Pls show examples where increasing brightness in post better than increasing ISO.

Started Oct 1, 2013 | Discussions
Steen Bay
Veteran MemberPosts: 6,410
Like?
Preferred compromise
In reply to bobn2, Oct 1, 2013

bobn2 wrote:

In any case, even if it does, the rigmarole that they have gone through to get there is a whole lot longer than the simple route, set the aperture and shutter for the largest exposure that your pictorial constraints allow, set the ISO to get the brightness, according to your usual methods for 'nailing the exposure brightness' (mine are do it at my leisure on a nice big computer screen).

Don't think it works like that. It's always a compromise involving all three variables (DoF/diffraction, shake/blur and noise, represented by the f-stop, shutter speed and ISO), not just two of them. I wouldn't just choose a f-stop and shutter speed, and then let the noise in the final image be whatever it turns out to be. Let's say that in low light I really don't want to use a slower shutter speed than 1/60 sec, but maybe that'll require ISO 3200 to get a 'properly exposed' image with the correct/preferred brightness, and then I'll maybe choose 1/30, ISO 1600 as the preferred compromise instead. If you don't take the ISO into consideration when choosing the f-stop and shutter speed, then you don't know how high the noise will be in the final image, because it's the ISO that tells you how high the exposure (strict definition!) actually is with the chosen f-stop and shutter speed.

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
bobn2
Forum ProPosts: 32,224
Like?
Re: Preferred compromise
In reply to Steen Bay, Oct 1, 2013

Steen Bay wrote:

bobn2 wrote:

In any case, even if it does, the rigmarole that they have gone through to get there is a whole lot longer than the simple route, set the aperture and shutter for the largest exposure that your pictorial constraints allow, set the ISO to get the brightness, according to your usual methods for 'nailing the exposure brightness' (mine are do it at my leisure on a nice big computer screen).

Don't think it works like that.

Yes it does.

It's always a compromise involving all three variables (DoF/diffraction, shake/blur and noise, represented by the f-stop, shutter speed and ISO),

No it isn't.

not just two of them.

Yes, just two.

I wouldn't just choose a f-stop and shutter speed, and then let the noise in the final image be whatever it turns out to be.

Why would you not, when you know that the noise is the lowest that you will get with your other constraints.

Let's say that in low light I really don't want to use a slower shutter speed than 1/60 sec, but maybe that'll require ISO 3200 to get a 'properly exposed' image with the correct/preferred brightness, and then I'll maybe choose 1/30, ISO 1600 as the preferred compromise instead.

Why would you? The extra camera shake will damage your image more than the extra noise, guaranteed.

If you don't take the ISO into consideration when choosing the f-stop and shutter speed, then you don't know how high the noise will be in the final image, because it's the ISO that tells you how high the exposure (strict definition!) actually is with the chosen f-stop and shutter speed.

Wrong. What tells you how high the exposure is, is measuring the exposure. Where you're getting confused is that the modern camera UI makes you measure the exposure in terms of ISO, rather than any other unit. But all that means is that you're measuring the exposure in ISO units. If your meter was calibrated in lux seconds, it would do quite as well.

-- hide signature --

Bob

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Steen Bay
Veteran MemberPosts: 6,410
Like?
Re: Preferred compromise
In reply to bobn2, Oct 1, 2013

bobn2 wrote:

Steen Bay wrote:

bobn2 wrote:

In any case, even if it does, the rigmarole that they have gone through to get there is a whole lot longer than the simple route, set the aperture and shutter for the largest exposure that your pictorial constraints allow, set the ISO to get the brightness, according to your usual methods for 'nailing the exposure brightness' (mine are do it at my leisure on a nice big computer screen).

Don't think it works like that.

Yes it does.

It's always a compromise involving all three variables (DoF/diffraction, shake/blur and noise, represented by the f-stop, shutter speed and ISO),

No it isn't.

not just two of them.

Yes, just two.

OK, guess that's how it is then. Nice that we got that settled.

I wouldn't just choose a f-stop and shutter speed, and then let the noise in the final image be whatever it turns out to be.

Why would you not, when you know that the noise is the lowest that you will get with your other constraints.

Why are two of the constaints more important than the third?

