DR 400 example for Ysarex

[VfxByArt]

This shows DR400 in action. A video explaining this mode is located here:

I snapped a quick picture of my friend Linda as we were celebrating our birthdays...a week apart!!!

I had my setting from the previous night... iso 640 at shutter speed 250, lens at f1.4 in the afternoon sun! NUCLEAR!!! lightroom setting zeroed out...


On my canon this image would have been loss....

But because I had DR400 enables in my camera, I was able to recover the hi lights almost 3 stops!!! Image saved!!!!



Ysarex, this is screen grab from my lightroom session with this RAW files. Explain to me how DR 400 doesn't work it RAW...

 

[Erik Baumgartner]

This shows DR400 in action. A video explaining this mode is located here:

I snapped a quick picture of my friend Linda as we were celebrating our birthdays...a week apart!!!

I had my setting from the previous night... iso 640 at shutter speed 250, lens at f1.4 in the afternoon sun! NUCLEAR!!! lightroom setting zeroed out...


On my canon this image would have been loss....

But because I had DR400 enables in my camera, I was able to recover the hi lights almost 3 stops!!! Image saved!!!!



Ysarex, this is screen grab from my lightroom session with this RAW files. Explain to me how DR 400 doesn't work it RAW...

It doesn't really "work" in RAW. Choosing to use DR400 can indeed affect RAW exposure though, Here it has brought about a 2 stop underexposure relative to what you would have gotten shooting normally at DR100 at base ISO. In this case it has covered for your careless overexposure, in effect bringing about a closer to "proper" RAW exposure. If you are in the habit of overexposing in this way, maybe DR400 is a good idea for you. Exposing "normally" at DR400 and ISO 640 will, however, result in more noise and less dynamic range (2 full stops worth) than exposing "normally" at DR100 and base ISO. Exposing properly in the first place would be my preferred way to go.

 

[Rightsaidfred]

But because I had DR400 enables in my camera, I was able to recover the hi lights almost 3 stops!!! Image saved!!!Ysarex, this is screen grab from my lightroom session with this RAW files. Explain to me how DR 400 doesn't work it RAW...

It does.

DR200/400 is just more interesting to jpeg shooters IMO.

The raw is simply uniformly underexposed 1 resp. 2 stops. I showed this with a raw converter that does not apply the Fujifilm DR technology (darktable).

Conclusion on DR200, DR400, and DR Priority

If you avoid blown out highlights with your raw, as a raw photographer, you don't need DR. My opinion.

Regards,

Martin

--
https://500px.com/bachrocks
https://100asa.com/photographer/martin
https://www.instagram.com/martin.lang.photography

 

[Ysarex]

This shows DR400 in action. A video explaining this mode is located here:

Bad video. The author's explanations of how the DR200/400 modes function is ridiculous nonsense.

I snapped a quick picture of my friend Linda as we were celebrating our birthdays...a week apart!!!

I had my setting from the previous night... iso 640 at shutter speed 250, lens at f1.4 in the afternoon sun! NUCLEAR!!! lightroom setting zeroed out...


On my canon this image would have been loss....

But because I had DR400 enables in my camera, I was able to recover the hi lights almost 3 stops!!! Image saved!!!!



Ysarex, this is screen grab from my lightroom session with this RAW files. Explain to me how DR 400 doesn't work it RAW...

You posted this in a previous thread: "This allows the camera to underexpose the hi lights of an image while boosting the mid tones and shadows…. basically what you eventually do in post if you underexposed your images. It does all of these calculations prior to the analog to digital conversion, so it works in RAW!"

And your parroting one of the mistakes made in that video. All of those calculations are not done prior to AD conversion. That's wrong.

The DR200/400 modes do effect RAW files by avoiding potential ISO clipping and as such they preserve highlight detail that would otherwise be lost. That's not the same as "all of those calculations" being done before ADC.

The DR200/400 modes do not boost midtones and shadows in the RAW file and in that sense they don't "work" in RAW. Nothing unique is done with the RAW file that can't be accomplished by simply setting the needed exposure with the camera remaining set to DR100. So there's no value for the RAW shooter.

I'll be happy to walk you through it all in the morning. Good night.

