ISO 50 - Reduced DR on original DP's

PrebenR wrote:

SRT201 wrote:

Interesting. So there's no gain on the imager and it's all just a matter of underexposure and multiplication during the development stage.

There is gain in terms of better IQ. I'm puzzled why people obsess about DR. For the most pleasing photos, people have reduced the DR in post anyway.

Here is a photo I took years ago. In this I reduced the DR in post quite a bit to obtain something more pleasing: https://www.flickr.com/photos/prebenr/6284631384/in/album-72157627678060149/

How did you reduce the dynamic range of that photo? I see black in it, and I see white in it. In fact, the bright areas in those building windows would be totally over-exposed, unless there was enough dynamic range in the shot or it was under-exposed a lot, for the rest of the scene.

To me, a scene with a lot of dynamic range in it, such as the one in that photo, requires a camera with a great dynamic range to really show well. Maybe I'm mistaken.

But to say that using a camera with a big dynamic range causes your photos to look like snapshots doesn't make sense at all. Maybe it's the world of high dynamic range photography creeping into every-day snapshots that makes you think this, but there are HDR photos that look VERY professional and nothing like snapshots, and there are non-HDR photos that look like snapshots, and vice-versa. The dynamic range of the camera used has little or nothing to do with whether a photo looks like a snapshot.

Not saying it is a goo picture, but if one wants to have an indefinite DR then things starts to look like snapshots.

In that case then the ISO 50 with -1 compensation should be identical to ISO 100's normal exposure. Correct? Fairly easy to test.

No.

Are the Quattro's ISO-less as well?

No.

-- hide signature --

Lightwriting with Sigma dp2Q for stills and Blackmagic Pocket Cinema Camera for video