Dynamic Range (DR400) and Lightroom

[ARNA007]

Hello! I have an X-Pro 2 and shoot in RAW+Fine. My

question is:

If I shoot in say DR 400, and open the RAW file in Lightroom, will Lightroom tone-map to make the resultant image as close as possible to Fuji's internal RAW converter?

In other words, say if I shoot at DR 400, my understanding is that the RAW is actually shot at -2EV and then the shadows are lifted up by internal tone-mapping by the internal converter -- but that the RAW is at -2EV.

Will Lightroom apply a similar tone map, or will it simply take the whole RAW file and add +2EV without taking note of the shadows/highlights? If it does apply a similar tone map, does it do so by making adjustments to Shadows and Blacks sliders?

Thanks so much!

 

[Ambulater]

This is a link to a little treatise I wrote on the subject a while back

nixda, that is one great read. I found it fascinating. I think I have a good grasp on when and how to use the DR settings, but exactly how they worked was extremely foggy at best. Your treatise goes a long way towards clearing up the fog. Well done, sir.

 

[EyeEssOh]

Thanks for the link. It turns out I had read it when originally posted.

I'm interested in real world practical explanations and would be interested to get your views on the following scenario:

Take an image RAW + JPG with DR set to 200, ISO allowed free reign on Auto. When the RAW image is brought into a programmes that doesn't read the Fuji DR EXIF, and won't make allowance for, by how many stops will the RAW image differ from an image taken at DR100?

Not sure what you mean by 'raw image'. The raw data can be displayed as they are, and since the analog amplification is going to be lower with higher DR modes, the raw intensities will be lower as well, and the raw images will be darker. They are very dark to begin with. For identical exposures, the intensities will be 1EV lower for DR200 compared to DR100, and 2EV lower for DR400 compared to DR100, due to less analog amplification.

If, with 'raw image', you are referring to an image generated from the raw data by (JPEG) processing, then it all depends on the raw processor. LR initially rendered images that were darker by about 1EV (DR200 compared to DR100) or 2EV (DR400 compared to DR100), because it didn't increase the brightness by 1EV or 2EV, resp. to fulfill then ISO setting. Even if it had done so, as it is doing currently it seems, the benefit of the DR mode would be lost, because one cannot just simply apply a constant 1EV or 2EV compensation to all intensities. One must use a special tone curve that lifts the highlights less so than the shadows. The adjustment to middle gray, though, must be 1EV or 2EV, resp. to fulfill the ISO setting.

Thanks, that's great. When I mention a programme that doesn't read the EXIF and doesn't make allowance I meant LR as it was, say when the X100 first came out. It would show the RAW image (you know what mean by show the RAW image, I mean show a representation of the data on screen) as darker than the simultaneously captured JPG.

I do understand what you are saying in your "treatis" but when all said and done the image IS one stop darker at DR200 and two stops darker at DR400 ALWAYS. Wouldn't you agree?

 

[nixda]

Thanks for the link. It turns out I had read it when originally posted.

I'm interested in real world practical explanations and would be interested to get your views on the following scenario:

Take an image RAW + JPG with DR set to 200, ISO allowed free reign on Auto. When the RAW image is brought into a programmes that doesn't read the Fuji DR EXIF, and won't make allowance for, by how many stops will the RAW image differ from an image taken at DR100?

Not sure what you mean by 'raw image'. The raw data can be displayed as they are, and since the analog amplification is going to be lower with higher DR modes, the raw intensities will be lower as well, and the raw images will be darker. They are very dark to begin with. For identical exposures, the intensities will be 1EV lower for DR200 compared to DR100, and 2EV lower for DR400 compared to DR100, due to less analog amplification.

If, with 'raw image', you are referring to an image generated from the raw data by (JPEG) processing, then it all depends on the raw processor. LR initially rendered images that were darker by about 1EV (DR200 compared to DR100) or 2EV (DR400 compared to DR100), because it didn't increase the brightness by 1EV or 2EV, resp. to fulfill then ISO setting. Even if it had done so, as it is doing currently it seems, the benefit of the DR mode would be lost, because one cannot just simply apply a constant 1EV or 2EV compensation to all intensities. One must use a special tone curve that lifts the highlights less so than the shadows. The adjustment to middle gray, though, must be 1EV or 2EV, resp. to fulfill the ISO setting.

