Exposure control more than +/- 2.5 stops
I whish I could compensate exposure more than 2.5 stops, as often I shoot raw at base ISO and recover in post production (I get better highlights).
Best regards.
Best regards.
0
-
I am afraid you have to look for another program for that feature (besides that I acknowledge your workflow as "interesting"). You can use the HDR slider to get some extra juice out of your image. Setting the highlight slider to 100% gives approx. an extra 0.5 to 1 stop (ballpark figure estimation) and same for shadow slider. 0 -
I hope in future releases exposure could be raised more. [quote="Paul_E" wrote:
(besides that I acknowledge your workflow as "interesting")
Here I explain why I do like this, using high iso just stretches to the right the poor low light data already recorded , it doesn't actually makes a better use of the sensor. Needed for in camera jpegs, bad for raw data:
http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read. ... e=34844187
http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read. ... e=34844262
And results, highlights very well preserved:
http://img710.imageshack.us/img710/9972/dsc03904t.jpg0 -
You could do a feature request in a support case, refer to this thread, to help your hope to come through ever. Thank you for your explanation, I was expecting such an idea roughly but had never really looked into it. As I said, interesting showing the extreme flexibility of raw. 0 -
Hmm, interesting method, but it does make sense since dynamic range decrease with higher ISOs. Are you shooting with a Phase back, or something else? 0 -
Sony Alpha 850. 0 -
NN4292, have tried to set your camera up using a UniWB setting. While shooting RAW, the histogram shown of the image is based on the embedded JPEG, not of the actual RAW data itself. Many instances the histogram shows a blown channel while the actual RAW data is fine with no blown channels. The reverse can also be true.
While using UniWB, the image that shows up on the screen of the camera is useless except to check focus as the image has a strong green cast, but the histogram is right o the money. One other note, you have to shoot a reference card before you start shooting so Capture One can set the WB. I have found shooting outdoors in direct sun, UniWB helps greatly to preserve the dynamic range, and the highlights. Just keep an eye on your histogram and your fine.
Below is a link to show you how to set it up on a Sony camera.
http://forum.getdpi.com/forum/showthread.php?t=5531
Don't you have noise problems underexposing around three stops?0 -
I took a look at Uniwb months ago, I know it works (tried with a magenta filter, too). But those histograms I used to check for clipped channels are from rawanalyze, that gets them from the actual raw: http://www.netzwelt.de/download/11699-rawnalyze.html [quote="Paul1921" wrote:
Don't you have noise problems underexposing around three stops?
I don't actually underexpose, the light hitting the sensor is the same as I were using 1600 or 3200 ISO, but I just don't raise too much the ISO in camera. Using high ISOs in camera just tells it to stretch information to the right, the sensor doesn't become more sensitive. What the camera does internally, I do on the PC, in a more controlled way and loosing less information. Resulting noise is the same. If you try taking the same pic in manual mode (same shutter/aperture), but only changing the ISO, the exposure corrected raws are identical.
Here (with better words 😄) they get to the same conclusion:
http://www.dyxum.com/dforum/high-iso-an ... page1.html
I must say that I tried C1 and it does a much better job than other programs, regarding noise, it's a shame it's limited to +/-2.5 stops.0 -
OK, now I understand. Just must have had a mental block. This is something I really must try out, and see the results myself. Truly an interesting method, thank you for the information. Have you put in a feature request for the additional exposure control?
The only downside I see is that you really can't check focus in the camera, as the image would be too dark in some cases so you would have to wait until you check them on the computer.0 -
Hmm so when I understand correctly, ISO is nothing more than scaling the harvested photon measurement to a digital 16 bit range. Indeed this would suggest that a 32 bit RAW format would eliminate the ISO need completely, as you always have fine enough digital resolution to distinguish between black levels. Hmm in other words: If you scale up 65536 to 4294967296, the difference between 1 and 2 in 16 bit is 65536 in 32 bit. ISO in the digital age is nothing more than a lie (or a way to compensate for 16 bit RAW formats). In the future, cameras will have no ISO and no view finder anymore. I am sure about this. 0 -
[quote="Paul1921" wrote:
Have you put in a feature request for the additional exposure control?...the image would be too dark in some cases so you would have to wait until you check them on the computer.
Actually I got lost in the support pages... 🤭
If I have to shoot at 3200ISO, I use 640 or 800 instead. I can still see in the screen, it's just a bit darker.0 -
I have done some experiemnts yesterday and my conclusion is:
Rule 2: Never underexposure your sensor. Your sensor loves you the more photos it gets.
Rule 1: Never OVEREXPOSURE your.... erm... Raw file format hehe....
Overexposuring means having a hard crop of information at 65535. Underexposuring "just" means you have to amplify the digital data more, which results in more noise.
Never forget: It is a difference if you overexposure your sensor or "overexposure" your RAW format.0 -
Try to put the camera on a tripod, in a situation your camera would actually need ISO 3200. I mean something like f5.6 1/40" ISO 3200, take the raw. Then take another raw at f5.6 1/40", same values, but now at ISO 800 and in C1 recover +2 stops. I'm sure you won't see any difference between the two shots.
The tecnique doesn't involve over/under exposing, but to do the amplification during the post production, not in the camera as it could easily clip data in the highlights.0 -
Maybe not obviously, but there is. Just about the fact that if you go much farer (take ISO 100 for example), you can still see all the details if you push up the values high enough in the Rawnalyze tool. However, I see more noise there.
Also referring to: http://dxomark.com/index.php/en/Learn-m ... ensitivity
Especially High ISO myths.0
Post ist für Kommentare geschlossen.
Kommentare
13 Kommentare