 

[Rightsaidfred]

The DR200/400 modes do not boost midtones and shadows in the RAW file and in that sense they don't "work" in RAW. Nothing unique is done with the RAW file that can't be accomplished by simply setting the needed exposure with the camera remaining set to DR100. So there's no value for the RAW shooter.

That's an excellent statement. I confirmed it with darktable. For the link see my other post in this thread above.

As long as you don't blow out the highlights in the raw, no advantage to the raw shooter.

Martin

 

[Erik Baumgartner]

The DR200/400 modes do not boost midtones and shadows in the RAW file and in that sense they don't "work" in RAW. Nothing unique is done with the RAW file that can't be accomplished by simply setting the needed exposure with the camera remaining set to DR100. So there's no value for the RAW shooter.

That's an excellent statement. I confirmed it with darktable. For the link see my other post in this thread above.

As long as you don't blow out the highlights in the raw, no advantage to the raw shooter.

Martin

Yes indeed, unless you always want to leave yourself a buffer in case of exposure mistakes, but I would argue that shooting with a bracketed under and maybe over-exposure as well would be better for guaranteeing an optimal file to work with if your exposures don’t always turn out as intended.

 

[Rightsaidfred]

The DR200/400 modes do not boost midtones and shadows in the RAW file and in that sense they don't "work" in RAW. Nothing unique is done with the RAW file that can't be accomplished by simply setting the needed exposure with the camera remaining set to DR100. So there's no value for the RAW shooter.

That's an excellent statement. I confirmed it with darktable. For the link see my other post in this thread above.

As long as you don't blow out the highlights in the raw, no advantage to the raw shooter.

Martin

Yes indeed, unless you always want to leave yourself a buffer in case of exposure mistakes,

Mistakes in the direction of raw highlight clipping.

If the image is exposed properly, DR is done at the expense of sacrificing in the shadows. And potentially unnecessary noise.

but I would argue that shooting with a bracketed under and maybe over-exposure as well would be better for guaranteeing an optimal file to work with if your exposures don’t always turn out as intended.

Yep.

Martin

 

[VfxByArt]

It doesn't really "work" in RAW.

Explain? I just showed you it working in a Raw file giving me 3 stops of hilight range. My canon can’t do that. Dr100 doesn’t give you that result.

Choosing to use DR400 can indeed affect RAW exposure though,

I don’t get it. Does it work or not work?

Here it has brought about a 2 stop underexposure relative to what you would have gotten shooting normally at DR100 at base ISO.

3 stops, look at the LR exposure slider.

In this case it has covered for your careless overexposure, in effect bringing about a closer to "proper" RAW exposure. If you are in the habit of overexposing in this way, maybe DR400 is a good idea for you.

Commenters are weird….

I said, it was a mistake. I had my camera setting frim the previous evening. Man, your a condescending one.

Exposing "normally" at DR400 and ISO 640 will, however, result in more noise and less dynamic range (2 full stops worth) than exposing "normally" at DR100 and base ISO.

more noise where? In the blacks? For more than three stops of highlight retention? Take my money!

How many noise reduction tools are there?

how many hi-light clipping reduction tools are there?

Exactly.

Less dynamic where? In the 11th or 12th stop in the blacks? Who cares? Its black. I’d rather REDISTRIBUTE the dynamic range more EQUALY thru the exposure range to give me a more naturalistic and filmic highlight rolloff than having 14 stops of dynamic range in the blacks and 1 in the hilights.

Exposing properly in the first place would be my preferred way to go.

Again, this was extreme example.

Again, I’ll retype my philosophy using DR400:

I’d rather REDISTRIBUTE the dynamic range more EQUALY thru the exposure range to give me a more naturalistic and filmic highlight rolloff than having 14 stops of dynamic range in the blacks and 1 in the hilights.

 

[Ysarex]

It doesn't really "work" in RAW.

Explain? I just showed you it working in a Raw file giving me 3 stops of hilight range. My canon can’t do that. Dr100 doesn’t give you that result.

Choosing to use DR400 can indeed affect RAW exposure though,

I don’t get it. Does it work or not work?