Thanks, that's great. When I mention a programme that doesn't read the EXIF and doesn't make allowance I meant LR as it was, say when the X100 first came out. It would show the RAW image (you know what mean by show the RAW image, I mean show a representation of the data on screen) as darker than the simultaneously captured JPG.

I do understand what you are saying in your "treatis" but when all said and done the image IS one stop darker at DR200 and two stops darker at DR400 ALWAYS. Wouldn't you agree?

Most certainly not. Why would that be? Or are you still referring to a raw processor that doesn't honor the DR tags?

 

[EyeEssOh]

Thanks for the link. It turns out I had read it when originally posted.

I'm interested in real world practical explanations and would be interested to get your views on the following scenario:

Take an image RAW + JPG with DR set to 200, ISO allowed free reign on Auto. When the RAW image is brought into a programmes that doesn't read the Fuji DR EXIF, and won't make allowance for, by how many stops will the RAW image differ from an image taken at DR100?

Not sure what you mean by 'raw image'. The raw data can be displayed as they are, and since the analog amplification is going to be lower with higher DR modes, the raw intensities will be lower as well, and the raw images will be darker. They are very dark to begin with. For identical exposures, the intensities will be 1EV lower for DR200 compared to DR100, and 2EV lower for DR400 compared to DR100, due to less analog amplification.

If, with 'raw image', you are referring to an image generated from the raw data by (JPEG) processing, then it all depends on the raw processor. LR initially rendered images that were darker by about 1EV (DR200 compared to DR100) or 2EV (DR400 compared to DR100), because it didn't increase the brightness by 1EV or 2EV, resp. to fulfill then ISO setting. Even if it had done so, as it is doing currently it seems, the benefit of the DR mode would be lost, because one cannot just simply apply a constant 1EV or 2EV compensation to all intensities. One must use a special tone curve that lifts the highlights less so than the shadows. The adjustment to middle gray, though, must be 1EV or 2EV, resp. to fulfill the ISO setting.

Thanks, that's great. When I mention a programme that doesn't read the EXIF and doesn't make allowance I meant LR as it was, say when the X100 first came out. It would show the RAW image (you know what mean by show the RAW image, I mean show a representation of the data on screen) as darker than the simultaneously captured JPG.

I do understand what you are saying in your "treatis" but when all said and done the image IS one stop darker at DR200 and two stops darker at DR400 ALWAYS. Wouldn't you agree?

Most certainly not. Why would that be? Or are you still referring to a raw processor that doesn't honor the DR tags?

Sorry, I'm obviously not making myself very clear. That's exactly my point, yes using a viewer/processor that doesn't read the DR EXIF. That's exactly what I've (tried!) to say on a number of occasions.

Take a picture at DR100 and take one at DR200 and the DR200 will always be one stop darker - when viewed with a viewer/processor that just reads the data and doesn't try and alter things.

 

[ARNA007]

Hi! Thanks so much for your response. I'm not sure I'm clear on this though -- my understanding was that at say DR 400, and an ISO of 800, the camera raw file would be shot at the base ISO of 200 (it would be metered for ISO 800 but the shot would be recorded at ISO 200).

The problem is with "...shot at the base ISO of 200". It's not precise, and I wanted to point out that fact. When the ISO is set, several things are affected. One is how exposure parameters are calculated. Another one is what amount of analog amplification is used. Another one is what amount of mathematical manipulation of the raw data is being performed. Another one is how much noise reduction is applied, etc.

The DR setting affects only the amount of analog amplification. So, your statement should read "... the camera raw file would be obtained with the analog amplification of that of base ISO of 200".

This experiment will confirm:
Set the camera to ISO800, then take three shots with DR100, DR200, DR400 resp. and check the raw data. You will see decreasing intensities for the same exposures, because the amount of analog amplification is different while the amount of light falling on the sensor was the same.

However, when you look at the SOOC-JPEG file, they are all bona-fide ISO800 images when generated with calibrated equipment and viewed under reference conditions. They will all look different and may even appear darker with increasing DR setting, but the midpoint is preserved, and that is what determines the assigned ISO.

The fact that the raw is at -2 EV enables the preservation of the highlights; then the shadows would be digitally amplified to recover detail etc (but at the price of some noise)...

What enables the highlight preservation is the reduction in analog amplification.

