thanks michael!
--
--
How on earth do you want to know that?
What makes you think that?
The answer was
which is as BS as your prattling.
i have to admit i'm a little confused by this all.
What you're saying makes no sense. Shadow detail or shadow exposure is not improved simply by shooting at higher ISOs. Shadow exposure can be improved by shooting at different exposure settings, but only if the exposure settings are favorable to improving the exposure of the shadows. Exposure, and ISO, whether high or low, are not the same thing.
That's how I understood the OP from the beginning; he starts with the f-stop and shutter speed he deems necessary, and finds that the highest ISO that doesn't clip away desired highlights is best, which is easily demonstrated to be true both with test shots, and with theory. Some people, however, always have a knack of reading something else than what someone actually wrote, and go off onto tangents based on their own biases and lack of mental flexibility.
Perhaps he was using an unconventional connotation of "DR", but reading the rest of everything he's said, it is pretty obvious that what he meant was that the absolute SNR at his chosen manual exposure is better with the high ISO, which is true (for read noise).
And you seem to have lost track of what the OP has said and what the topic is.
--
John
If anyone misunderstood what the OP has said, it's you. He didn't say anything about blind pixels, or all that other gobblydegook you said in your last post. Speaking of going off onto tangents.
hi bronxbombers,
--here some ISO200 100% crops, how is my posting these demonstrating
anything more than your high ISO crops, I don't get it, you can read
the fabric and skin texture in your shots, but you can here too in
low ISO shots:
--
--i have to admit i'm a little confused by this all.
if you need the iso to get a fast shutter to totally freeze things it
might get you more detail, but otherwise i'm really not sure how this
makes sense
here some ISO200 100% crops, how is my posting these demonstrating
anything more than your high ISO crops, I don't get it, you can read
the fabric and skin texture in your shots, but you can here too in
low ISO shots:
--And again, your raw/untouched examples are far better than the other
pro photographers I've worked with and I've seen! Honestly!
And instead of showing some ratios and charts after charts of
exposure settings and its equivalents, you are showing actual images,
which I really appreciate.
Very well done and congrats!
Do you use a meter reader during your shoots?
Thanks!
xoxo
--hi aB... thanks for pointing that out... =)does anyone see an improvement in the shadows there? Look on the
trees...
They look pretty closed up to me....Of course the model is well lit
up due to the flash fill in...
Love the shot tho!
the image above was the processed/enhanced version...
here's the UN-TOUCHED jpg file... fit to screen... (below is the
enhanced version)...
as we continue this discussion... looks like only me and Sunny Kalsi
(so far) love high ISO outdoors...
thanks a lot... =D
Fair enough.
When shooting baseball caps on a bright sunny day, you should use sufficient fill flash to properly expose the faces. Also, this is just my preference, but when I ask an entire team to pose for a photograph, I generally shoot RAW so that I have the most latitude possible to "save" the image should a region be underexposed, but that's just me, and I understand you want to keep it simple with jpeg. Fair enough.
--Fair enough.
When shooting baseball caps on a bright sunny day, you should use
sufficient fill flash to properly expose the faces. Also, this is
just my preference, but when I ask an entire team to pose for a
photograph, I generally shoot RAW so that I have the most latitude
possible to "save" the image should a region be underexposed, but
that's just me, and I understand you want to keep it simple with
jpeg. Fair enough.
However, you now have this image with underexposed faces, so let's
see if we can push it in a direction "you" like without complicating
your workflow.
Here's your (reduced) original.
Here's one "possible" adjustment using the Fill slider in LR (takes
about 2 seconds).
Now, I did not blow the highlights like you did in your adjustments,
and perhaps you like that blown look, which is fine, it's your
preference, and I could easily blow the highlights if you prefer. I
left much more detail, for example, in the foreground sand, but
that's my preference and not necessarily yours.
But my basic point is, you can recover these underexposed regions in
a couple of seconds without creating layers and other complicated
steps. In fact, you could adjust an entire days shoot in just a few
minutes with an application like LR, and you could even create a
template for the NM blown highlights look. In addition, if you had
used RAW and ISO 100, you would have had more DR and less noise with
which to recover the underexposed regions. Finally, when possible,
try to properly expose the subjects during the shoot. That will
almost always reduce the effort needed to correct the image during
processing.
Best,
Christopher