Here it has brought about a 2 stop underexposure relative to what you would have gotten shooting normally at DR100 at base ISO.

3 stops, look at the LR exposure slider.

In this case it has covered for your careless overexposure, in effect bringing about a closer to "proper" RAW exposure. If you are in the habit of overexposing in this way, maybe DR400 is a good idea for you.

Commenters are weird….

I said, it was a mistake. I had my camera setting frim the previous evening. Man, your a condescending one.

Exposing "normally" at DR400 and ISO 640 will, however, result in more noise and less dynamic range (2 full stops worth) than exposing "normally" at DR100 and base ISO.

more noise where? In the blacks? For more than three stops of highlight retention? Take my money!

How many noise reduction tools are there?

how many hi-light clipping reduction tools are there?

Exactly.

Less dynamic where? In the 11th or 12th stop in the blacks? Who cares? Its black. I’d rather REDISTRIBUTE the dynamic range more EQUALY

That happens only in the JPEG via the application of a reduced contrast tone curve applied in the image processor. There is no REDISTRIBUTION of dynamic range in the raw files making it more equal when the DR200/400 modes are used. Therefore a raw shooter can use DR100 and get the same end result in a raw file that DR400 produces.

thru the exposure range to give me a more naturalistic and filmic highlight rolloff than having 14 stops of dynamic range in the blacks and 1 in the hilights.

Exposing properly in the first place would be my preferred way to go.

Again, this was extreme example.

Again, I’ll retype my philosophy using DR400:

I’d rather REDISTRIBUTE the dynamic range more EQUALY

This is again the same mistake made in the linked video. No redistribution of dynamic range making it more equal is applied to the DR200/400 raw files. By using DR100 and simply changing the exposure to avoid highlight clipping you can get the same raw data that DR200/400 produces.

By avoiding the required ISO increase necessary to use the DR200/400 modes you can most likely get a better raw file using DR100 than you'll get using DR200/400.

thru the exposure range to give me a more naturalistic and filmic highlight rolloff than having 14 stops of dynamic range in the blacks and 1 in the hilights.

 

[Erik Baumgartner]

It doesn't really "work" in RAW.

Explain? I just showed you it working in a Raw file giving me 3 stops of hilight range. My canon can’t do that. Dr100 doesn’t give you that result.

By choosing DR400 and ISO 640 over DR100 and base ISO you are effectively bringing about a full 2 stop relative underexposure. In your Lightroom screenshot below, you are under the impression that your settings are zeroed, but they’re actually not. What you’re seeing below is after Lightroom has read an embedded metadata tag and automatically applied 2 full stops of brightening. By later setting the exposure slider at -2.70 stops, you’re really only decreasing the exposure slider by .7

Choosing to use DR400 can indeed affect RAW exposure though,

I don’t get it. Does it work or not work?

Using DR400 can affect the RAW file, yes. But “work” on the RAW file isn’t really accurate as it isn’t applying any kind of selective tonal redistribution to the RAW - that is a process unique to the jpeg. The RAW is simply recorded two stops darker (before the analog to digital conversion) than it would have otherwise been using DR100. Lightroom automatically compensates for this darkening. If you were looking at your DR400 RAW files as they actually are (with the exposure slider at -2), they would look (and be) very underexposed indeed.

Here it has brought about a 2 stop underexposure relative to what you would have gotten shooting normally at DR100 at base ISO.

3 stops, look at the LR exposure slider.

No, see above

In this case it has covered for your careless overexposure, in effect bringing about a closer to "proper" RAW exposure. If you are in the habit of overexposing in this way, maybe DR400 is a good idea for you.

Commenters are weird….

I said, it was a mistake. I had my camera setting frim the previous evening. Man, your a condescending one.

Sorry, that admittedly didn’t come across well

Exposing "normally" at DR400 and ISO 640 will, however, result in more noise and less dynamic range (2 full stops worth) than exposing "normally" at DR100 and base ISO.

more noise where? In the blacks? For more than three stops of highlight retention? Take my money!

How many noise reduction tools are there?

how many hi-light clipping reduction tools are there?

Exactly.