There are basically three points where clipping can occur:

a) at the sensor level when the capacity of the sensor is exceeded. Only a reduction in exposure can help here.

b) after conversion to digital numbers during ADC. A reduction in the amount of analog amplification will help here, and that is the spot that the DR modes address. Note that the mechanisms implemented by Fuji (and similar ones from other manufacturers) provide a unique way for the JPEG shooter to address this issue. It cannot be recreated in any other way. The raw shooter, on the other hand, would not have to rely on that mechanism.

c) during processing of the digital numbers written to the raw file, e.g., when a certain manipulation leads to values that cannot be represented by the chosen working format (e.g., values of greater than 255 would be truncated to 255 in 8-bit JPEG).

One comment here: ISO is only relevant with respect to images generated from JPEGs viewed with our eyes. It does not apply to latent images (e.g., a JPEG file), nor does it apply to raw data. When you deal with raw data, pretty much the only ISO aspect that is relevant is the amount of analog amplification the setting represents. This is where the DR settings come in. They are basically "analog-amplification-compensation", not exposure compensation.

So my question was if LR recognizes the DR 400 setting of a Fuji Camera, and if so, does it simply increase the RAW file by +2 EV across the board (i.e., the user would have to go and play a lot with the sliders), OR, does it tone-map correctly such that the shadows are amplified but the highlights aren't touched? Thanks again...

I think it is pretty clear that LR doesn't handle the DR directives properly.

Hi Nixda, to make sure I have understood this correctly: say we shoot at ISO 800 at the three different levels of DR settings (100, 200, 400) -- my underestanding of what you say is that the EXPOSURE does not change, as in all three of those scenarios the shutter speed, aperture and ISO at 800 are constant. However, what does change is the analog amplification -- it goes down by 1 stop in DR 200 and 2 stops in DR 400. BUT, for example, the internal raw processor tone maps, makes shadows lighter, preserves highlights, etc. such that the overall ISO of the photo remains 800 REGARDLESS of the DR. The only thing that has changed is that the analog amplification has reduced.... therefore, to say that shooting at DR 200 or DR 400 is technically incorrect; one should say: at DR 200 or DR 400, the ISO will still be at 800, but the analog implification will be less and offset by tone-mapping for a brighness level that gives ISO 800...

Would you agree with my understanding of this? Thanks again - and great treatsie.

 

[ARNA007]

Sorry -- my last sentence should have read: so it is incorrect to say, at ISO 800 and DR 200 or 400, that the raw is shot at lower exposure level -- it is not shot at a lower exposure level; it is shot at a lower level of analog amplification... exposure is constant across all the scenarios as the triangle of ISO, shutter, aperture has not changed...

 

[EyeEssOh]

Sorry -- my last sentence should have read: so it is incorrect to say, at ISO 800 and DR 200 or 400, that the raw is shot at lower exposure level -- it is not shot at a lower exposure level; it is shot at a lower level of analog amplification... exposure is constant across all the scenarios as the triangle of ISO, shutter, aperture has not changed...

I suppose my point is that no matter how it is explained (exposure triangle, amplification, magic) the net practical outcome is RAW data that is underexposed by 1 or 2 stops if DR200 or DR400 is used respectively.

 

[nixda]

Hi Nixda, to make sure I have understood this correctly:

say we shoot at ISO 800 at the three different levels of DR settings (100, 200, 400) -- my underestanding of what you say is that the EXPOSURE does not change, as in all three of those scenarios the shutter speed, aperture and ISO at 800 are constant.

That is not what I say, and I thought I had addressed that in my write-up ;-)

Exposure is determined by scene luminance, aperture and shutter speed, which determine the amount of light falling onto the sensor. ISO isn't part of exposure, and it has never been. There is a notion that ISO is part of exposure, and it is a stubborn one, but it came from a misinterpretation of the concepts.

Your statement above would need to read: "EXPOSURE does not change, as in all three of those scenarios the shutter speed and aperture are constant" (No ISO)

In your follow-up post, you mentioned the triangle that consists of aperture, shutter speed and ISO. That triangle is not meant to represent exposure, even if some people call it "exposure triangle". That triangle is a tool for determining exposure within the constraint of a given, typically pre-defined image brightness, and that exposure only consists of the aperture+shutter speed part of the triangle. The original name for that triangle is "Photographic Triangle", but somewhere, somehow, someone misrepresented that triangle as the exposure triangle, and that name unfortunately stuck.