Let's say that in low light I really don't want to use a slower shutter speed than 1/60 sec, but maybe that'll require ISO 3200 to get a 'properly exposed' image with the correct/preferred brightness, and then I'll maybe choose 1/30, ISO 1600 as the preferred compromise instead.

Why would you? The extra camera shake will damage your image more than the extra noise, guaranteed.

Didn't mention which camera. Things don't look pretty at ISO 3200 with e.g. a 5.6x crop compact.

If you don't take the ISO into consideration when choosing the f-stop and shutter speed, then you don't know how high the noise will be in the final image, because it's the ISO that tells you how high the exposure (strict definition!) actually is with the chosen f-stop and shutter speed.

Wrong. What tells you how high the exposure is, is measuring the exposure. Where you're getting confused is that the modern camera UI makes you measure the exposure in terms of ISO, rather than any other unit. But all that means is that you're measuring the exposure in ISO units. If your meter was calibrated in lux seconds, it would do quite as well.

-- hide signature --

Bob

Sure, but we'll have to settle for the units that our cameras use.

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Iliah Borg
Forum ProPosts: 16,314
Like?
Re: Preferred compromise
In reply to Steen Bay, Oct 1, 2013

Steen Bay wrote:

bobn2 wrote:

In any case, even if it does, the rigmarole that they have gone through to get there is a whole lot longer than the simple route, set the aperture and shutter for the largest exposure that your pictorial constraints allow, set the ISO to get the brightness, according to your usual methods for 'nailing the exposure brightness' (mine are do it at my leisure on a nice big computer screen).

Don't think it works like that. It's always a compromise involving all three variables (DoF/diffraction, shake/blur and noise, represented by the f-stop, shutter speed and ISO), not just two of them. I wouldn't just choose a f-stop and shutter speed, and then let the noise in the final image be whatever it turns out to be. Let's say that in low light I really don't want to use a slower shutter speed than 1/60 sec, but maybe that'll require ISO 3200 to get a 'properly exposed' image with the correct/preferred brightness, and then I'll maybe choose 1/30, ISO 1600 as the preferred compromise instead. If you don't take the ISO into consideration when choosing the f-stop and shutter speed, then you don't know how high the noise will be in the final image, because it's the ISO that tells you how high the exposure (strict definition!) actually is with the chosen f-stop and shutter speed.

But the first thing is to chose the proper lens. Zoom users are mostly out of luck with fast apertures needed for low light. The sequence for low light hand-held shooting is pretty much camera - shutter speed - lens - ISO - boost. Aperture pretty much does not enter.

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
EinsteinsGhost
Forum ProPosts: 11,977Gear list
Like?
Re: Pls show examples where increasing brightness in post better than increasing ISO.
In reply to bobn2, Oct 1, 2013

bobn2 wrote:

Andre Affleck wrote:

People using the ISO first technique will vary rarely set the maximum exposure

Not true, one starts raising ISO when they are already aperture and shutter limited.

Bob says - "people using ISO first technique".

Ok, then I have to question as to how using the method somehow makes one think of ISO first. Its always the last result, after exposure is maximized, regardless of ones understanding of exposure.

Interesting to do a poll, see whether most photographers set the ISO first or last. My guess is first, because the camera user interface is designed that way.

-- hide signature --

Bob

Where do you believe "Auto ISO" folks will fall?

 EinsteinsGhost's gear list:EinsteinsGhost's gear list
Sony Cyber-shot DSC-F828 Sony SLT-A55 Sony Alpha NEX-6 Sigma 18-250mm F3.5-6.3 DC OS HSM Sony 135mm F2.8 (T4.5) STF +12 more
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
bobn2
Forum ProPosts: 32,224
Like?
Re: Pls show examples where increasing brightness in post better than increasing ISO.
In reply to EinsteinsGhost, Oct 1, 2013

EinsteinsGhost wrote:

bobn2 wrote:

Andre Affleck wrote:

People using the ISO first technique will vary rarely set the maximum exposure

Not true, one starts raising ISO when they are already aperture and shutter limited.

Bob says - "people using ISO first technique".

Ok, then I have to question as to how using the method somehow makes one think of ISO first. Its always the last result, after exposure is maximized, regardless of ones understanding of exposure.

Interesting to do a poll, see whether most photographers set the ISO first or last. My guess is first, because the camera user interface is designed that way.