Less dynamic where? In the 11th or 12th stop in the blacks? Who cares? Its black. I’d rather REDISTRIBUTE the dynamic range more EQUALY thru the exposure range to give me a more naturalistic and filmic highlight rolloff than having 14 stops of dynamic range in the blacks and 1 in the hilights.

There is no redistribution. By using DR400 and ISO 640 instead of DR100 and base ISO with “normal” exposure settings, your shadows will simply be recorded 2 stops further to the left and into the noise than they would have been otherwise. Always a problem? No, not necessarily, but I think most people would prefer doing without the unnecessary noise and gaining the additional 2 stops of dynamic range available at DR100 with correct exposure.

Exposing properly in the first place would be my preferred way to go.

Again, this was extreme example.

Again, I’ll retype my philosophy using DR400:

I’d rather REDISTRIBUTE the dynamic range more EQUALY thru the exposure range to give me a more naturalistic and filmic highlight rolloff than having 14 stops of dynamic range in the blacks and 1 in the hilights.

Again, there is no dynamic range redistribution applied to the RAW file, the guy in the video is wrong.

 

[Ysarex]

This shows DR400 in action. A video explaining this mode is located here:

So I think what may help here is to debunk the video -- unfortunately you watched it.

He starts getting into trouble after 5:30 minutes and then at 5:50 minutes he says, "...by shooting at this ISO value of 640 now your camera has more room to work with in the amplification stage of the processing. So then what it does is it decreases amplification in only the highlight areas of your image in order to protect them."

At this point you could assume it's just sloppy language and when he uses the term amplification he's not referring to sensor signal amplification but rather the ISO and tone curve processing applied in the image processor. But we soon learn that he is in fact using amplification here to mean sensor signal amplification.

He's wrong. The DR200/400 modes do not decrease amplification in only the highlight areas of the image. They decrease amplification uniformly across the entire image and that's baked into the raw file.

He goes on: "Then it will use the original ISO of 640 to amplify the shadow areas of your image, and also some of the mid-tones. Right? So that basically the highlights are processed with a lower ISO and the shadows are processed with a higher ISO, all in the same shot. Before, before the image is sent to the analog to digital converter, then everything else is as normal and it saves the file to your SD card."

Just no. That is not what happens. When he says in this last paragraph that disproportional highlight shadow processing is occurring before the image is sent to the analog to digital converter we confirm that when he used the term amplification he was in fact referring to sensor signal amplification.

The DR200/400 modes do not apply any kind of disproportional amplification to the sensor signal. One or two stops of ISO lightening through sensor signal amplification is uniformly skipped when the raw file is processed and the disproportional adjustment of highlights and shadows is instead performed with the application of a lower contrast tone curve in the image processor when the JPEG is created.

It works for the JPEG. However because the sensor signal amplification is skipped uniformly for the entire raw file you just end up with a darker raw file. Highlights that may have been ISO clipped are instead preserved but there's no disproportional highlight/shadow processing applied in the raw file. So there's nothing special about the DR200/400 raw files. The raw shooter can just leave the camera set to DR100 and expose to preserve the highlights.

 

[Rightsaidfred]

It works for the JPEG. However because the sensor signal amplification is skipped uniformly for the entire raw file you just end up with a darker raw file. Highlights that may have been ISO clipped are instead preserved but there's no disproportional highlight/shadow processing applied in the raw file. So there's nothing special about the DR200/400 raw files. The raw shooter can just leave the camera set to DR100 and expose to preserve the highlights.

Thank you again Ysarex.

Exactly right and confirmed with my simple test shots analyzed with darktable.

DR demystified.

No value add for raw shooters as long as they do not clip the highlights.

Cheers,

Martin

 

[yayatosorus]

This shows DR400 in action. A video explaining this mode is located here:

So I think what may help here is to debunk the video -- unfortunately you watched it.

He starts getting into trouble after 5:30 minutes and then at 5:50 minutes he says, "...by shooting at this ISO value of 640 now your camera has more room to work with in the amplification stage of the processing. So then what it does is it decreases amplification in only the highlight areas of your image in order to protect them."