Exposure and ISO combine to give image brightness. Take a certain exposure and "apply different ISOs" to it, and you'll get images with different brightness. Some people equate exposure with brightness. I can only hope to convince them that this way of thinking isn't correct, but sometimes the best one can do is to define the terms and how one uses them and then hope the conversation isn't going to be muddled by misunderstandings.

So, the three images you are talking about have the same exposure, because they were taken with the same aperture and shutter speed. And they have the same brightness, because they are all subjected to what ISO800 represents.

However, what does change is the analog amplification -- it goes down by 1 stop in DR 200 and 2 stops in DR 400. BUT, for example, the internal raw processor tone maps, makes shadows lighter, preserves highlights, etc. such that the overall ISO of the photo remains 800 REGARDLESS of the DR.

Correct. ISO is a concept that relates to the mapping of incident light hitting a camera to output brightness of an image we see with our own eyes. Specifically, it is about middle gray. Any manipulation of originally captured light through a mixture of analog amplification and application of tone curves that results in the same patch of middle gray to be rendered in the resulting images with the same brightness will be assigned the same ISO value. In other words, images taken with ISO800 and DR100, DR200, DR400, and the same aperture and shutter speed will have middle gray come out with the same brightness.

The only thing that has changed is that the analog amplification has reduced.... therefore, to say that shooting at DR 200 or DR 400 is technically incorrect; one should say: at DR 200 or DR 400, the ISO will still be at 800, but the analog implification will be less and offset by tone-mapping for a brighness level that gives ISO 800...

Yes. The ISO was set to 800, and that is what it is for the resulting images. DR has no effect on the ISO value. Indeed, the DR setting only affects how the originally captured signal is manipulated within the constraint of the ISO800 setting.

Coming back to the photographic triangle: take aperture, shutter speed and ISO, change any one of them, and the resulting image brightness will change. But ISO can be further broken up into two parts: analog amplification (which happens inside the hardware of a camera before conversion of the captured signal to digital numbers) and further manipulation of the digital numbers through software (either inside the camera or externally). We now have a "Photographic Quadrangle", four parameters that affect image brightness. Let's combine aperture and shutter speed into exposure, and we have a new Photographic Triangle that is relevant to the scenario here, and it consists of exposure, analog amplification, and software manipulation. Change any one of them, and you change the image brightness.

But this new triangle now also corresponds directly to the three prime spots where clipping can occur in digital photography, at the sensor level, during analog amplification, and during software manipulation. The DR modes address highlight clipping (due to too much analog amplification), so I believe that it is useful to think about the photographic triangle/quadrangle this way when looking at the DR modes.

Having said that, there are additional clipping opportunities, e.g., when cranking up the monitor brightness or during printing. Just to drive home what I said here, changing the monitor brightness changes the ISO assigned to an image. :-D

 

[nixda]

Sorry -- my last sentence should have read: so it is incorrect to say, at ISO 800 and DR 200 or 400, that the raw is shot at lower exposure level -- it is not shot at a lower exposure level; it is shot at a lower level of analog amplification... exposure is constant across all the scenarios as the triangle of ISO, shutter, aperture has not changed...

I suppose my point is that no matter how it is explained (exposure triangle, amplification, magic) the net practical outcome is RAW data that is underexposed by 1 or 2 stops if DR200 or DR400 is used respectively.

That depends on how you define exposure.

If it is defined how it is used in science, technology and medicine, then your statement is not correct. If you define how some photographers use it, then you might be correct. So, you need to present your definition of exposure to make sure others understand what you're saying.

 

[madhav56]

THANKS Nixda.

Absolute clarity after reading your article on DR.

Prior readings had made me aware of the DR affecting the Analog amplification. There was still an intermittent nagging in the mind as to the actual application of DR in the processing. The idea of a different tone curve getting applied only to specific areas had not registered in my mind.

 

[Ambulater]

I may be over simplifying this, but my understanding of this is that DR basically gives you an automatic way to tone-map a photo in camera by preserving highlights and restoring shadows and mid tones. This is particularly valuable to JPEG shooters who want to use a shot SOOC.

So initially the RAW file is exposed one (DR200%) or two (DR400%) stops darker to preserve bright highlights, but during the RAW conversion in the camera, the underexposed shadows and midtones are digitally amplified by one (DR200%) or two (DR400%) stops while the highlights are left alone. So what your getting in the JPEG is *not* underexposed, but is selectively exposure corrected.

 

[nixda]

I may be over simplifying this, but my understanding of this is that DR basically gives you an automatic way to tone-map a photo in camera by preserving highlights and restoring shadows and mid tones. This is particularly valuable to JPEG shooters who want to use a shot SOOC.

