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

Started Oct 1, 2013 | Discussions thread
rubank Senior Member • Posts: 1,082
Re: Examples

gollywop wrote:

rubank wrote:

bobn2 wrote:

rubank wrote:

bobn2 wrote:

rubank wrote:

The simple fact is
that you have to choose: will you sacrifice the highlights or the shadows. With a scene where the DR is beyond what your camera can capture in a single exposure, this choice is of greater importance than what ISO routine you prefer.

Do you want to preserve highlights it is often better to choose underexposure at low ISO, at the cost of shadow colour and noise (esp. banding). If shadows are more important it is often better to choose high ISO, at the cost of highlight rendering.

Heavy shadow lifting commonly leeds to colour shift and banding noise, at least with badly lit scenery where major parts of the image is in deep shadow.
In daylight situations with minor parts of the image in deep shadow, lifting in post is mostly not a problem (unless you have an ISO-full camera).

These are my findings, based on extensive practice and not on science.

The point about knowing the science is that it lets you take out of the loop a lot of the 'extensive practice'.

Extensive practice has a lot of other benefits. You need 10 000 hours of practice (whatever you engage in) to get proficient. Try it.

That's afigure plucked out of the air with no evidence.

Actually not

The point is that science provides direction much faster than trial and error.

There is no such contradiction. Most science is based on trial and error.

Well, a lot of engineering is trial and error. And trial and error has indeed helped science. But the major breakthroughs that have led to modern science, special and general relativity and quantum mechanics, are hardly trial and error. These Kuhn-sian revolutions are greatly thought beyond trial.

Even thought-processes can be, and often are, trial and error.
And how would you categorise the search for the Higgs particle...

Likewise, the Bacon-ian notion of the hypothetico-deductive process of science, which is really the heart of scientific progress, is hardly properly described by trial and error.

Beyond that, if you're going to come up with a description of "most science," I think it would have to be that most science is experiments conducted to bear out existing theory. And most of these experiments do bear out the existing theory.

Yes, but in more earthly domains, like electronics, you don´t know if the theory holds up before its tested, i.e. you try it.

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