At this point you could assume it's just sloppy language and when he uses the term amplification he's not referring to sensor signal amplification but rather the ISO and tone curve processing applied in the image processor. But we soon learn that he is in fact using amplification here to mean sensor signal amplification.

He's wrong. The DR200/400 modes do not decrease amplification in only the highlight areas of the image. They decrease amplification uniformly across the entire image and that's baked into the raw file.

He goes on: "Then it will use the original ISO of 640 to amplify the shadow areas of your image, and also some of the mid-tones. Right? So that basically the highlights are processed with a lower ISO and the shadows are processed with a higher ISO, all in the same shot. Before, before the image is sent to the analog to digital converter, then everything else is as normal and it saves the file to your SD card."

Seems the author of the video read this book (p.149, 161-167), but thought the passages relating to the effects of DR modes also apply to RAW files .

Just no. That is not what happens. When he says in this last paragraph that disproportional highlight shadow processing is occurring before the image is sent to the analog to digital converter we confirm that when he used the term amplification he was in fact referring to sensor signal amplification.

The DR200/400 modes do not apply any kind of disproportional amplification to the sensor signal. One or two stops of ISO lightening through sensor signal amplification is uniformly skipped when the raw file is processed and the disproportional adjustment of highlights and shadows is instead performed with the application of a lower contrast tone curve in the image processor when the JPEG is created.

It works for the JPEG. However because the sensor signal amplification is skipped uniformly for the entire raw file you just end up with a darker raw file. Highlights that may have been ISO clipped are instead preserved but there's no disproportional highlight/shadow processing applied in the raw file. So there's nothing special about the DR200/400 raw files. The raw shooter can just leave the camera set to DR100 and expose to preserve the highlights.

 

[Ysarex]

This shows DR400 in action. A video explaining this mode is located here:

So I think what may help here is to debunk the video -- unfortunately you watched it.

He starts getting into trouble after 5:30 minutes and then at 5:50 minutes he says, "...by shooting at this ISO value of 640 now your camera has more room to work with in the amplification stage of the processing. So then what it does is it decreases amplification in only the highlight areas of your image in order to protect them."

At this point you could assume it's just sloppy language and when he uses the term amplification he's not referring to sensor signal amplification but rather the ISO and tone curve processing applied in the image processor. But we soon learn that he is in fact using amplification here to mean sensor signal amplification.

He's wrong. The DR200/400 modes do not decrease amplification in only the highlight areas of the image. They decrease amplification uniformly across the entire image and that's baked into the raw file.

He goes on: "Then it will use the original ISO of 640 to amplify the shadow areas of your image, and also some of the mid-tones. Right? So that basically the highlights are processed with a lower ISO and the shadows are processed with a higher ISO, all in the same shot. Before, before the image is sent to the analog to digital converter, then everything else is as normal and it saves the file to your SD card."

Seems the author of the video read this book (p.149, 161-167), but thought the passages relating to the effects of DR modes also apply to RAW files .

That explanation has problems as well but it's not as whacky as the video. Pfirstinger describes the action of the DR200/400 functions in the same nonsensical manner as I've seen in other presentations -- stating that with the camera set to ISO 800/DR400 the RAW file is actually recorded at ISO 200. Interesting that he's updated the text since the 2019 ISO revision and included a note explaining why that's a dumb thing to say.

Just no. That is not what happens. When he says in this last paragraph that disproportional highlight shadow processing is occurring before the image is sent to the analog to digital converter we confirm that when he used the term amplification he was in fact referring to sensor signal amplification.

The DR200/400 modes do not apply any kind of disproportional amplification to the sensor signal. One or two stops of ISO lightening through sensor signal amplification is uniformly skipped when the raw file is processed and the disproportional adjustment of highlights and shadows is instead performed with the application of a lower contrast tone curve in the image processor when the JPEG is created.

It works for the JPEG. However because the sensor signal amplification is skipped uniformly for the entire raw file you just end up with a darker raw file. Highlights that may have been ISO clipped are instead preserved but there's no disproportional highlight/shadow processing applied in the raw file. So there's nothing special about the DR200/400 raw files. The raw shooter can just leave the camera set to DR100 and expose to preserve the highlights.