So initially the RAW file is exposed one (DR200%) or two (DR400%) stops darker to preserve bright highlights, but during the RAW conversion in the camera, the underexposed shadows and midtones are digitally amplified by one (DR200%) or two (DR400%) stops while the highlights are left alone. So what your getting in the JPEG is *not* underexposed, but is selectively exposure corrected.

That's one way to look at it.

If you do the experiment of taking three shots with ISO800/DR100, ISO800/DR200, and ISO800/DR400, then you'll see that the exposure has not changed, as long as you agree that exposure is determined by aperture and shutter speed. If you use exposure to be determined by aperture, shutter speed and ISO, then it has not changed either. If you use exposure to be determined by aperture, shutter speed and analog amplification, then it has changed. But that would be a highly unusual definition of 'exposure'.

When your starting scenario is DR100/ISO200, and you are comparing that to DR200/ISO400, then the exposure will change in the sense that 1EV less light will be gathered due to the fact that ISO has changed, and a change in ISO results in a change of aperture an/or shutter speed.

Much depends on the starting scenario.

 

[ARNA007]

Thanks Nixda, really great answers -- I appreciate the explanation and finally get how this works, much appreciated. These are great posts you've put up on DR and also the clarifications on what the correct definition of exposure is (i.e., just shutter speed and aperture) vs. brightness. Thanks!

 

[Ambulater]

I may be over simplifying this, but my understanding of this is that DR basically gives you an automatic way to tone-map a photo in camera by preserving highlights and restoring shadows and mid tones. This is particularly valuable to JPEG shooters who want to use a shot SOOC.

So initially the RAW file is exposed one (DR200%) or two (DR400%) stops darker to preserve bright highlights, but during the RAW conversion in the camera, the underexposed shadows and midtones are digitally amplified by one (DR200%) or two (DR400%) stops while the highlights are left alone. So what your getting in the JPEG is *not* underexposed, but is selectively exposure corrected.

That's one way to look at it.

If you do the experiment of taking three shots with ISO800/DR100, ISO800/DR200, and ISO800/DR400, then you'll see that the exposure has not changed, as long as you agree that exposure is determined by aperture and shutter speed. If you use exposure to be determined by aperture, shutter speed and ISO, then it has not changed either. If you use exposure to be determined by aperture, shutter speed and analog amplification, then it has changed. But that would be a highly unusual definition of 'exposure'.

When your starting scenario is DR100/ISO200, and you are comparing that to DR200/ISO400, then the exposure will change in the sense that 1EV less light will be gathered due to the fact that ISO has changed, and a change in ISO results in a change of aperture an/or shutter speed.

Much depends on the starting scenario.

So how 'bout this as a revision to my previous attempt to state an understanding (not arguing at all, just really find this interesting and am trying hard to fully understand):

"So initially analogue amplification is reduced by one (DR200%) or two (DR400%) stops to preserve bright highlights, but during the RAW conversion in the camera, digital amplification is selectively applied to the shadows and midtones by one (DR200%) or two (DR400%) stops while the highlights are left alone. So the resulting net amplification is approximately the same, but selectively applied and in a different of ratio of analogue vs. digital."

Did I get closer that time?

 

[nixda]

I may be over simplifying this, but my understanding of this is that DR basically gives you an automatic way to tone-map a photo in camera by preserving highlights and restoring shadows and mid tones. This is particularly valuable to JPEG shooters who want to use a shot SOOC.

So initially the RAW file is exposed one (DR200%) or two (DR400%) stops darker to preserve bright highlights, but during the RAW conversion in the camera, the underexposed shadows and midtones are digitally amplified by one (DR200%) or two (DR400%) stops while the highlights are left alone. So what your getting in the JPEG is *not* underexposed, but is selectively exposure corrected.

That's one way to look at it.

If you do the experiment of taking three shots with ISO800/DR100, ISO800/DR200, and ISO800/DR400, then you'll see that the exposure has not changed, as long as you agree that exposure is determined by aperture and shutter speed. If you use exposure to be determined by aperture, shutter speed and ISO, then it has not changed either. If you use exposure to be determined by aperture, shutter speed and analog amplification, then it has changed. But that would be a highly unusual definition of 'exposure'.

