clipping indicator turned on
- RawDigger
- Hraw
With HTP you get:
- a brighter embedded JPEG
- ISO 200 written in Exif instead of ISO 100
- HTP tag in Makernote changed from off to Enabled or Enhanced.
- a brighter preview in the digital viewfinder
The HTP tag is what Canon Digital Photo Professional and Lightroom read when they apply the tone curve.
I never use HTP. I just use exposure compensation and set it to -1 instead if that is what I need.
EverLearning wrote:
I just watched a video by Jan Wegener ("NO More BLOWN HIGHLIGHTS! Life-Changing Exposure Setting HIDDEN In The Menu!"). It makes HTP sound like the greatest thing since the invention of the wheel. There are a few points in the video that raise a flag though. It can increase noise in the shadows. It will SLIGHTLY slow down clearing the buffer. Looking outside the video, I see some comments suggesting problems with cRAW vs RAW and with electronic shutter vs mechanical shutter.
It sounds like Canon's HTP implementation is to underexpose one stop and then apply a tone curve to bring up the shadows and midtones; the former being baked into the raw file while the latter being metadata that can be overridden in PP.
Jan suggests that it has yielded positive results for him in about 90% of the occasions he has used it. Others have said the benefit is very limited and they have an "emergency" button set up to invoke it.
Have people here used it? If no but you seriously considered it, why did you opt to not use it? If yes, what are your thoughts? Do have it as part of your standard setup, one special custom configuration or an "emergency" button (in case of high contrast or highly mottled lighting, break glass)?...Show more →
If you are the post-processing sort of photographer — I am — then the most flexible option is to shoot raw and expose to protect highlights, then make necessary adjustments in post.
If you shoot in an auto-exposure mode, the EC control is your friend — use it to make quick, on the spot adjustments to protect those highlights.
You can also get a linear profile from Tony Kuyper here: https://goodlight.us/linear-profiles.html and when you apply it you will realise the standard camera profiles overexpose the sensor data by about 1,5 stops. That's how highlight recovery can work in post processing and how highlight tone priority works as well. It's just a different curve adjustment.
This has certainly proved to be an interesting discussion.
I guess to all those who say they "don't see the point, just underexpose to protect the highlights", I would say that's totally fine if that works for you.
HTP, however, does this automatically. The value of using it for me is that it allows me to expose "normally" without having to bias my exposure *differently* just because the lighting is more contrasty.
I don't shoot static subjects that often, so for me, blown highlights becomes another thing that I have to think less about when shooting on the fly.
I am glad it exists, even if when shooting RAW the benefits are more marginal.
Another (slightly related) tip for anyone who *does* shoot in-camera JPEGs: try using the Fine Detail Picture Style instead of Standard. Not only does this setting offer improved sharpening having reduced edge artifacts, but it has a smoother tone curve which preserves more detail in the highlights while still allowing the images to seem punchy.
EverLearning wrote:
I just watched a video by Jan Wegener ("NO More BLOWN HIGHLIGHTS! Life-Changing Exposure Setting HIDDEN In The Menu!"). It makes HTP sound like the greatest thing since the invention of the wheel. There are a few points in the video that raise a flag though. It can increase noise in the shadows. It will SLIGHTLY slow down clearing the buffer. Looking outside the video, I see some comments suggesting problems with cRAW vs RAW and with electronic shutter vs mechanical shutter.
It sounds like Canon's HTP implementation is to underexpose one stop and then apply a tone curve to bring up the shadows and midtones; the former being baked into the raw file while the latter being metadata that can be overridden in PP.
Jan suggests that it has yielded positive results for him in about 90% of the occasions he has used it. Others have said the benefit is very limited and they have an "emergency" button set up to invoke it.
Have people here used it? If no but you seriously considered it, why did you opt to not use it? If yes, what are your thoughts? Do have it as part of your standard setup, one special custom configuration or an "emergency" button (in case of high contrast or highly mottled lighting, break glass)?...Show more →
I use it all the time now (D+2). I was told about this while on Safari with Pangolin Photo (Janine uses it). I do find it particularly helpful with a bird against a bright sky as well as small areas of bright light if a bird is in a tree between branches and there is light leaking in around the branch area. Yeah I could handle this with EC or Manual settings, but it's so darn easy using HTP.
Interestingly, if I download into LrC, the exposure is fine, but if I run the photo through DxO PR6 first, the returned .dng needs a 2/3-1 1/3 stop boast in exposure. Seems Adobe reads the data imbedded in the RAW whereas the DxO doesn't. Hard to tell here, but the white patches outside the hide were not truly blown. (hard to tell in this jpg)
ps: Here I am teaching a Maasai Warrior how to take photos with my R5 and RF 100-300 f/2.8. The sad thing is that the gear/dollars he is holding would support him and his family for several years.
garyvot wrote:
This has certainly proved to be an interesting discussion.
I guess to all those who say they "don't see the point, just underexpose to protect the highlights", I would say that's totally fine if that works for you.
HTP, however, does this automatically. The value of using it for me is that it allows me to expose "normally" without having to bias my exposure *differently* just because the lighting is more contrasty.
I don't shoot static subjects that often, so for me, blown highlights becomes another thing that I have to think less about when shooting on the fly.
I am glad it exists, even if when shooting RAW the benefits are more marginal. ...Show more →
The HTP approach can work, though it applies a single generic curve to all photos that use it. If that works for you, fine. (This is probably most likely for folks who shoot in-camera jpgs.
Exposing to protect highlights (which does not always mean completely avoiding blown highlights, BTW) and then custom adjusting in post provides more flexibility and, in many case, a better result.
For example, you can apply adjustment curves to only selected masked portions of the image. I think that people might be surprised at what is possible.
Alan Kefauver wrote:
I use it all the time now (D+2). I was told about this while on Safari with Pangolin Photo (Janine uses it).
Interesting that Janine at Pangolin recommended this. Do you know if she has it a) baked into all her custom configs, b) baked into one custom config or c) has a back button configured for "emergency" activation of it regardless of what custom configs or general settings she is using? Does she use it for all her shooting or just very selectively?
Same questions for you Alan. And when you say "I use it all the time", is that a broad statement or do you literally use it for all photography (or all wildlife photography)? Do you shoot RAW or cRAW? Do you shoot electronic shutter or mechanical? both of these points have been raised as issues/concerns (shooting cRAW and/or electronic shutter). Do you notice an increase in noise in the shadows and mid tones?
The problem with using HTP all the time is that you may be underexposing for no good reason in some lighting that does not need it. Overall it's a safety valve for user errors in metering. Maybe I'm a weirdo, but in bright, contrasty light and not having time to properly spot meter, I might go -1 EC or even more, but in flat light I might want +1 EC. In the old days we had to get reversal film exposure right in camera.
I can understand some people using HTP in dynamic situations and tour leaders recommending it. I often see participants making mistakes on their first safari. They get super excited to see some animal in bad light with feet blocked, badly placed shadows, rotten background, ass shots, etc. and blaze away.
