johnmarkpainter Posted September 14, 2004 Share Posted September 14, 2004 I have a Nikon D100. Is it better to shoot at ISO 800 and then boost a stop during RAW Conversion rather than shooting @ 1600? Can that concept be taken even further? Say a Stop and a Half....Two Stops? I convert using Photoshop 7 Adobe Camera Raw jmp Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ilkka Posted September 14, 2004 Share Posted September 14, 2004 Why don't you just try? Galen Rowell used that with film, underexposing film by couple of stops and then making a 'correctly exposed' duplicate. Not recommended unless it is really necessary. But sometimes it may be. I general, underexposing digital is not a good idea so at least in theory it should be better to use higher ISO. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
clauder Posted September 14, 2004 Share Posted September 14, 2004 Well Thats what i do with my 10D if I'm shooting horseback riding competitions (and one concert) in dark places... I shoot at ISO 800 but one to 1,5 stops underexposed, and then overexpose in the raw converter... This will create a lot more noise in the shadows, so you have to use a noise removal program like noise ninja or neatimage afterwards anyway... I have one noise ninja profile for ISO 800 1 stop underexposure, and I find the files look better (not cleaner) that way than ISO 1600 (also after noise ninja)... YMMV Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
david_hargreaves Posted September 14, 2004 Share Posted September 14, 2004 I don't think there is any difference between underexposing at ISO 800 (1 stop) and just shooting 1600, if you are shooting RAW. To answer the second question: you can push it an extra stop to achieve ISOs the camera doesn't permit (e.g. 3200 on a 300d/drebel) - I think it comes out just like ISO 3200 ie significant increase in noise. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
scott s Posted September 14, 2004 Share Posted September 14, 2004 1 stop isn't that big of a deal. But realize that half your details are in the brightest stop of the sensor.<p> See <a href="http://www.luminous-landscape.com/tutorials/expose-right.shtml">this article from Luminous Landscapes</a> for more info.<p> <p> Don't go too far. On the left is an underexposed shot pushed 2.5 stops in Capture1. On the right it's correctly exposed.<p> <p> <img src="http://www.itsanadventure.com/postimages/3stopcompare.jpg"><p> When you increase exposure in RAW you will gain some noise and lose some detail. Again, though, one stop is usually fine. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
zhi_da_zhong Posted September 14, 2004 Share Posted September 14, 2004 Underexposure will help you capture more highlight details, at the expense of shadow details. (But you'll have to do more than a simple +1 exposure comp in ACR to get the additional highlight detail out.) So it's your choice. I'm not sure how "push" noise compares to higher ISO noise -- it probably depends on the specific camera and RAW conversion software. However, excessive "pushing" can introduce posterization in addition to noise. So, I wouldn't deliberately underexpose unless I really need the additional highlight details. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now