ISOless sensors, read noise and photography - many questions!

Started Oct 3, 2013 | Discussions thread
Senior MemberPosts: 3,197
can't see harm in showing your raw file counter-example
In reply to WilbaW, Dec 1, 2013

RussellInCincinnati: ...if you want to preserve highlights and get rid of the need for bracketing above ISO 800 on a Nex C3, all you have to do is...

...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: Make sure you try this idea before you buy it [because it may not work for other cameras or other raw software].

Let's see, I wrote 10 or 20 times in this thread, sometimes in the thread titles, that I was describing success with "pushing" low ISO raw captures in post-processing with a Nex C3 in Lightroom. Examples are posted, by both me and Boardsy.

And in some 21st-or-so post I mentioned that the Nex C3 again, in paragraph 2 of 3 as shown above.

But in paragraph 3 of 3 of that 21st post, in a summary, I did not mention that my experience was only with a Nex C3 or Lightroom.

I now see the point in your counterexample-free warning to people. After all, people might have only read paragraph 3 of my post 21, and missed all the other paragraphs and posts. And those rather technical readers might also be the kind of people who use a new workflow-suggestion-sentence on an important photo shoot, as soon as they read about it. Without taking a single test image, using the new low-ISO settings, before the big gig. Then without your advice, they'd really be up a creek without a paddle.

RussellInCincinnati: why not include raw example of your concern

WilbaW wrote: Because that won't clarify the context of your statement

You're right, it would merely provide us with hard data that informs your concern. You'd certainly be dismissive of posts by Boardsy and I recommending limiting in-camera ISO, if we didn't post at least some good result data.

Straight out of camera at ISO 800. Rather dim light, 1/8th of a second, F/5.6.

Oh, about 20 seconds of work in Lightroom 4. Not counting a minute or two touching up typical facial skin annoyances. If you don't want us to dismiss your claim, that everyone with raw software can't do this kind of thing, why won't you bother linking us to your example raw file? With which someone can't easily do this kind of thing?

Where's some evidence, where's your low-ISO raw file from some reasonably modern camera? That shows that today's raw file software, which basically only exists to let people do things like brighten an image, can't easily work as about as well as in-camera high-ISO settings, to brighten dim images?

You and I are not photographic celebrities. Nobody knows if you and I have the slightest amount of skill or insight, just from reading our names. Posting images and files is trivial these days. Thus am claiming it is wasting readers' time for us argue for a photographic workflow, or warn against it--without at least one example that our posts are opinions of people with helpful skills and experience.

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