When your starting scenario is DR100/ISO200, and you are comparing that to DR200/ISO400, then the exposure will change in the sense that 1EV less light will be gathered due to the fact that ISO has changed, and a change in ISO results in a change of aperture an/or shutter speed.

Much depends on the starting scenario.

So how 'bout this as a revision to my previous attempt to state an understanding (not arguing at all, just really find this interesting and am trying hard to fully understand):

"So initially analogue amplification is reduced by one (DR200%) or two (DR400%) stops to preserve bright highlights, but during the RAW conversion in the camera, digital amplification is selectively applied to the shadows and midtones by one (DR200%) or two (DR400%) stops while the highlights are left alone. So the resulting net amplification is approximately the same, but selectively applied and in a different of ratio of analogue vs. digital."

Did I get closer that time?

Yes.

I think the highlights don't have to be left alone entirely. One just has to watch for not raising them as much as the rest. I believe Fuji's DR tone curves do lift the highlights too.

Also, try to avoid the term "digital amplification" ;-) Since we are simply talking about the manipulation of digital numbers, there is no "amplification" in the technical sense (ask yourself: what is it that is being amplified?). That is a just a warning in case you're talking to some electrical engineer or the like who might well exhibit a gag reflex :-D

 

[EyeEssOh]

I'm bowing out of the tutorial now, I think it's turned to semantics, I see no reason to define every term; I just take photos usually using JPG, sometimes using DR facility.

My experience is that using DR200 underexposes (insert correct definition here...) the RAW by 1 stop. And what is more, it always does this.

Keep discussing though, I'll just not join in. Thanks for all the info from all.

 

[nixda]

I'm bowing out of the tutorial now, I think it's turned to semantics, I see no reason to define every term; I just take photos usually using JPG, sometimes using DR facility.

My experience is that using DR200 underexposes (insert correct definition here...) the RAW by 1 stop. And what is more, it always does this.

Keep discussing though, I'll just not join in. Thanks for all the info from all.

It's a pity you see it that way. The whole story critically depends on what one thinks exposure is. Since there are at least two ways photographers think about it, it is important to disclose which definition is used.

Perhaps you'll find the energy to peruse this article here. I think distinguishing between exposure and brightening will help your ability to get the most out of your digital camera. It's not semantics; it's directly useful in the field.

 

[EyeEssOh]

I'm bowing out of the tutorial now, I think it's turned to semantics, I see no reason to define every term; I just take photos usually using JPG, sometimes using DR facility.

My experience is that using DR200 underexposes (insert correct definition here...) the RAW by 1 stop. And what is more, it always does this.

Keep discussing though, I'll just not join in. Thanks for all the info from all.

It's a pity you see it that way. The whole story critically depends on what one thinks exposure is. Since there are at least two ways photographers think about it, it is important to disclose which definition is used.

Perhaps you'll find the energy to peruse this article here. I think distinguishing between exposure and brightening will help your ability to get the most out of your digital camera. It's not semantics; it's directly useful in the field.

I must admit that being an civil engineer for the past 40 years or more, now mostly computer aided does give me a sense of wanting to know more about the technical issues behind everyday life. And I'm quite well versed in photography technology. But given that I am an engineer I tend to lean towards practical interpretations. So I'll take a read. But don't hold much hope for me. After years of manual settings I'm more into auto settings - for me it's JPG with the DR "help".

Have a good day.

 

[ARNA007]

Hi Nixda, thanks for all the great advice -- I finally understand the correct definition of exposure and how DR functions. I had a quick question on Dynamic Range and how it impacts the camera's (X-Pro 2) EVF histogram. I was under the impression that selecting DR 200 or DR 400 would impact the live-view histogram, but it seems that the histogram I see is always based on DR 100. I've started a thread below on this -- given all your work on dynamic range I was wondering if this is something you have experience with?

Loading…

www.dpreview.com

 

[Stephan Kleinert]

According to Rico Pfirstinger's X-T2 guide book (which is excellent, by the way)

[...]

To see the image with its correct brightness, you have to move the exposure slider one stop to the right. Hopefully this bug—which equally affects the X-Pro2—will have been fixed by the time you read this.”

Unfortunately, this bug is still not fixed.

But there's hope... Adobe engineers are looking into the issue. Maybe, if more of us used the official feedback forum or gave some 'thumbs up' over there, this would maybe speed up the process (or, at least, underline the fact that we're still waiting for a fix)...:

Loading…

feedback.photoshop.com

Kind regards,
Stephan