 

[sluggy_warrior]

The DR200/400 modes do not boost midtones and shadows in the RAW file and in that sense they don't "work" in RAW. Nothing unique is done with the RAW file that can't be accomplished by simply setting the needed exposure with the camera remaining set to DR100. So there's no value for the RAW shooter.

That's an excellent statement. I confirmed it with darktable. For the link see my other post in this thread above.

As long as you don't blow out the highlights in the raw, no advantage to the raw shooter.

Talking about darktable, from what I understand, DR200/400 simply underexposed the RAW a stop or two, then basically applies what the "tone equalizer" does to convert to JPG?

 

[Rightsaidfred]

The DR200/400 modes do not boost midtones and shadows in the RAW file and in that sense they don't "work" in RAW. Nothing unique is done with the RAW file that can't be accomplished by simply setting the needed exposure with the camera remaining set to DR100. So there's no value for the RAW shooter.

That's an excellent statement. I confirmed it with darktable. For the link see my other post in this thread above.

As long as you don't blow out the highlights in the raw, no advantage to the raw shooter.

Talking about darktable, from what I understand, DR200/400 simply underexposed the RAW a stop or two, then basically applies what the "tone equalizer" does to convert to JPG?

Yep. That's exactly my understanding, too.

It requires min. 2x resp. 4x base ISO.

Martin

--
https://500px.com/bachrocks
https://100asa.com/photographer/martin
https://www.instagram.com/martin.lang.photography

 

[Ysarex]

The DR200/400 modes do not boost midtones and shadows in the RAW file and in that sense they don't "work" in RAW. Nothing unique is done with the RAW file that can't be accomplished by simply setting the needed exposure with the camera remaining set to DR100. So there's no value for the RAW shooter.

That's an excellent statement. I confirmed it with darktable. For the link see my other post in this thread above.

As long as you don't blow out the highlights in the raw, no advantage to the raw shooter.

Talking about darktable, from what I understand, DR200/400 simply underexposed the RAW a stop or two, then basically applies what the "tone equalizer" does to convert to JPG?

That's problematic language to describe what happens. DR200/400 require that you raise the ISO above base. Raising the ISO causes the camera meter to recalculate a reduced exposure. That's the source of any underexposure. We raise ISO because we need to reduce exposure. Because the DR200/400 modes require a minimum raised ISO folks have gotten sloppy with the terminology and say they underexpose but that's not really accurate.

If for example you set the ISO to 640 with DR400 and meter a scene you'll get an exposure recommendation from the meter. Change the DR to DR100 and you'll get the very same exposure recommendation from the meter. How then given the same exposure for both DR100 and DR400 is the DR400 file underexposed but the DR100 file is not?

When you switch to DR100 it becomes possible to drop the ISO below 640 and so you can then expose more. Some folks see the inverse of that as the DR modes force underexpose. But with the ISO set to say 1600 DR100 and DR400 both meter the same exposure so the DR modes don't really underexpose. It's a case of being clear about cause and effect because mixing those two up can sometimes lead to trouble.

 

[VfxByArt]

It doesn't really "work" in RAW.

Explain? I just showed you it working in a Raw file giving me 3 stops of hilight range. My canon can’t do that. Dr100 doesn’t give you that result.

Choosing to use DR400 can indeed affect RAW exposure though,

I don’t get it. Does it work or not work?

Here it has brought about a 2 stop underexposure relative to what you would have gotten shooting normally at DR100 at base ISO.

3 stops, look at the LR exposure slider.

In this case it has covered for your careless overexposure, in effect bringing about a closer to "proper" RAW exposure. If you are in the habit of overexposing in this way, maybe DR400 is a good idea for you.

Commenters are weird….

I said, it was a mistake. I had my camera setting frim the previous evening. Man, your a condescending one.

Exposing "normally" at DR400 and ISO 640 will, however, result in more noise and less dynamic range (2 full stops worth) than exposing "normally" at DR100 and base ISO.

more noise where? In the blacks? For more than three stops of highlight retention? Take my money!

How many noise reduction tools are there?

how many hi-light clipping reduction tools are there?

Exactly.