-- hide signature --

Bob

Where do you believe "Auto ISO" folks will fall?

They set last, but they let the camera do it for them.

-- hide signature --

Bob

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
bobn2
Forum ProPosts: 32,224
Like?
Re: Preferred compromise
In reply to Steen Bay, Oct 1, 2013

Steen Bay wrote:

bobn2 wrote:

Steen Bay wrote:

bobn2 wrote:

In any case, even if it does, the rigmarole that they have gone through to get there is a whole lot longer than the simple route, set the aperture and shutter for the largest exposure that your pictorial constraints allow, set the ISO to get the brightness, according to your usual methods for 'nailing the exposure brightness' (mine are do it at my leisure on a nice big computer screen).

Don't think it works like that.

Yes it does.

It's always a compromise involving all three variables (DoF/diffraction, shake/blur and noise, represented by the f-stop, shutter speed and ISO),

No it isn't.

not just two of them.

Yes, just two.

OK, guess that's how it is then. Nice that we got that settled.

Glad you're learning, finally.

I wouldn't just choose a f-stop and shutter speed, and then let the noise in the final image be whatever it turns out to be.

Why would you not, when you know that the noise is the lowest that you will get with your other constraints.

Why are two of the constaints more important than the third?

Because the third is nothing, it's just the other two remixed. It gives you nothing extra.

Let's say that in low light I really don't want to use a slower shutter speed than 1/60 sec, but maybe that'll require ISO 3200 to get a 'properly exposed' image with the correct/preferred brightness, and then I'll maybe choose 1/30, ISO 1600 as the preferred compromise instead.

Why would you? The extra camera shake will damage your image more than the extra noise, guaranteed.

Didn't mention which camera. Things don't look pretty at ISO 3200 with e.g. a 5.6x crop compact.

Doesn't matter, when you trade a stop of shake versus a stop of noise, the stop of noise is always better, because it's always easier to remove. So, if you say 3200 is not pretty, it is prettier than 1600 with the shake. In any case, if you really were that picky about quality, why'd you be shooting at 1600 with a 5.6x compact in any case? That's 50k on a FF. Frankly, if that's where you are, stick it in 'Party' scene mode, snap and see what you get.

If you don't take the ISO into consideration when choosing the f-stop and shutter speed, then you don't know how high the noise will be in the final image, because it's the ISO that tells you how high the exposure (strict definition!) actually is with the chosen f-stop and shutter speed.

Wrong. What tells you how high the exposure is, is measuring the exposure. Where you're getting confused is that the modern camera UI makes you measure the exposure in terms of ISO, rather than any other unit. But all that means is that you're measuring the exposure in ISO units. If your meter was calibrated in lux seconds, it would do quite as well.

-- hide signature --

Bob

Sure, but we'll have to settle for the units that our cameras use.

You, but you're still just using it as an exposure meter. And if you got a phone, you don't even have to do that.

-- hide signature --

Bob

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
EinsteinsGhost
Forum ProPosts: 11,977Gear list
Like?
Re: Pls show examples where increasing brightness in post better than increasing ISO.
In reply to bobn2, Oct 1, 2013

bobn2 wrote:

EinsteinsGhost wrote:

bobn2 wrote:

Andre Affleck wrote:

People using the ISO first technique will vary rarely set the maximum exposure

Not true, one starts raising ISO when they are already aperture and shutter limited.

Bob says - "people using ISO first technique".

Ok, then I have to question as to how using the method somehow makes one think of ISO first. Its always the last result, after exposure is maximized, regardless of ones understanding of exposure.

Interesting to do a poll, see whether most photographers set the ISO first or last. My guess is first, because the camera user interface is designed that way.

-- hide signature --

Bob

Where do you believe "Auto ISO" folks will fall?

They set last, but they let the camera do it for them.

-- hide signature --

Bob

Auto ISO is set first, and forgotten. I would wager most photographers using Auto ISO fall into that category.

