RAW vs White balance

Started Nov 20, 2006 | Discussions thread
Jonas B Forum Pro • Posts: 14,596
Re: RAW vs White balance

distudio wrote:

w wrote:

btw, wouldn't this also imply that the dynamic range at ISO 3200 is
1/4 of what it is at ISO 800?

The part above I don't understand... I think you have to test this first, I don't dare to guess what that is retained in the shadows in an underexposed ISO800 picture. I'm not at all sure the DR is shrunken to "1/4". What does that mean btw? Usually we count DR in exposure stops... Hey w, can you elaborate a little? I can imagine the opposite: In practise you might get better DR as underexposing probably holds the highlights better. What do you think?

Do remember though the earlier posts on this topic where we learned that ISO1600 and ISO3200 is nothing but software stretched products. To my eyes it seemed as the EV compensation in the raw processor made a better job than the camera.

That's the implication and expected outcome regardless of method
used to achieve the higher ISO settings, it's going to either be
clipped or contain noise. However the notion of shooting at ISO800
and pushing in post processing later disregards the fact that you
would then need to compensate by underexposing two stops to attain
higher shutter speeds for a given aperture and lighting, frankly
I'd rather dial in ISO3200.

I wouldn't. See above. As a sidenote I don't really want to use ISO1600 or ISO3200 (or ISO800 underexposed) at all... but when forced I can just as well stay with ISO800 and underexpose to retain highlights and get (maybe, possible) less banding in the resulting picture.

-- hide signature --

regards,

Jonas

Post (hide subjects) Posted by
w
w
w
ddd
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum PPrevious NNext WNext unread UUpvote SSubscribe RReply QQuote BBookmark MMy threads
Color scheme? Blue / Yellow