tomcat

Active D-lighting DOES also affect the raw files. I heard this rumor so much that I tried it a couple years ago and it does indeed affect raw, just as it does jpg.

tomcat

Go out and shoot it for yourself. I did and active D-lighting definitely DOES affect the raw file. So you should not believe RawDigger's charts. Go do your own experimentation like I did. Use either a white pail or a gray sidewalk and you can see the difference in exposure.

selmslie Loc: Fernandina Beach, FL, USA

Go back to page one and reread what I did.

The reason the raw file was not affected was because I was shooting on full manual - ISO 400 1/500 sec @ f/11. I was not letting the camera base the exposure on what the JPEG or its histogram(s) looked like.

When you did your test, if you saw a difference in raw data you did not test it correctly. I used the camera's spot meter and a white target. I scrolled through all of the available Active D-Lighting settings (including Off) and the recommended exposure did not change.

As for RawDigger's plots, they are excellent. Do you have a better way to determine what ends up in the raw file?

How about this image of yours? Do you remember how you had to work to recover the shadows? It was about 3 stops underexposed.

And you had to work hard to get rid of the noise.

(Download)

tomcat

What does that image have to do with Active D-lighting?

I didn't have to work hard at all to get rid of the noise. Just used Topaz AI Clear and it knocked it out. No other camera besides the D3s could have gotten this shot....

And if you did not see a difference in the exposures with Active D lighting turned on with raw, then I submit that either you did your test incorrectly or you are not looking at the final image captured. I did not make my assertion based upon histograms or charts, but in comparing the final raw file

selmslie Loc: Fernandina Beach, FL, USA

Nothing to do with Active D-Lighting but everything to do with your understanding of what is recorded in a raw file.

I know what you can do with Severe underexposure but once you understand the consequences you are better off trying to avoid it.

N4646W

Why don't you just go to the Nikon site and find out what Active D light does, and how it works. Forget about raw digger. Shoot your image in both RAW and Jpg. The histograms will be different. If you use the Nikon software, you will be able to change the Active D light in the exposure comp tab, even if you have set it in the camera menu if you use the RAW image. You cannot in the Jpeg, you cannot even change the exposure in Jpeg., because you dumped so much information and baked into a smaller file. Sure, you can take your Jpeg into some other PP software and work the exposure comp, but you threw away part of the base information so they have to "interpret" what was discarded.

I know, Nikon software is junk as far as most are concerned, but if you take the time to learn it and it's capabilities, you might be surprised at it's capabilities. I would be surprised if this were not true of other manufactures software. As for Active D Light, it seems that all manufactures have some form of it. Is it comparable, I don't know and not interested as I've only invested in Nikon DSLR's.

Ron

selmslie Loc: Fernandina Beach, FL, USA

If you seriously want to find out how something works, don't go the internet. You are only going to find incomplete explanations mixed in with lots of misinformation. Do your own experiment.

I found two brief explanations on Nikon's site. Both of them give a layman's view in simple terms without getting into the details of how it actually works. Neither was written by the engineers that designed the Active D-Lighting feature.

I am an engineer and a scientist. I wanted to know exactly how it functions and what it does to the highlights and shadows. RawDigger was a big help in nailing down exactly what happens.

When performing an experiment to determine the effect of some factor you have to ensure that it is the only variable. That's why I took all of the exposures on full manual for a scene that was relatively constant. I changed only the Active D-Lighting setting. This way I tell that any changes visible in the result were caused by the feature itself and no other factors.

The first thing I confirmed was that information in the raw file was not affected by Active D-Lighting. Why should it be? Active D-Lighting is designed to affect only the creation of the camera's JPEG. Another thing that should makes this clear is that it can be applied to the the raw file during in-camera post processing of the raw file. All in-camera post processing is working with the same original raw file without changing it, just like on your computer.

The next thing I found was that at the lowest setting, Active D-Lighting appears to recover only the highlights. If it also recovers a little bit of the shadows it was undetectable. At progressively higher settings, more and more shadows are recovered without any change in highlights.

DirtFarmer Loc: Escaped from the NYC area, back to MA

DirtFarmer Loc: Escaped from the NYC area, back to MA

Taking your advice, I did a quick experiment. I concluded that the raw file exposure is not significantly changed.

I placed my results on a user page at https://www.uglyhedgehog.com/user-page?upnum=2955. That gives me the opportunity to update the results if I have time in the future to do more careful work on the highlight exposure.

I also conclude that Rawdigger is a useful tool toy. I used the free 31 day evaluation.

selmslie Loc: Fernandina Beach, FL, USA

That was an interesting variation on my test and it pretty much leads us to the same conclusion - that Active D-Lighting Do does not affect the raw file.

There will always be a little variation from one shot to the next due to relatively insignificant uncontrollable variations in shutter speed and changing light - plus in my case, the ripples on the water surface.

Something totally unrelated - notice the maximum raw values for each color. The highlights in the images were slightly blown. Red and blue actually reach 16383 (2^14 - 1) but neither green channel gets there (G1=15635 and G2=15609). The difference is insignificant - less than 0.08 stops - but it is consistent with the results I have seen with all four of my cameras.

DirtFarmer Loc: Escaped from the NYC area, back to MA

Yes, I pushed the exposure as far to the right as I could without blowing it out too much. Mostly because I was looking for an exposure reduction as suggested by Hogan.

N4646W

This dead horse has been beaten to death.

The raw file is "not" changed. The out put is changed by the algorithm (Nikon Presets, if you choose) which are designed to broaden the tonal ranges in High Contrast situations. You can achieve the same results using curves, but then there a lot of folks that are not interested in PP or shooting in RAW. This will give you a different histogram than the initial or original raw histogram, and reacts differently depending on which camera profile you have set (whether in the camera or Nikon software). It will also change noise, white balance, and sharpening to achieve it's results. You can fine tune the D light with Nikon software, but it is not always effectively transferred to Adobie software or other PP software. If you shoot Jpeg you have better luck as that is all the PP software has to work with, but you have discarded the original raw file. If you have a flat (low contrast) file you can use it to bring in some contrast, but you have to tweak the file first for it to work significantly. Then again this works best in RAW as you have more data to manipulate, resulting in a much better out put file.

Yes the Nikon site does not go into the finer details, they are talking to the average ordinary consumer who just wants to take a picture and understand what D light can do. You can contact Nikon directly, and with enough persistence actually talk to someone who can flesh out the finer details of anything you want to know about Nikon products. Actually this is true of most manufactures.

Being a scientist or engineer will not accomplish as much as using the functions in "RAW" with the Nikon software and seeing what it does to your output file. Then if you want, process that file as a 32 bit LAB and have some fun.

Ron

selmslie Loc: Fernandina Beach, FL, USA

I don't think that you are following the purpose of this thread.

It might be best if you click on Unwatch above.

Bill_de Loc: US

Then why in the world do you continue to beat it?

---

JD750 Loc: SoCal

Selmsile,

Active D is not something I have used in the past. I shoot JPEG quite frequently. I am always eager to get exposure right, for maximum IQ and to minimize time behind the computer :( and maximize time behind the camera :).

So after reading your posts, and seeing the pics, I tried Active-D. It is not something I will set default to ON but there are definitely scenes where it will help and I will use it. Now I have another tool in the exposure tool box!

Thank you for giving me the opportunity to learn about and try something new.