Less dynamic where? In the 11th or 12th stop in the blacks? Who cares? Its black. I’d rather REDISTRIBUTE the dynamic range more EQUALY

That happens only in the JPEG via the application of a reduced contrast tone curve applied in the image processor. There is no REDISTRIBUTION of dynamic range in the raw files making it more equal when the DR200/400 modes are used. Therefore a raw shooter can use DR100 and get the same end result in a raw file that DR400 produces.

Thx for replying here Ysarex.

If you look at the my first post, thats the RAW file. Not Jpg. Try that in DR 100 @ iso 100. Spoiler alert: you get an unrecoverable image.

thru the exposure range to give me a more naturalistic and filmic highlight rolloff than having 14 stops of dynamic range in the blacks and 1 in the hilights.

Exposing properly in the first place would be my preferred way to go.

Again, this was extreme example.

Again, I’ll retype my philosophy using DR400:

I’d rather REDISTRIBUTE the dynamic range more EQUALY

This is again the same mistake made in the linked video. No redistribution of dynamic range making it more equal is applied to the DR200/400 raw files. By using DR100 and simply changing the exposure to avoid highlight clipping you can get the same raw data that DR200/400 produces.

Yeah.. it underexposes the hillights and boost the mid tones and shadows... while giving you your image at the exposure that you set it as.

Bring the RAW file into Lightroom, lightroom properly replicates that effect so that your image looks normal.

Look at the image in apple's spacebar preview, the image looks dark because apple DOES NOT adjust for the DR400 mode.

This is in leiu of you, with most digital camera systems:

1) epsosing for hi lights to avoid clipping

2) having to go thru the RAW post process of, yes, bumping the exposure slightly so that the hi light rolloff happens in software, not hardware, while boosting your mid tones and shadows.

3) having useless underexposed JPGs that, depending on how much you were protecting your highlights, will have crushed un recoverable shadows.

or

shoot in DR 400 mode and have all of that happen every time you hit your shutter. Have normal looking JPGs with a nice highlight rolloff if you have your highlight tone set up to -2. Have RAW files with over 3 stops of highlight recovery...

"BUT IT DOESN'T DO IT IN RAW!!!!!!" you shout from the hilltops...

again, look at my fist post with the image, with the lightroom dials next to that. Show em another camera besides maybe Sony the has that level of Highlight recovery,...

"BUT IT ADDS NOISE IN THE SHADOWS!!!!! you shout from the hilltops...

who cares, there's a million denosieign products out there and, like, zero highlight recovery product out there..

By avoiding the required ISO increase necessary to use the DR200/400 modes you can most likely get a better raw file using DR100 than you'll get using DR200/400.

thru the exposure range to give me a more naturalistic and filmic highlight rolloff than having 14 stops of dynamic range in the blacks and 1 in the hilights.

 

[Ysarex]

It doesn't really "work" in RAW.

Explain? I just showed you it working in a Raw file giving me 3 stops of hilight range. My canon can’t do that. Dr100 doesn’t give you that result.

Choosing to use DR400 can indeed affect RAW exposure though,

I don’t get it. Does it work or not work?

Here it has brought about a 2 stop underexposure relative to what you would have gotten shooting normally at DR100 at base ISO.

3 stops, look at the LR exposure slider.

In this case it has covered for your careless overexposure, in effect bringing about a closer to "proper" RAW exposure. If you are in the habit of overexposing in this way, maybe DR400 is a good idea for you.

Commenters are weird….

I said, it was a mistake. I had my camera setting frim the previous evening. Man, your a condescending one.

Exposing "normally" at DR400 and ISO 640 will, however, result in more noise and less dynamic range (2 full stops worth) than exposing "normally" at DR100 and base ISO.

more noise where? In the blacks? For more than three stops of highlight retention? Take my money!

How many noise reduction tools are there?

how many hi-light clipping reduction tools are there?

Exactly.

Less dynamic where? In the 11th or 12th stop in the blacks? Who cares? Its black. I’d rather REDISTRIBUTE the dynamic range more EQUALY

That happens only in the JPEG via the application of a reduced contrast tone curve applied in the image processor. There is no REDISTRIBUTION of dynamic range in the raw files making it more equal when the DR200/400 modes are used. Therefore a raw shooter can use DR100 and get the same end result in a raw file that DR400 produces.

