Exposure Compensation Question

[jaapv]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

You should refer to the photographic Dynamic Range chart as well, which shows a similar reault. This shows that there is some very exceptional electronic cooking going on at lower ISO values resulting in a lower pDR. I can only guess at the reason but I suspect that the sensor design, that was aimed at (for then) high resolution and smooth high-ISO results got relatively noisy at low ISO, calling for strong electronic cooking of the file which resulted in a limited DR and a discontinuous curve - but I'll happily be educated by more knowledgeable members. Note that PtP does not indicate noise reduction or scaling - did Nikon fiddle with the black point?

At any rate, it doesn't matter in the concept of the camera, built for fast action and low light shooting. Low-ISO DR is not really relevant in those applications.

 

 

Welcome, dear visitor! As registered member you'd see an image here…

Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members!

[MikeMyers]

5 hours ago, Jeff S said:

This old article by Ctein over at TOP includes suggestions and illustrations (including curve adjustment) to avoid blowing highlights.

https://theonlinephotographer.typepad.com/the_online_photographer/2011/10/expose-to-the-right-is-a-bunch-of-bull.html

Jeff

I need to catch up on all the new stuff from the past few hours, but this article was a very good read.  I plan to try it, but I can't see it hurting anything, and it seems obvious that it will help.  Perhaps it needs its own thread here, if there is a dedicated forum here devoted to processing our images.

 

Thanks for posting.  (It took two reads before I really understood it - I'm slow about a lot of these things...)

[farnz]

5 minutes ago, MikeMyers said:

Perhaps it needs its own thread here, if there is a dedicated forum here devoted to processing our images.

Here ya ago. https://www.l-camera-forum.com/forum/55-digital-post-processing-forum/

Pete.

[MikeMyers]

Thanks, Pete.  Please send me a link to where I can go to become a "supporting member" when you get a chance.  I'm looking in all the wrong places.

[farnz]

37 minutes ago, MikeMyers said:

Thanks, Pete.  Please send me a link to where I can go to become a "supporting member" when you get a chance.  I'm looking in all the wrong places.

Hi Mike,

THere's a tab at the top of every page titled "Premium" where you can purchase a yearly Premium Membership that removes all the advertising and allows you to post larger pictures.

Or you can use this link:

Pete. 

[jaapv]

10 hours ago, Jeff S said:

This old article by Ctein over at TOP includes suggestions and illustrations (including curve adjustment) to avoid blowing highlights.

https://theonlinephotographer.typepad.com/the_online_photographer/2011/10/expose-to-the-right-is-a-bunch-of-bull.html

Jeff

I like TOP and it often makes a lot of sense, but this time it should not go unchallenged. Jeff Schewe (one of the top Photoshop gurus for those who are not familiar with the name) disagrees strongly:
His conclusion:

Quote

That there's a heck of a lot of usable data in a raw capture.

And ETTR isn't "risky" if you take care and know what you are doing...

http://schewephoto.com/ETTR/

The last bit of the TOP article is downright misleading "use a noise-reduction plugin"
ANY noise-reducing software reduces resolution, microcontrast and image quality, sometimes quite severely. Useful software for balancing noise and salvaging images, but not to be used as an excuse for less than optimal technique. The less needed the better.

[Jeff S]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

6 hours ago, jaapv said:

I like TOP and it often makes a lot of sense, but this time it should not go unchallenged. Jeff Schewe (one of the top Photoshop gurus for those who are not familiar with the name) disagrees strongly:
His conclusion:

http://schewephoto.com/ETTR/

The last bit of the TOP article is downright misleading "use a noise-reduction plugin"
ANY noise-reducing software reduces resolution, microcontrast and image quality, sometimes quite severely. Useful software for balancing noise and salvaging images, but not to be used as an excuse for less than optimal technique. The less needed the better.

Yes, Cteiin can be a controversial figure, and this topic was no exception at TOP.  I’m also a big fan of Schewe, and have followed his writings and videos.  Ctein had a very different view of ETTR years ago, more consistent with Schewe (and other respected sources).... but his position changed as camera tech evolved and his experience warranted. He is a Physicist and world class printer (including dye transfer), so he too isn’t without some technical credentials.  An interesting debate.  Bottom line, though...be careful not to blow highlights.

Jeff