Reading mode: Light Dark

Is DR800 still running at base ISO?

Go to last post
9

9VIII

Senior Member
Messages
1,331
Reaction score
975
Location
Canada
It would be a shame if people are actually getting worse image quality just for the sake of compressing the highlights, basically the first (and often the only) thing I do editing RAW files.

Do we know if the DR setting is still capturing full Dynamic Range as base ISO would? Or are they acutally running ISO800 and collecting data from the noisier and more limited high ISO setting?
 
Do you mean DR400? Or is DR800 a mode on a newer model Fuji?

Anyway, DR200 will shoot at an one stop lower ISO and DR400 at a two stop lower ISO. For example when you have set ISO800, DR200 will use ISO400 and DR400 will use ISO200.
 
DR settings underexpose the base ISO and lift the exposure while compressing highlights, leaving you with more DR but more noise as well. That's all. It's effectively running at higher ISOs due to the underexposure
 
GabrielFFontes said:
DR settings underexpose the base ISO and lift the exposure while compressing highlights, leaving you with more DR but more noise as well. That's all. It's effectively running at higher ISOs due to the underexposure
Click to expand...
Thx. Was going to ask the same question. When I use Fuji DR400, IQ is severely compromised.

But why do other brands not have the same issue? When I use "DRO" or "Lighting" or whatever on other cameras there is no high noise penalty.
 
Smallpox said:
GabrielFFontes said:
DR settings underexpose the base ISO and lift the exposure while compressing highlights, leaving you with more DR but more noise as well. That's all. It's effectively running at higher ISOs due to the underexposure
Click to expand...
Thx. Was going to ask the same question. When I use Fuji DR400, IQ is severely compromised.

But why do other brands not have the same issue? When I use "DRO" or "Lighting" or whatever on other cameras there is no high noise penalty.
Click to expand...
How is DR400 severely comprised? Jpeg? Raw? I have used the DR settings somewhat often and have never seen the images severely comprised. I only shot raw.
 
Smallpox said:
GabrielFFontes said:
DR settings underexpose the base ISO and lift the exposure while compressing highlights, leaving you with more DR but more noise as well. That's all. It's effectively running at higher ISOs due to the underexposure
Click to expand...
Thx. Was going to ask the same question. When I use Fuji DR400, IQ is severely compromised.

But why do other brands not have the same issue? When I use "DRO" or "Lighting" or whatever on other cameras there is no high noise penalty.
Click to expand...
Internally, it is NOT using higher ISO. It is using base ISO, so you have the maximum DR at base ISO.
 
Christof21 said:
Smallpox said:
GabrielFFontes said:
DR settings underexpose the base ISO and lift the exposure while compressing highlights, leaving you with more DR but more noise as well. That's all. It's effectively running at higher ISOs due to the underexposure
Click to expand...
Thx. Was going to ask the same question. When I use Fuji DR400, IQ is severely compromised.

But why do other brands not have the same issue? When I use "DRO" or "Lighting" or whatever on other cameras there is no high noise penalty.
Click to expand...
Internally, it is NOT using higher ISO. It is using base ISO, so you have the maximum DR at base ISO.
Click to expand...
It’s underexposing by 2 stops which amounts to the same thing.

Edit: actually, I just checked it. DR400 definitely uses ISO 800 internally, which is exactly what it should do - giving you two extra stops of headroom in the highlights, of course you are also moving your shadow detail 2 stops closer to the noise floor by using it too. I don’t use the DR modes - only shoot RAW and expose as needed to retain highlights, but it works as it should for jpeg shooters who want to not lose highlight detail in high dynamic range scenes without having to post process.
 
Last edited:
lexvo said:
Do you mean DR400? Or is DR800 a mode on a newer model Fuji?

Anyway, DR200 will shoot at an one stop lower ISO and DR400 at a two stop lower ISO. For example when you have set ISO800, DR200 will use ISO400 and DR400 will use ISO200.
Click to expand...
Yeah I was getting a bit mixed up, but apparently some models have up to a DR1600 mode:

Loading…

www.dpreview.com

I haven’t compared RAW vs. DR400 but I’m betting there is room for a DR800 mode.
Erik Baumgartner said:
Christof21 said:
Smallpox said:
GabrielFFontes said:
DR settings underexpose the base ISO and lift the exposure while compressing highlights, leaving you with more DR but more noise as well. That's all. It's effectively running at higher ISOs due to the underexposure
Click to expand...
Thx. Was going to ask the same question. When I use Fuji DR400, IQ is severely compromised.

But why do other brands not have the same issue? When I use "DRO" or "Lighting" or whatever on other cameras there is no high noise penalty.
Click to expand...
Internally, it is NOT using higher ISO. It is using base ISO, so you have the maximum DR at base ISO.
Click to expand...
It’s underexposing by 2 stops which amounts to the same thing.

Edit: actually, I just checked it. DR400 definitely uses ISO 800 internally, which is exactly what it should do - giving you two extra stops of headroom in the highlights, of course you are also moving your shadow detail 2 stops closer to the noise floor by using it too. I don’t use the DR modes - only shoot RAW and expose as needed to retain highlights, but it works as it should for jpeg shooters who want to not lose highlight detail in high dynamic range scenes without having to post process.
Click to expand...
It doesn’t make sense to actually raise the ISO though, using the DR modes should be the same as making a phantom adjustment to the exposure compensation dial. The system is just punishing people who want to shoot Landscapes in jpeg.

So as-is the only time DR modes should actually be used for best results is when you already need higher ISO.
 
9VIII said:
lexvo said:
Do you mean DR400? Or is DR800 a mode on a newer model Fuji?

Anyway, DR200 will shoot at an one stop lower ISO and DR400 at a two stop lower ISO. For example when you have set ISO800, DR200 will use ISO400 and DR400 will use ISO200.
Click to expand...
Yeah I was getting a bit mixed up, but apparently some models have up to a DR1600 mode:

https://www.dpreview.com/forums/thread/4245570#forum-post-60646471

I haven’t compared RAW vs. DR400 but I’m betting there is room for a DR800 mode.
Erik Baumgartner said:
Christof21 said:
Smallpox said:
GabrielFFontes said:
DR settings underexpose the base ISO and lift the exposure while compressing highlights, leaving you with more DR but more noise as well. That's all. It's effectively running at higher ISOs due to the underexposure
Click to expand...
Thx. Was going to ask the same question. When I use Fuji DR400, IQ is severely compromised.

But why do other brands not have the same issue? When I use "DRO" or "Lighting" or whatever on other cameras there is no high noise penalty.
Click to expand...
Internally, it is NOT using higher ISO. It is using base ISO, so you have the maximum DR at base ISO.
Click to expand...
It’s underexposing by 2 stops which amounts to the same thing.

Edit: actually, I just checked it. DR400 definitely uses ISO 800 internally, which is exactly what it should do - giving you two extra stops of headroom in the highlights, of course you are also moving your shadow detail 2 stops closer to the noise floor by using it too. I don’t use the DR modes - only shoot RAW and expose as needed to retain highlights, but it works as it should for jpeg shooters who want to not lose highlight detail in high dynamic range scenes without having to post process.
Click to expand...
It doesn’t make sense to actually raise the ISO though, using the DR modes should be the same as making a phantom adjustment to the exposure compensation dial. The system is just punishing people who want to shoot Landscapes in jpeg.

So as-is the only time DR modes should actually be used for best results is when you already need higher ISO.
Click to expand...
DR200 = base ISO + 1 stop digital amplification

DR400 = base ISO + 2 stops digital amplification

It uses base ISO of course, otherwise it would be a total waste of DR.

Remark: it uses a tonal curve to avoid clipping highlights during the digital amplification.
 
Erik Baumgartner said:
Christof21 said:
Smallpox said:
GabrielFFontes said:
DR settings underexpose the base ISO and lift the exposure while compressing highlights, leaving you with more DR but more noise as well. That's all. It's effectively running at higher ISOs due to the underexposure
Click to expand...
Thx. Was going to ask the same question. When I use Fuji DR400, IQ is severely compromised.

But why do other brands not have the same issue? When I use "DRO" or "Lighting" or whatever on other cameras there is no high noise penalty.
Click to expand...
Internally, it is NOT using higher ISO. It is using base ISO, so you have the maximum DR at base ISO.
Click to expand...
It’s underexposing by 2 stops which amounts to the same thing.

Edit: actually, I just checked it. DR400 definitely uses ISO 800 internally, which is exactly what it should do - giving you two extra stops of headroom in the highlights, of course you are also moving your shadow detail 2 stops closer to the noise floor by using it too. I don’t use the DR modes - only shoot RAW and expose as needed to retain highlights, but it works as it should for jpeg shooters who want to not lose highlight detail in high dynamic range scenes without having to post process.
Click to expand...
This seems to contradict what others have said. Unless you are not explaining it well. We have people saying the camera uses an ISO 1 or 2 stops lower and then raises the exposure using a tone curve after the shot and you're saying the camera uses an ISO 1 or 2 stops higher.
 
9VIII said:
lexvo said:
Do you mean DR400? Or is DR800 a mode on a newer model Fuji?

Anyway, DR200 will shoot at an one stop lower ISO and DR400 at a two stop lower ISO. For example when you have set ISO800, DR200 will use ISO400 and DR400 will use ISO200.
Click to expand...
Yeah I was getting a bit mixed up, but apparently some models have up to a DR1600 mode:

https://www.dpreview.com/forums/thread/4245570#forum-post-60646471

I haven’t compared RAW vs. DR400 but I’m betting there is room for a DR800 mode.
Erik Baumgartner said:
Christof21 said:
Smallpox said:
GabrielFFontes said:
DR settings underexpose the base ISO and lift the exposure while compressing highlights, leaving you with more DR but more noise as well. That's all. It's effectively running at higher ISOs due to the underexposure
Click to expand...
Thx. Was going to ask the same question. When I use Fuji DR400, IQ is severely compromised.

But why do other brands not have the same issue? When I use "DRO" or "Lighting" or whatever on other cameras there is no high noise penalty.
Click to expand...
Internally, it is NOT using higher ISO. It is using base ISO, so you have the maximum DR at base ISO.
Click to expand...
It’s underexposing by 2 stops which amounts to the same thing.

Edit: actually, I just checked it. DR400 definitely uses ISO 800 internally, which is exactly what it should do - giving you two extra stops of headroom in the highlights, of course you are also moving your shadow detail 2 stops closer to the noise floor by using it too. I don’t use the DR modes - only shoot RAW and expose as needed to retain highlights, but it works as it should for jpeg shooters who want to not lose highlight detail in high dynamic range scenes without having to post process.
Click to expand...
It doesn’t make sense to actually raise the ISO though, using the DR modes should be the same as making a phantom adjustment to the exposure compensation dial. The system is just punishing people who want to shoot Landscapes in jpeg.

So as-is the only time DR modes should actually be used for best results is when you already need higher ISO.
Click to expand...
Shooting with DR400 (and ISO 800), the camera will record a high dynamic range scene with 2 stops less actual exposure than at base ISO which will add 2 stops of necessary headroom for the highlights and will (hopefully) ensure that they don’t clip. It can then apply the necessary 2 stops if brightness gain to bring the shadows and midtones back to where they should be, but with a tone curve that retains the highlight detail. It’s actually the same thing as you shooting at base ISO with - 2 stops of exposure compensation and correcting it in post.
 
michaeladawson said:
Erik Baumgartner said:
Christof21 said:
Smallpox said:
GabrielFFontes said:
DR settings underexpose the base ISO and lift the exposure while compressing highlights, leaving you with more DR but more noise as well. That's all. It's effectively running at higher ISOs due to the underexposure
Click to expand...
Thx. Was going to ask the same question. When I use Fuji DR400, IQ is severely compromised.

But why do other brands not have the same issue? When I use "DRO" or "Lighting" or whatever on other cameras there is no high noise penalty.
Click to expand...
Internally, it is NOT using higher ISO. It is using base ISO, so you have the maximum DR at base ISO.
Click to expand...
It’s underexposing by 2 stops which amounts to the same thing.

Edit: actually, I just checked it. DR400 definitely uses ISO 800 internally, which is exactly what it should do - giving you two extra stops of headroom in the highlights, of course you are also moving your shadow detail 2 stops closer to the noise floor by using it too. I don’t use the DR modes - only shoot RAW and expose as needed to retain highlights, but it works as it should for jpeg shooters who want to not lose highlight detail in high dynamic range scenes without having to post process.
Click to expand...
This seems to contradict what others have said. Unless you are not explaining it well. We have people saying the camera uses an ISO 1 or 2 stops lower and then raises the exposure using a tone curve after the shot and you're saying the camera uses an ISO 1 or 2 stops higher.
Click to expand...
 
9VIII said:
lexvo said:
Do you mean DR400? Or is DR800 a mode on a newer model Fuji?

Anyway, DR200 will shoot at an one stop lower ISO and DR400 at a two stop lower ISO. For example when you have set ISO800, DR200 will use ISO400 and DR400 will use ISO200.
Click to expand...
Yeah I was getting a bit mixed up, but apparently some models have up to a DR1600 mode:

https://www.dpreview.com/forums/thread/4245570#forum-post-60646471

I haven’t compared RAW vs. DR400 but I’m betting there is room for a DR800 mode.
Erik Baumgartner said:
Christof21 said:
Smallpox said:
GabrielFFontes said:
DR settings underexpose the base ISO and lift the exposure while compressing highlights, leaving you with more DR but more noise as well. That's all. It's effectively running at higher ISOs due to the underexposure
Click to expand...
Thx. Was going to ask the same question. When I use Fuji DR400, IQ is severely compromised.

But why do other brands not have the same issue? When I use "DRO" or "Lighting" or whatever on other cameras there is no high noise penalty.
Click to expand...
Internally, it is NOT using higher ISO. It is using base ISO, so you have the maximum DR at base ISO.
Click to expand...
It’s underexposing by 2 stops which amounts to the same thing.

Edit: actually, I just checked it. DR400 definitely uses ISO 800 internally, which is exactly what it should do - giving you two extra stops of headroom in the highlights, of course you are also moving your shadow detail 2 stops closer to the noise floor by using it too. I don’t use the DR modes - only shoot RAW and expose as needed to retain highlights, but it works as it should for jpeg shooters who want to not lose highlight detail in high dynamic range scenes without having to post process.
Click to expand...
It doesn’t make sense to actually raise the ISO though, using the DR modes should be the same as making a phantom adjustment to the exposure compensation dial. The system is just punishing people who want to shoot Landscapes in jpeg.
Click to expand...
It is the same as making a -EC adjustment and staying at DR100. But that won't engage the special JPEG tone curve and you'll just get an underexposed JPEG.
9VIII said:
So as-is the only time DR modes should actually be used for best results is when you already need higher ISO.
Click to expand...
The only time they should be used is if you want the camera JPEG. If you're processing raw files and don't want Fuji's JPEG they provide no real value.

If you're shooting raw + JPEG then you want the JPEG and have already made a choice to compromise your raw files.

The DR200/400 modes typically result in underexposed raw files and an overall loss of DR due to underexposure.

Fuji's metering system and JPEG processor already aggressively protect highlights. In high contrast light there is usually sufficient headroom to handle highlights and although they may clip in the JPEG they will be retained in the raw file. The last thing you need in the raw file with high contrast light is reduced exposure if you're not clipping. The DR200/400 modes typically do exactly that.
 
DR200 and DR400 are the same thing as underexposing your image by one or two stops to protect the highlights in RAW.

But they have the advantage of giving you a correct exposed JPEG. Something other cameras don't have.

So if you just shoot RAW there is no difference to just underexposing. But if you shoot RAW+JPEG you get the best of both worlds a highlight protected RAW + a correct exposed JPEG
 
panther fan said:
DR200 and DR400 are the same thing as underexposing your image by one or two stops to protect the highlights in RAW.

But they have the advantage of giving you a correct exposed JPEG. Something other cameras don't have.

So if you just shoot RAW there is no difference to just underexposing. But if you shoot RAW+JPEG you get the best of both worlds a highlight protected RAW + a correct exposed JPEG
Click to expand...
You get a highlight protected raw by shooting without DR200/400. Fuji very aggressively adjusts their camera's metering systems and the JPEG processor to avoid highlight clipping in normal DR100 use. Folks who shoot raw + JPEG and expose for a good JPEG are already compromising their raw files. Adding in DR200/400 is just throwing salt on the wound.
 
One of my concerns about the way ISO is defined is that it combines the effects of exposure and processing, which then makes it difficult to talk about them separately, since the terminology gets so muddy.

The DR100, 200 and 400 settings are, as has been suggested, different amplification/tone curve balances. DR400 ISO 800 is just as much 'ISO 800' as DR100 ISO 800, even if it's based on the level of amplification you'd usually see at DR100 ISO 200, so talk of things being 'actually ISO...' are mistaken.

I did try to write a piece explaining how the different DR modes in different cameras work , with particular focus on Fujifilm, so I hope that'll be of some use.

What's interesting is that yes, there's a noise cost of moving from DR100 mode to DR400 mode, but only at low ISOs (because almost all of the additional noise comes from the reduced exposure). Once you reach ISO 800, there's essentially no difference between the DR modes in terms of noise, so it's simply a question of how much headroom you want to maintain in your Raw files.

Richard - dpreview.com
 
Christof21 said:
Smallpox said:
GabrielFFontes said:
DR settings underexpose the base ISO and lift the exposure while compressing highlights, leaving you with more DR but more noise as well. That's all. It's effectively running at higher ISOs due to the underexposure
Click to expand...
Thx. Was going to ask the same question. When I use Fuji DR400, IQ is severely compromised.

But why do other brands not have the same issue? When I use "DRO" or "Lighting" or whatever on other cameras there is no high noise penalty.
Click to expand...
Internally, it is NOT using higher ISO. It is using base ISO, so you have the maximum DR at base ISO.
Click to expand...
Well, whatever it's doing, the IQ is much worse with DR400 (all images iso 800) than shooting at base iso 200.
 
Smallpox said:
Christof21 said:
Smallpox said:
GabrielFFontes said:
DR settings underexpose the base ISO and lift the exposure while compressing highlights, leaving you with more DR but more noise as well. That's all. It's effectively running at higher ISOs due to the underexposure
Click to expand...
Thx. Was going to ask the same question. When I use Fuji DR400, IQ is severely compromised.

But why do other brands not have the same issue? When I use "DRO" or "Lighting" or whatever on other cameras there is no high noise penalty.
Click to expand...
Internally, it is NOT using higher ISO. It is using base ISO, so you have the maximum DR at base ISO.
Click to expand...
Well, whatever it's doing, the IQ is much worse with DR400 (all images iso 800) than shooting at base iso 200.
Click to expand...
Well what did you expect? Of course it is... DR200 and DR400 have nothing at all to do with "DRO" or "lighting" options in other cameras.

To repeat myself:
Smallpox said:
DR200 and DR400 are the same thing as underexposing your image by one or two stops to protect the highlights in RAW.

But they have the advantage of giving you a correct exposed JPEG. Something other cameras don't have.

So if you just shoot RAW there is no difference to just underexposing. But if you shoot RAW+JPEG you get the best of both worlds a highlight protected RAW + a correct exposed JPEG"
Click to expand...
 
Richard Butler said:
One of my concerns about the way ISO is defined is that it combines the effects of exposure and processing, which then makes it difficult to talk about them separately, since the terminology gets so muddy.

The DR100, 200 and 400 settings are, as has been suggested, different amplification/tone curve balances. DR400 ISO 800 is just as much 'ISO 800' as DR100 ISO 800, even if it's based on the level of amplification you'd usually see at DR100 ISO 200, so talk of things being 'actually ISO...' are mistaken.

I did try to write a piece explaining how the different DR modes in different cameras work , with particular focus on Fujifilm, so I hope that'll be of some use.

What's interesting is that yes, there's a noise cost of moving from DR100 mode to DR400 mode, but only at low ISOs (because almost all of the additional noise comes from the reduced exposure). Once you reach ISO 800, there's essentially no difference between the DR modes in terms of noise, so it's simply a question of how much headroom you want to maintain in your Raw files.

Richard - dpreview.com
Click to expand...
I do not quite understand this amplification thing in RAW files. In some cases i use DR400 (=ISO800 for the exposure) . To protect the highlights ( or not to lose them)

I have thought it so that the camera in a way "tags" the RAW file so that the software i use knows how to show and process the file. Does the camera also add some amplification to the RAW file ? I can understand the applied curve ...








some DR and highlights to save ...











--
Kari
I started SLR photography in 1968, first DSLR was Canon 40D in 2007. Now Fujifilm X-E3 is my favourite traveling camera - also NEW! 5DMkIV for landscapes, BIF/nature .
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Keyboard shortcuts

f
Forum
m
My threads
Mobile site
About
Editorial content
Cameras & Lenses
Community
All content, design, and layout are Copyright © 1998–2025 Digital Photography Review All Rights Reserved.
Reproduction in whole or part in any form or medium without specific written permission is prohibited.
When you use DPReview links to buy products, the site may earn a commission.
©GPS Media - Guides, Products, Services.
Back
Top