A before and after. Using the D500 invariant sensor to its fullest.
Aug 23, 2019 11:03:20 #
Before
What the camera captured.
Shot in raw format.
Underexposed 4 stops.
This was exported using ACR with all normal correction set to 0.
Format used JPG
The second image is the 'final' image.
Format used PNG
-
What the camera captured.
Shot in raw format.
Underexposed 4 stops.
This was exported using ACR with all normal correction set to 0.
Format used JPG
The second image is the 'final' image.
Format used PNG
-
Aug 23, 2019 11:16:17 #
The recovery is excellent ish. When you look at the details at 100%, ask yourself if this grain and lack of fine details, such as the skin, would appear had the image been properly exposed when captured?
Aug 23, 2019 11:19:43 #
CHG_CANON wrote:
The recovery is excellent ish. When you look at the details at 100%, ask yourself if this grain and lack of fine details, such as the skin, would appear had the image been properly exposed when captured?
No.
When printed it does not appear.
Remember the print size and viewing distance will influence how we see the image unlike on the WEB where we see 1:1.
Aug 23, 2019 11:33:56 #
Ysarex
Loc: St. Louis
If 4 stops underexposed then would "correct" exposure have been at ISO 6400?
Joe
Joe
Aug 23, 2019 12:33:50 #
Rongnongno wrote:
Before
What the camera captured.
Shot in raw format.
Underexposed 4 stops.
This was exported using ACR with all normal correction set to 0.
Format used JPG
The second image is the 'final' image.
Format used PNG
-
What the camera captured.
Shot in raw format.
Underexposed 4 stops.
This was exported using ACR with all normal correction set to 0.
Format used JPG
The second image is the 'final' image.
Format used PNG
-
Been there, done that. See Severe underexposure more than a year ago - 4 stops underexposed.
But I got no visible noise in my image. I used a full frame camera, Capture One Pro and the dark parts of the image were full of detail.
As I said then, "I don't recommend that much underexposure."
Aug 23, 2019 12:35:38 #
Ysarex wrote:
If 4 stops underexposed then would "correct" exposure have been at ISO 6400?
Joe
Joe
No, ISO 3200 or ISO 1600 1/60 @ f/2.8.
Aug 23, 2019 12:46:53 #
Ysarex
Loc: St. Louis
selmslie wrote:
No, ISO 3200 or ISO 1600 1/60 @ f/2.8.
Then you're not experiencing sensor invariance. The D500 sensor is a dual gain sensor which means it's not ISO invariant over it's entire ISO range. The switch occurs at ISO 400. The sensor is practically invariant from ISO 100 up to ISO 320 but no further. Then you switch impedance channels and the sensor is again practically invariant from ISO 400 on up. See chart: http://www.photonstophotos.net/Charts/PDR_Shadow.htm#Nikon%20D500
Joe
Aug 23, 2019 12:50:14 #
Aug 23, 2019 12:57:30 #
Ysarex wrote:
Then you're not experiencing sensor invariance. The D500 sensor is a dual gain sensor which means it's not ISO invariant over it's entire ISO range. ...
It's close enough to invariant and so is the camera I used in my example (A7 II) as well as my other cameras.
But the point is that you should not press your luck. Underexposing invariably leads to noise from not receiving enough light and high ISO enables such underexposure.
Aug 23, 2019 12:59:02 #
By the way your argumentation is once again off the mark.
Notice the 'final' image statement.
w/o the final layer there is no grain. Do notice that this missing layer opened the shadows as well as resurrected the white details back instead making them appear burnt.
-
Notice the 'final' image statement.
w/o the final layer there is no grain. Do notice that this missing layer opened the shadows as well as resurrected the white details back instead making them appear burnt.
-
Aug 23, 2019 13:07:33 #
Rongnongno wrote:
By the way your argumentation is once again off the mark.
Notice the 'final' image statement.
w/o the final layer there is no grain. Do notice that this layer opens the shdows as well as get the white details back instead of appearing to be burnt.
-
Notice the 'final' image statement.
w/o the final layer there is no grain. Do notice that this layer opens the shdows as well as get the white details back instead of appearing to be burnt.
-
I can see plenty of noise. It's all over the TV panel and in the yellow paint. And if you view it at 100%, it's everywhere.
Aug 23, 2019 13:14:16 #
Aug 23, 2019 16:44:14 #
MichaelH
Loc: NorCal via Lansing, MI
Curious if that red dot in the RAW to JPG is a stuck pixel. It does not seem to be in the (exact) same location as the white dot on the TV.
Aug 23, 2019 16:44:20 #
Not just the noise, but take a look at the histogram before and after bringing it up in post - not just the movement to the left, but the difference in the curves. If you’re trying to save an unintentionally underexposed shot, then you take what you get, but as an example of good general practice, NO!
Aug 24, 2019 08:03:15 #
If you want to reply, then register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.