 EinsteinsGhost's gear list:EinsteinsGhost's gear list
Sony Cyber-shot DSC-F828 Sony SLT-A55 Sony Alpha NEX-6 Sigma 18-250mm F3.5-6.3 DC OS HSM Sony 135mm F2.8 (T4.5) STF +12 more
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Donald B
Senior MemberPosts: 3,598Gear list
Like?
Re: Pls show examples where increasing brightness in post better than increasing ISO.
In reply to PhilPreston3072, Oct 1, 2013

I just shot 3 photos with my k7 and the correct exposed photo showed %8 increase in file size, compared to underexposing the same shot by 1 stop. correct me if im wrong but isn't shooting to the right on the histogram better as the internal camera processor saves more information on the highlights ?rather than the shadows ?

cheers don

-- hide signature --

Pentax K7, Panasonic fz150, Olympus XZ1, my main toys.

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
EinsteinsGhost
Forum ProPosts: 11,977Gear list
Like?
Re: Pls show examples where increasing brightness in post better than increasing ISO.
In reply to Iliah Borg, Oct 1, 2013

Iliah Borg wrote:

People using the ISO first technique will vary rarely set the maximum exposure

Not true, one starts raising ISO when they are already aperture and shutter limited.

Bob says - "people using ISO first technique".

Bob and his ideas on ISO first versus "Auto ISO rules" aside, people start raising their ISO as the last resort, if they have exhausted their other options and especially those who are aware of the compromises with every aspect: aperture, shutter speed AND ISO setting.

Take a look at the sample above. Neither has a good photographic value, and only exists to demonstrate that higher ISO compromises dynamic range. But, if you were to take the same shot, there is a good chance you could explore additional options including lowering the shutter speed perhaps even down to 1/4s and use ISO 800.

The obvious question would be... if you prefer Auto ISO instead, what would be the camera's choice? ISO 100?

 EinsteinsGhost's gear list:EinsteinsGhost's gear list
Sony Cyber-shot DSC-F828 Sony SLT-A55 Sony Alpha NEX-6 Sigma 18-250mm F3.5-6.3 DC OS HSM Sony 135mm F2.8 (T4.5) STF +12 more
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
dblues
New MemberPosts: 15
Like?
Re: Pls show examples where increasing brightness in post better than increasing ISO.
In reply to Donald B, Oct 1, 2013

Donald B wrote:

correct me if im wrong but isn't shooting to the right on the histogram better as the internal camera processor saves more information on the highlights ?rather than the shadows ?

cheers don

-- hide signature --

Pentax K7, Panasonic fz150, Olympus XZ1, my main toys.

I think that is old school (older sensors) way of thinking. Read this:

http://theonlinephotographer.typepad.com/the_online_photographer/2011/10/expose-to-the-right-is-a-bunch-of-bull.html

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
gollywop
Veteran MemberPosts: 5,786
Like?
Re: Pls show examples where increasing brightness in post better than increasing ISO.
In reply to dblues, Oct 1, 2013

dblues wrote:

Donald B wrote:

correct me if im wrong but isn't shooting to the right on the histogram better as the internal camera processor saves more information on the highlights ?rather than the shadows ?

cheers don

I think that is old school (older sensors) way of thinking. Read this:

http://theonlinephotographer.typepad.com/the_online_photographer/2011/10/expose-to-the-right-is-a-bunch-of-bull.html

That article is not a valid critique of ETTR, but rather a critique of not knowing what you're doing when attempting ETTR -- so that you end up, in fact, BETTR (beyond ETTR).  That's sort of like saying that going to night clubs is a bad idea because you might get drunk.

-- hide signature --

gollywop

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
bobn2
Forum ProPosts: 32,224
Like?
Re: Pls show examples where increasing brightness in post better than increasing ISO.
In reply to EinsteinsGhost, Oct 1, 2013

EinsteinsGhost wrote:

bobn2 wrote:

EinsteinsGhost wrote:

bobn2 wrote:

Andre Affleck wrote:

People using the ISO first technique will vary rarely set the maximum exposure

Not true, one starts raising ISO when they are already aperture and shutter limited.

Bob says - "people using ISO first technique".

Ok, then I have to question as to how using the method somehow makes one think of ISO first. Its always the last result, after exposure is maximized, regardless of ones understanding of exposure.

Interesting to do a poll, see whether most photographers set the ISO first or last. My guess is first, because the camera user interface is designed that way.

-- hide signature --

Bob

Where do you believe "Auto ISO" folks will fall?

They set last, but they let the camera do it for them.

