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

Started Oct 1, 2013 | Discussions thread
bobn2 Forum Pro • Posts: 60,582
Re: examples where increasing brightness in post is better than increasing ISO.

Andre Affleck wrote:

gollywop wrote:

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.

Not to open any sore wounds, but it is interesting that the other poster still arrived at the correct settings to maintain highlights, even though he understood it as reducing exposure. Just sayin'

He didn't. Note above that he says 'ISO 100, 1/30, f2.0 (same exposure)'. He means same exposure as ISO 6400, 1/30, f2.0, which it is. The difference is, is at 6400, he's 'nailed' exposure, while at 6400 it's vastly improper, but much better.

-- hide signature --


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