Thx for replying here Ysarex.

If you look at the my first post, thats the RAW file. Not Jpg. Try that in DR 100 @ iso 100. Spoiler alert: you get an unrecoverable image.

thru the exposure range to give me a more naturalistic and filmic highlight rolloff than having 14 stops of dynamic range in the blacks and 1 in the hilights.

Exposing properly in the first place would be my preferred way to go.

Again, this was extreme example.

Again, I’ll retype my philosophy using DR400:

I’d rather REDISTRIBUTE the dynamic range more EQUALY

This is again the same mistake made in the linked video. No redistribution of dynamic range making it more equal is applied to the DR200/400 raw files. By using DR100 and simply changing the exposure to avoid highlight clipping you can get the same raw data that DR200/400 produces.

Yeah.. it underexposes the hillights and boost the mid tones and shadows... while giving you your image at the exposure that you set it as.

Not in the raw file. You are wrong to say that the DR200/400 modes boost midtones and shadows in the raw file. Just because LR does you the favor of replicating the camera's JPEG processing doesn't mean that the midtones and shadows were in fact disproportionately altered in the raw file. Do you need me to prove that for you?

 

[Erik Baumgartner]

The DR200/400 modes do not boost midtones and shadows in the RAW file and in that sense they don't "work" in RAW. Nothing unique is done with the RAW file that can't be accomplished by simply setting the needed exposure with the camera remaining set to DR100. So there's no value for the RAW shooter.

That's an excellent statement. I confirmed it with darktable. For the link see my other post in this thread above.

As long as you don't blow out the highlights in the raw, no advantage to the raw shooter.

Talking about darktable, from what I understand, DR200/400 simply underexposed the RAW a stop or two, then basically applies what the "tone equalizer" does to convert to JPG?

That's problematic language to describe what happens. DR200/400 require that you raise the ISO above base. Raising the ISO causes the camera meter to recalculate a reduced exposure. That's the source of any underexposure. We raise ISO because we need to reduce exposure. Because the DR200/400 modes require a minimum raised ISO folks have gotten sloppy with the terminology and say they underexpose but that's not really accurate.

If for example you set the ISO to 640 with DR400 and meter a scene you'll get an exposure recommendation from the meter. Change the DR to DR100 and you'll get the very same exposure recommendation from the meter. How then given the same exposure for both DR100 and DR400 is the DR400 file underexposed but the DR100 file is not?

In that case you're correct, but if base ISO as the normal alternative (there is plenty of light for base ISO), you don't get the same exposure recommendation from the meter. Relative to the DR100 RAW, the DR400 RAW will indeed be underexposed by two stops.

When you switch to DR100 it becomes possible to drop the ISO below 640 and so you can then expose more. Some folks see the inverse of that as the DR modes force underexpose. But with the ISO set to say 1600 DR100 and DR400 both meter the same exposure so the DR modes don't really underexpose. It's a case of being clear about cause and effect because mixing those two up can sometimes lead to trouble.

Some folks here. I know we don't see eye to eye one this point, but if by choosing to use DR400 and ISO 640 when ISO 160 was appropriate at DR100, what happens? The result will always be a RAW file that is, yes, underexposed 2 stops below the DR100/base ISO alternative. This may be a matter of perspective but, to my way of thinking, If you cannot use DR 400 in this way without causing a relative 2 stop underexposure, how can you say the DR modes don't, in certain situations, bring about genuine sensor underexposure?

Now, I'm OK with saying the DR modes can sometimes cause underexposure because as you rightly pointed out, if you would have otherwise been at ISO 1600 anyway, the sensor exposure will indeed remain the same (and IMO, the DR modes would be more worthwhile)

The DR modes will, In both cases, produce RAW files that will be 2 stops darker, and that might be the best and easiest to understand verbiage to use when attempting to explain what's going on. But, I think it should be made clear that when choosing to use a higher-ISO DR mode instead of base ISO, that there are some real potential compromises to consider.

I don't want to start another long back and forth on this, just wanted to put out a differing viewpoint.