-- hide signature --

Bob

Auto ISO is set first, and forgotten. I would wager most photographers using Auto ISO fall into that category.

Auto ISO sets the ISO after the other settings have been set, same as if a photographer set them for himself.

-- hide signature --

Bob

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
bobn2
Forum ProPosts: 32,224
Like?
Re: Pls show examples where increasing brightness in post better than increasing ISO.
In reply to EinsteinsGhost, Oct 1, 2013

EinsteinsGhost wrote:

Iliah Borg wrote:

People using the ISO first technique will vary rarely set the maximum exposure

Not true, one starts raising ISO when they are already aperture and shutter limited.

Bob says - "people using ISO first technique".

Bob and his ideas on ISO first versus "Auto ISO rules" aside, people start raising their ISO as the last resort, if they have exhausted their other options and especially those who are aware of the compromises with every aspect: aperture, shutter speed AND ISO setting.

Take a look at the sample above. Neither has a good photographic value, and only exists to demonstrate that higher ISO compromises dynamic range. But, if you were to take the same shot, there is a good chance you could explore additional options including lowering the shutter speed perhaps even down to 1/4s and use ISO 800.

The obvious question would be... if you prefer Auto ISO instead, what would be the camera's choice? ISO 100?

The ISO control really doesn't do much except a fine optimisation. It's the exposure that matters.

-- hide signature --

Bob

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
PhilPreston3072
Senior MemberPosts: 1,841Gear list
Like?
Re: examples where increasing brightness in post is better than increasing ISO.
In reply to gollywop, Oct 2, 2013

gollywop wrote:

PhilPreston3072 wrote:

edu T wrote:

These after-brillig shots by Pierre Sottas with a D7000 are a classical example (AFAIK perhaps "the" one). This clear-cut "slain the jabberwocky and bring us its head" evidence was discussed here.

Captions by the author:

"A shot at ISO 6400, 1/30, f2.0 with very bad lightning conditions...

"...and the shot at ISO 100, 1/30, f2.0 (same exposure) and boosted 6 stops in RPP with highlights compression. No post-processing, EXIF should be intact."

(Can't help but notice that back then the angry mob of villagers wielding torches and forks was smaller and/or less frumious...)

I would say the ISO6400 has been disadvantaged here. The highlight areas of the verandah are already blown at this exposure. He should have reduced the exposure until those highlights weren't clipped at ISO6400 and then applied the same exposure settings for ISO100, and then applied shadow recovery if necessary.

They are the same exposure, and he got the shot he wanted. Reducing the exposure would simply give a shot a more noise. I would say ISO 6400 has a disadvantage, but it hasn't been disadvantaged.

You're missing the point here guys.  The purpose of these shots was to compare the performance of ISO6400 with ISO100 pushed, it was not about obtaining best image quality.  You can't properly compare ISO6400 with ISO100 by blowing out the verandah highlights and then attempt to recover the highlights when they were excluded in the first place.

If I was taking this shot and saw the verandah highlights blowing at ISO6400 I'd naturally lower the ISO until the highlights were no longer clipping.  If the poster wanted to compare best image quality then this is what he should have done.

 PhilPreston3072's gear list:PhilPreston3072's gear list
Canon EOS 450D Canon EF-S 18-200mm f/3.5-5.6 IS
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
jvkelley
Contributing MemberPosts: 837Gear list
Like?
Re: Pls show examples where increasing brightness in post better than increasing ISO.
In reply to bobn2, Oct 2, 2013

bobn2 wrote:

Andre Affleck wrote:

Andre Affleck wrote:

PhilPreston3072 wrote:

With the latest sensors, some have been proclaiming it's better to shoot at base ISO and increase brightness in post rather than increase ISO in camera.

I would like to see some examples of this. Are there any examples where increasing brightness in post delivers better IQ than increasing ISO in camera? And please, disable all NR settings.

bobn wrote here :

So, in the direct route, you would set the maximum exposure (subject to shake and the rest) and then set the brightening to match, whereas the other way you guess at the maximum exposure (via setting a guesstimate on the ISO dial). What most people will do, who don't know that it is exposure which matters, is centre the meter (or let the camera do it) and that will usually result in a lower exposure than had they set the maximum in the first place. No matter how you argue, that is how it really is. People using the ISO first technique will vary rarely set the maximum exposure

Not true, one starts raising ISO when they are already aperture and shutter limited.

