Brightness vs shadow recovery

ISO isn't an attribute of exposure,

Correct, Andrew, but I never said ISO is an attribute of exposure. I said that correct exposure happens in the camera and that ISO is one of a camera's basic controls. (If you're shooting film, it's an attribute of the film you've chosen.) A beginning photographer needs to understand how aperture, shutter speed, and ISO interact--along with many other things, but those are good ones to start with. What your comparisons have succeeded in demonstrating is the truth of the OP's original complaint: when he tries to brighten his images in post, because they're underexposed, he gets added noise. He wants to know what to do about it. My solution is that he needs to expose his images properly in the first place, because the farther he drifts from correct exposure, the harder it is to get a usable photograph out of what he's shot. Your solution is--well, frankly, I don't know what your solution is. Perhaps it would be helpful if you would stop arguing with everyone else and tell the OP what you think he should do. (The pronoun is another assumption. Apologies, KoolM1, if I've gotten that wrong.)

 

As for your comment that it's overexposing the highlights that causes blown-out highlights, not adjusting your settings so that shadow detail is properly exposed, as far as I can tell this is a distinction without a difference. Most people--certainly most beginning photographers--are not going to spend time worrying about their sensors' response curves while they're out shooting. Maybe, as on my X-Pro 2, they'll darken or lighten the image by a stop or three, but that's the extent of it. Most photographers in the field will stick to the camera's basic controls, as they should, and concentrate on the important things: composition, mood, color, framing and other elements of making a good image.. If faced with a difficult lighting situation, they'll bracket their exposures--another thing KoolM1 should be doing.

 

Anyway, reply however you want. I'm done with you. Which is not to say I won't respond to other posts. Just not to yours.

Correct, Andrew, but I never said ISO is an attribute of exposure. I said that correct exposure happens in the camera and that ISO is one of a camera's basic controls.

Go on, what has ISO have to do with producing a "Correct Exposure"? And do you go about evaluating this correct exposure for raw data?

What your comparisons have succeeded in demonstrating is the truth of the OP's original complaint: when he tries to brighten his images in post, because they're underexposed, he gets added noise. He wants to know what to do about it.

Sorry no such truth. There was no brightening of either image, the ISO 100, noisier image is seen by a default rendering in the ACR engine. If you want to know why the ISO 800 image has less noise than the ISO 100 image, just ask. Brightening an image does not increase noise. It may make the existing noise easier to see. The noise was always there. Or greater lack of noise as seen in the ISO 800 image, that was exposed exactly like the ISO 100 image.

My solution is that he needs to expose his images properly in the first place, because the farther he drifts from correct exposure, the harder it is to get a usable photograph out of what he's shot.

So, tell us how and on what kind of data (raw or JPEG) you're conducting your solution. How would he expose his raw image properly in the first place?

Your solution is--well, frankly, I don't know what your solution is.

My solution was provided along with others that correlate with my solution of optimal exposure. Did you not view the various URLs provided? You didn't and hence that is why, by your own admission you don't know. :(

Anyway, reply however you want. I'm done with you. Which is not to say I won't respond to other posts. Just not to yours.

Thats fine, leave too. Since you've told us something you think we should understand, but now tell us you will not explain it, best to move on.

I on the other have have provided multiple and consistent outside references on exposing optimally. And I'm not going anywhere in case those who are not interested in vague assumptions on the topic would like additional clarity on exposing optimally OR what the various controls with names like "Exposure" or "Highlights" actually do in defined software packages like ACR/LR.

Ok so this is how it has to be done,...

Less noise comes about from more exposure to the point you do not clip highlights you do not wish to clip. That means longer shutter speeds, larger aperture (if possible) and adding more light to the scene. As I showed, with some camera systems, higher ISO can reduce noise at the same exposure. You'll need to do testing of your camera to see if that's possible. This will only be workable IF you shoot raw (do you?).

 

Setting ISO speed does not change the sensitivity of the sensor to light, like volume control does not change the sensitivity of a radio. In both cases the setting (ISO or volume) controls only the signal processing, while the input stage (sensor, antenna) provides the same input signal. That's why when ISO setting is cranked up, automatic exposure results in more noise - automatic exposure in this case decreases the exposure (that is, the combination of aperture and shutter speed is set to allow less light captured by the sensor). But it is still important to understand that less exposure, less light, more noise. Photographers who do not assume and do not let automatic exposure dictate how they will set their cameras have control as outlined.

 

In my camera (not all follow suite), the amplification decreases the level of noise, from amplifier to AtoD converter. The stronger the signal after the amplification, the lower is the relative level of noise. Achieving so called "ETTR" (Expose to the Right with raw) through ISO only makes sense when exposure is inadequate. This can occur in many shooting conditions like low light conditions, large DOF requirement, quick action, etc. Achieving ETTR through ISO only makes sense when exposure doesn't suffice to make it which is partly what you have described. In the real world this happens hundreds of times (low light conditions, large DOF requirement, quick action,...).

 

So, you need to define how to expose for the data, and exposing for raw differs considerably than JPEG plus there is the effect of higher ISO from some cameras producing less noise. There were multiple URL's provided on page 1 that go into detail about how to optimally expose for raw data.

Technically, exposure is what you put into the image, namely time and intensity of light. Whether it is a good exposure depends on may things which follow. I am comfortable describing success in terms of results, not effort.

Andrew, since you are so passionate about using the right term for exposure, I wonder what Adobe's justification was for continuing to use the term exposure for sliders that adjust brightness when no doubt, as a beta tester and resource for Adobe, you made them aware of their misuse of the term? Edited December 26, 2020 by frans_waterlander

Andrew, since you are so passionate about using the right term for exposure, I wonder what Adobe's justification was for continuing to use the term exposure for sliders that adjust brightness when no doubt, as a beta tester and resource for Adobe, you made them aware of their misuse of the term exposure?

Yes, you wonder.

Got any idea how long the blending mode called "Luminosity" has been in Photoshop (even though you have told us you don't own Photoshop)?

Do you know what Luminosity really is?

Anyway, when one calls a slider in a product "Exposure" and a user actually understands what photographic exposure is, and they don't confuse using the slider thinking they are affecting exposure (because they are not), it's not a problem. When a user incorrectly believes the slider named "Exposure" affects exposure, hopefully someone will correct that misunderstanding to their benefit. As we have seen in this tread.

Did you know there's a way to make doughnuts with a car, and these are not the same doughnuts you get a Dunkin' Donuts Frans?

Do you know what the slang for Donut means? :D

Your reply is a prime example of your MO: don't answer the question, but ridicule, attack and obfuscate. Did you or did you not bring up the issue of the wrong term with Adobe and what was their justification for not changing it?

 

Oh, I don't have Photoshop? Really? That's news to me. I'll tell my computer to stop faking it then.

Your reply is a prime example of your MO: don't answer the question, but ridicule, attack and obfuscate.

As your posting history proves, you're only interested in an answer that syncs with your predetermined confirmation bias.

Oh, I don't have Photoshop? Really? That's news to me. I'll tell my computer to stop faking it then.

If you do, go on record and tell me you have Adobe Photoshop, that you finally moved from Elements of which you've posted about here in the past. If so, welcome (very late) to the club.

Edited December 26, 2020 by digitaldog

Come on, tell us all here if you brought up the issue of Adobe's use of a term prone to misunderstanding or not, and if so, what their justification was!

I have had Photoshop since 2000 and switched to Photoshop Elements some time ago. Anything wrong with that?

Come on, tell us all here if you brought up the issue of Adobe's use of a term prone to misunderstanding or not, and if so, what their justification was!

ALL my discussions with Adobe are under NDA and I take NDAs seriously.

Adobe has no such misunderstanding. I have no such misunderstanding. Some users do have such misunderstandings. No one here should now confuse what Exposure is in a photographic capture, something I've never seen proof you've ever made, with a slider in software named "Exposure". Because the differences were correctly outlined pages ago. Or are you not sure the difference between Exposure in photography, again something I don't know you have ever tried, with 'Exposure" in an Adobe product?

I have had Photoshop since 2000 and switched to Photoshop Elements some time ago. Anything wrong with that?

I've had Photoshop since May of 1990. And I can fully understand your need to switch from Photoshop to Elements. Nothing wrong with that. Some tools are far too powerful and complex for some users, which is why Adobe produced Elements. :rolleyes:

Meanwhile, your lack of a reply to a question about luminosity in Photoshop speaks volumes, a prime example of your MO: don't answer the question, but ridicule, attack and obfuscate.

Edited December 26, 2020 by digitaldog

I RELY ON NIK, WHICH USES PHOTOSHOP AND PROVIDES AN ARRAY OF THUMBNAIL VERSIONS OF YOUR FILE. THESE THUMBNAILS ARE EXCELLENT RENDITIONS OF WHAT YOU HOPE FOR FROM A PRINT...BUT YOU CAN FINE TUNE EACH ONE, INCLUDING SHADOW AND HIGHLIGHT DARKNESS, VIGNETTING, DODGING/BURNING AND VIGNETTING. I USED THE FREE VERSION FOR YEARS, WAS HAPPY TO PAY FOR IT WHEN THAT SEEMED THE BEST OPTION.

Wow, another thread that reminds me of the old days on this site.

 

I tried to read it all, but still can't figure out who "Mr. Rodney" is, and there are many other mysteries. Has there been heavy "moderation" or are my eyes just glazing over?

 

FWIW, and that may not be much, if you're going to do photo editing, you need a program that started as a full-blown editor, not a cataloging application. In short, belly up to the bar and get Photoshop.

 

Perhaps, if you use it long enough and have enough patience, you could get GIMP working for you.

FWIW, and that may not be much, if you're going to do photo editing, you need a program that started as a full-blown editor, not a cataloging application. In short, belly up to the bar and get Photoshop.

 

this hasn’t been true for a long time. What matters isn’t what the software started as, but rather what it can do. Lightroom has evolved to the point where it’s a powerful editor, although not as powerful as Photoshop. You should look at what Jeff Schewe does with Lightroom. I use both, but I’ve exhibited prints that were done entirely inLightroom.

can't figure out who "Mr. Rodney" is

Andrew Rodney aka digitaldog who behaves more like a digitalcur. He knows it all and will make sure everybody knows it or else.

Well, at least we don't have to put up with the lunacy of 'Brightness' (actually black-level) and 'Contrast' (white level brightness) controls on CRT monitors anymore.