Shooting high ISO vs underexposing and lifting in post question

Started 3 months ago | Discussions thread
Slaginfected Contributing Member • Posts: 745
Re: Shooting high ISO vs underexposing and lifting in post question

J A C S wrote:

Slaginfected wrote:

bobn2 wrote:

Slaginfected wrote:

bobn2 wrote:

Slaginfected wrote:

bobn2 wrote:

Poor advice, based on a prioritising a faulty theory over reality.

Well, if you are so knowledgable, show me something I can use in actual reality which makes away with a good number of artifacts.

Are you issuing this as a challenge, or do you actually want some advice? If the latter, starting your post like that is not the best way to persuade someone to give you help for free.

Life lesson: Don't ever tell anyone how their reality is supposed to look like.

I had to endure this for years, not only in these forums, and despite evidence being available left and right that my perceived reality is actually shared by many others. If you start asking question why camera makers for example do X and not Y ("Why do they give different cameras different ISO ratings?" as one example) are strong indications that the reality I'm being told is right and my actual reality are somewhat in conflict.

By now my patience with people telling me how my reality is supposed to look like is zero. Means they will get that shoved back into their face, plus they have to put proof to the pudding.

Oh well. That seems to be the end of the conversation, then. If you want to take the solipsist position, there is no evidence or facts I could ever use to persuade you, so there's no point even discussing it. Bye.

What really stumps me is the ignorance I've come to encounter here by supposedly really intelligent people. Where is the curiosity? Where is this "why are there always these discussions, why are quite a few people out there with these questions, where does it come from?" Instead: "You are wrong, this is how it is supposed to be, ignore what you see. End of discussion."

I can answer this but you are not going to like it.


Now you can run to PDR and check, but the differences there are a little bit too minimal for visual artifacting like that. Nasty pesky reality.

What is that supposed to prove?

That the A7s3 offers more processing latitude than the A9 at higher ISOs hands down. You could replace the A9 with an A7III or -- if you want to get smacked badly -- an A7rIV. The result with the A7III will be a bit better than the A9, the A7rIV will actually be worse. Reason: The way the RAW data ends up being processed, at least currently. If you have a better idea how to mitigate these clearly visible artifacts, you would make not only me, but a lot of people happy.

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