Why no set ISO in postprocessing ?

Started Feb 26, 2013 | Discussions thread
BertIverson Veteran Member • Posts: 3,689
John -- Re: Why no set ISO in postprocessing ?

John Sheehy wrote:

BertIverson wrote:

John Sheehy wrote:

... There are, of course, cameras that benefit nothing from analog gain. In these cases the manufacturers are simply just clinging to an old standard for simplicity's sake, even though saving gain for conversion time would result in RAW data that was smaller and/or retained many stops more highlights, for higher final ISOs.

For the very reason that you state, I always shoot M mode RAW at base ISO when using flash. This pretty much assures that the maximum flash power/duration is used thus minimizing noise. Thumbnails on LCD look dark but when boosted in LR by up to 4, photos look fine.
Foreground noses and foreheads are never blown by the direct flash

Well, it's the ratio of flash to ambient that determines how much glare there is for direct flash, not the exposure. I assume you're not using a Canon DSLR if you can get away with weak exposure at base ISO.

Sorry. I am referring to the little Sony RX100 used for simple indoor shots (birthday parties etc) with no relevant ambient light. I took tripod test shots at 125, 200, 400, 800, 1600, 3200 and, in LR, could see no advantage to using other than base ISO. (other than the dark thumbnails).

I am sure I could set ISO and tweak the flash compensation to get good results but it seems simpler to shoot RAW and forget both ISO and flash compensation and simply blaze away at base ISO.

Works for me but I am sure others would disagree.


 BertIverson's gear list:BertIverson's gear list
Sony RX100 Sony RX10 IV +5 more
Post (hide subjects) Posted by
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum PPrevious NNext WNext unread UUpvote SSubscribe RReply QQuote BBookmark MMy threads
Color scheme? Blue / Yellow