Even so, it's unlikely that they will set the maximum exposure, simply because of what people think they have to do, and what they think their priorities. Somehow they will arrive at what they think is the right ISO for shooting, maybe by trial end error as you suggest and possibly just by making a guess, which is the impression that I get from people about setting ISO. You often get statements like '1600 lets me get the shutter speed I need'. Anyhow, however they get there, they now are at the ISO that they want to work. Then they centre the meter (maybe with some EC) to 'nail' the exposure, which means adjusting for some fixed output brightness at that ISO. To do that, they will almost always get a smaller exposure than they need. Supposing they decide that the DOF and motion blur are alright, they'll shoot, even though they might still have been alright up to half a stop more exposure. If they don't think they'll be alright, they'll raise the ISO (usually by a whole stop, I'd guess) and then centre the meter, and the same situation applies. Only when by co-incidence does the maximum exposure that their pictorial constraints allow is the same as the one that centres the meter at that ISO, will they have maximised the exposure, I don't think it often happens.

In any case, even if it does, the rigmarole that they have gone through to get there is a whole lot longer than the simple route, set the aperture and shutter for the largest exposure that your pictorial constraints allow, set the ISO to get the brightness, according to your usual methods for 'nailing the exposure brightness' (mine are do it at my leisure on a nice big computer screen).

-- hide signature --

Bob

I'm having a hard time understanding this argument.  Is the basis of your argument that ISO often increments in whole stops while Shutter and Aperture increment in smaller steps?  So if someone raises their ISO to get a fast enough shutter speed they might be underexposing by up to 2/3 of a stop?

-- hide signature --

J.V.

 jvkelley's gear list:jvkelley's gear list
Canon PowerShot S50 Canon EOS 400D Canon EOS 70D Canon EF 50mm f/1.8 II Canon EF-S 17-55mm f/2.8 IS USM +3 more
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
gollywop
Veteran MemberPosts: 5,786
Like?
Re: examples where increasing brightness in post is better than increasing ISO.
In reply to PhilPreston3072, Oct 2, 2013

PhilPreston3072 wrote:

gollywop wrote:

PhilPreston3072 wrote:

edu T wrote:

These after-brillig shots by Pierre Sottas with a D7000 are a classical example (AFAIK perhaps "the" one). This clear-cut "slain the jabberwocky and bring us its head" evidence was discussed here.

Captions by the author:

"A shot at ISO 6400, 1/30, f2.0 with very bad lightning conditions...

"...and the shot at ISO 100, 1/30, f2.0 (same exposure) and boosted 6 stops in RPP with highlights compression. No post-processing, EXIF should be intact."

(Can't help but notice that back then the angry mob of villagers wielding torches and forks was smaller and/or less frumious...)

I would say the ISO6400 has been disadvantaged here. The highlight areas of the verandah are already blown at this exposure. He should have reduced the exposure until those highlights weren't clipped at ISO6400 and then applied the same exposure settings for ISO100, and then applied shadow recovery if necessary.

They are the same exposure, and he got the shot he wanted. Reducing the exposure would simply give a shot a more noise. I would say ISO 6400 has a disadvantage, but it hasn't been disadvantaged.

You're missing the point here guys. The purpose of these shots was to compare the performance of ISO6400 with ISO100 pushed, it was not about obtaining best image quality. You can't properly compare ISO6400 with ISO100 by blowing out the verandah highlights and then attempt to recover the highlights when they were excluded in the first place.

If I was taking this shot and saw the verandah highlights blowing at ISO6400 I'd naturally lower the ISO until the highlights were no longer clipping. If the poster wanted to compare best image quality then this is what he should have done.

Well, not exactly missing the point since you didn't say "reduce ISO" to begin with; you said "reduce exposure."  That's a rather different thing, and there certainly was no need to reduce exposure -- which is the point we guys were making.

Also, not having taken the shot, and not having familiarity with the D7000,  I don't know just what indication Pierre had or didn't have as to what was being clipped.  One of the problems with shooting with high ISO to achieve a desired degree of brightness in-camera is that you often don't have control over (proper indication of) highlight clipping.

