![]() #Rawdigger dynamic range iso#You said, "One important thing to note here is that if one shoots (and plans to process) RAW as well, DR-like modes should be avoided as they rob you of RAW data in order to provide a better looking JPEG (which is still a very valid choice if you don`t care about RAW in the first place).įor example, for "DR200", camera underexposes image for one stop on purpose (using lower ISO to start with) so it can prevent highlight clipping, and then it raises shadows in the process of creating the JPEG (raising ISO as well, to value recorded in EXIF and shown on screen), modifying the curve so highlights are retained. I objected to what you said originally and not to this point. Oh, and more duuuuuhs.? Can`t we grow up already?Ĭlick to expand.That was not your only point originally. But that doesn`t even matter, you may choose whatever exposure you want to start with for ISO 640 & DR100.Īnd the point you are missing again (and which I already replied to in one of previous posts, but oh well) is that it is not strange that ISO 640 & DR100 and ISO 160 & DR100 RAW data file histograms differ two stops - which you wrongly put focus on - but that ISO 640 & DR100 and ISO 640 DR400 raw data histograms differ two stops, at the same time ISO 640 & DR400 and ISO 160 & DR100 RAW data histograms being the same. I`m not assuming anything - "correct" metered exposure is the one camera shows without any + or - EV. Not sure what would you assume less confusing.? I would like to hear your (short and simple) explanation, as I actually don`t remember reading one so far. Saying that RAW file produced with well-exposed (per camera metering) ISO 640 & DR400 is exactly the same as 2 stops underexposed (per camera metering) ISO 160 is true, and not sure what`s confusing about that. No, but I accept it might be how you (incorrectly) understood it. ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |