Why bother changing base ISO?

Started Jul 18, 2007 | Discussions thread
rspino Contributing Member • Posts: 729
Re: Sounds wild to me

RAL wrote:

I haven't read all the posts, but keep seeing this here and checking
a few. Sounds like the op is suggesting not worrying about exposure,
setting the camera for some particular exposure that would probably
be underexposed and then fixing the exposure in post process. If I am
reading right, I can't comprehend this. Seems to me that it has to be
much better to expose properly in the camera. Why else would even
cheapie cameras have aperture and shutter variables provided? Also,
it is not a difficult thing to get exposure right in the camera. With
modern gear this is almost a given to be at least really close and
seems to be much easier than having to post process to get the right
exposure. I occasionally forget to change something and make a
drastic mistake and have to fix it later, but for sure wouldn't want
to have to do this to all my pics and the results certainly were not
as good as they are when I get it right to start with. Just my 2
cents worth of opinion only.

i do not think this is what the OP suggests.

rather, the point is that pushing ISO will NOT change the exposure, but only apply some sort of amplification to the signal (i have not quite understood wether this is analogue, digital, or both).

suppose your best estimated exposure be f/4, 1/250, ISO 800.

it appears that you'd better shoot at f/4, 1/250, ISO200 and then apply a +2 stops compensation in post.

that is because the data recorded by the sensor will be the same, but WITH SOME CONVERTERS you can get less highlight clipping and better colors.

-- hide signature --

Roberto (equipment in my profile)
http://spino.smugmug.com

Post (hide subjects) Posted by
3LX
tko
tko
RAL
RAL
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum PPrevious NNext WNext unread UUpvote SSubscribe RReply QQuote BBookmark MMy threads
Color scheme? Blue / Yellow