With an ISO-invariant camera like the D7000, shooting at base ISO and applying brightening in processing gives you far more control in avoiding such problems.  There is no need to take the chance with in-camera ISO.

-- hide signature --

gollywop

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
PhilPreston3072
Senior MemberPosts: 1,841Gear list
Like?
Re: examples where increasing brightness in post is better than increasing ISO.
In reply to gollywop, Oct 2, 2013

gollywop wrote:

Well, not exactly missing the point since you didn't say "reduce ISO" to begin with; you said "reduce exposure." That's a rather different thing, and there certainly was no need to reduce exposure -- which is the point we guys were making.

Also, not having taken the shot, and not having familiarity with the D7000, I don't know just what indication Pierre had or didn't have as to what was being clipped. One of the problems with shooting with high ISO to achieve a desired degree of brightness in-camera is that you often don't have control over (proper indication of) highlight clipping.

With an ISO-invariant camera like the D7000, shooting at base ISO and applying brightening in processing gives you far more control in avoiding such problems. There is no need to take the chance with in-camera ISO.

I'm afraid you are still missing the point.  If you're testing ISO6400 performance and finding that highlights are clipping then of course you have to reduce exposure.

Most, if not all DSLRs will show 'blinkys' and histograms to show highlight clipping so getting those shots right should not be that hard at all.  You could always set a slightly lower ISO to give yourself a bit of headroom for changing situations.  But I don't know how much good the image playback in camera would be when the ISO100 shot is 6 stops underexposed.  How do you know the focus is right, there's no motion blur, or the DOF is right if it's so dark?

 PhilPreston3072's gear list:PhilPreston3072's gear list
Canon EOS 450D Canon EF-S 18-200mm f/3.5-5.6 IS
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
edu T
Senior MemberPosts: 1,105Gear list
Like?
Re: examples where increasing brightness in post is better than increasing ISO.
In reply to PhilPreston3072, Oct 2, 2013

PhilPreston3072 wrote:

. . . Most, if not all DSLRs will show 'blinkys' and histograms to show highlight clipping so getting those shots right should not be that hard at all . . .

Thus in live-view mode, right? Then please remember that (currently) all those real-time blinkies et al are by design scaled to the on-LCD jpeg rendering, not to the sensor/readout physical constraints.

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
ultimitsu
Veteran MemberPosts: 5,852
Like?
Re: examples where increasing brightness in post is better than increasing ISO.
In reply to PhilPreston3072, Oct 2, 2013

PhilPreston3072 wrote:

gollywop wrote:

Well, not exactly missing the point since you didn't say "reduce ISO" to begin with; you said "reduce exposure." That's a rather different thing, and there certainly was no need to reduce exposure -- which is the point we guys were making.

Also, not having taken the shot, and not having familiarity with the D7000, I don't know just what indication Pierre had or didn't have as to what was being clipped. One of the problems with shooting with high ISO to achieve a desired degree of brightness in-camera is that you often don't have control over (proper indication of) highlight clipping.

With an ISO-invariant camera like the D7000, shooting at base ISO and applying brightening in processing gives you far more control in avoiding such problems. There is no need to take the chance with in-camera ISO.

I'm afraid you are still missing the point. If you're testing ISO6400 performance and finding that highlights are clipping then of course you have to reduce exposure.

it is you who is missing the point. it is well arguable that both shots got the right brightness - the sky is black and the walls is lit. the fact that inside the building detail preserved is a bonus. reduce ISO to 100 without any in-computer brightening (which is what you are advocating) would give you detail in the building but no details at all on the walls.

Most, if not all DSLRs will show 'blinkys' and histograms to show highlight clipping so getting those shots right should not be that hard at all.

See how you are missing the point?

You could always set a slightly lower ISO to give yourself a bit of headroom for changing situations.

but then the part that suppose to be bright, is now dark.

But I don't know how much good the image playback in camera would be when the ISO100 shot is 6 stops underexposed. How do you know the focus is right,

obviously 6 stops under is the extreme and is intended as a demonstration. there will be times that it is difficult to see where focus is at 6 stops under. but that is a different issue, and nothing to do with the IQ advantage.

there's no motion blur,

pretty easy. there are still bright parts in the iso 100 shot.

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum MMy threads