ISOless sensors, read noise and photography - many questions!

Started Oct 3, 2013 | Discussions thread
RussellInCincinnati
Senior MemberPosts: 3,197
Like?
why not include raw example of your concern?
In reply to WilbaW, Nov 30, 2013

RussellInCincinnati title of first post (of 22 or so) in this thread:
agreed, fun to hear if Nex C3 should always be ISO 200

RussellInCincinnati, third post title:
in one sense, pointless to use ISO above 800 on Nex C3

RussellInCincinnati in post quoted by WilbaW:
So with your observation, if you want to preserve highlights and get rid of the need for bracketing above ISO 800 on a Nex C3,...To recap, in the field when you need a photo above ISO 800, set the camera to an ISO at least 1 and perhaps 2 stops lower than what you think is indicated. Viewfinder will still be usable, and you can fix the ISO in raw post-processing.

WilbaW: A few years ago I did that experiment and found that it was possible to "fix" such a shot using esoteric software and elaborate methods,

RussellInCincinnati: Which happily, in 2013 has come down to 15 seconds or so of work in Lightroom 4.x or higher.

WilbaW wrote: Make sure you try this idea before you buy it.

WilbaW in another post: I thought his [Russell's] point was - "when you need a photo above ISO 800, set the camera to an ISO at least 1 perhaps 2 stops lower".

Yes, that was my point.

He stated it without qualification,

WilbaW, this strikes me more as a case of your selective quotation.

...so he meant it for every camera in every situation, regardless of the age or nature of the camera or the converter used, but it's not without penalty for my camera and my need

...and considering how low the stakes are in this matter (since anyone technical enough to be interested in this thread can do a low vs high ISO experiment with about 3 minutes of work), you do our readers an injustice to imply there is something meaningfully misleading about Boardsy and my findings...that (even drastically) pushing raw ISO yourself

has much to recommend it in both ease of use in the field and highlight detail preservation

compared to deciding and settling a needlessly high ISO in your camera. That buys you a nicer electronic preview image but not much else. (Who knows or cares, in the above ISO 800 raw files , what the "real" ISO setting should have been?).

Please consider linking us to a single raw file you have taken that is a counter-example. That explains with data, your opinion that I am misinforming/misleading readers in some way to say that pushing raw ISO in Lightroom with a modern camera like a cheap Nex C3 (readers of this kind of thread tend to be the most demanding type of photographer anyway, i.e. less likely to be using way old equipment) post-processing is not fruitful. Where's the raw image, taken with a camera that readers of this thread have some chance of having or some reason to want to have, where you were not able to push its ISO well in, say, Lightroom, with about 30 seconds of work?

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Post (hide subjects)Posted by
BAM!New
(unknown member)
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum PPrevious NNext WNext unread UUpvote SSubscribe RReply QQuote BBookmark post MMy threads
Color scheme? Blue / Yellow