jpgto Loc: North East Tennessee

WOW, I like it very much. Well done.

rmalarz Loc: Tempe, Arizona

selmslie Loc: Fernandina Beach, FL, USA

Rongnongno Loc: FL

And this is why I used it. A flash here would have been disastrous due to the many reflective surfaces.

I also posted a similar use of the invariant, in a D850 this time not long ago. I just did not mention what I used.

This was a mere three stops.

TriX Loc: Raleigh, NC

But why not just turn up the ISO and expose correctly? Honestly Jacque, not being critical, just curious.

selmslie Loc: Fernandina Beach, FL, USA

Even a stopped clock is right twice a day.

The highlights (windows) were correct - not blown.

But a lower ISO would have provided more DR and made the shadow recovery cleaner. More exposure and the overwhelming noise would not have been so obvious.

Rongnongno Loc: FL

Because in high ISO the results are worse - in my opinion - so why not use what the camera offers?

That said, it is not a good solution for everything, far from it, but it does work when flashes are not permitted or - as in this case - Not a good solution.

Photography is always a give and take.

When the invariant sensor came about I realized that we need to learn to use the camera and light differently. I am slowly learning.

The grain so decried by a few here is almost invisible in the initial correction. When I ended my edit, I did not mind the grain at all. When printed (8x10) this does not show any grain at a normal viewing distance.

Saigon Loc: Atlanta, GA

Wow.....Don't say the flash would be disastrous! This situation is where a flash should be used...Period!

Have you heard about a "bounce flash" technique?

Rongnongno Loc: FL

Had the ceiling been flat you would be right.

When you do not know the condition of the capture...

TriX Loc: Raleigh, NC

Maybe I’m not understanding you. Are you suggesting that he should have underexposed even more?

Btw, I suggested turning up the ISO because not being able to read the EXIF data from the JPEG, I assumed that he was shooting at the slowest possible SS and had the aperture wide open. Obviously, increasing the exposure with a lower shutter speed or a wider aperture (if either was possible) would have been the best way to get the “right exposure”. Whether or not turning up the ISO would have resulted in less noise depends on what ISO it was shot. If it was already over 1000, it may not have made any difference, but if he was shooting at base ISO and not using the Full DR of the A/D, then turning up the gain of the amp prior to the A/D would have been an improvement.

Ysarex Loc: St. Louis

In what way are the results worse?

Joe

Rongnongno Loc: FL

I posted the data here.

Rongnongno Loc: FL

If you are asking about the church

I was way off the invariant limit but it also worked.

I maybe over confident in my PP skill but I am satisfied with the results.

I also long ago that I shoot for the scene/subject but also PP. Few think this way.

-

selmslie Loc: Fernandina Beach, FL, USA

No. But we don't know the actual exposure so it's hard to be specific. We can only guess that the ISO was too high for enough light to get recorded.

The windows are the highlights and they determine the exposure. There is no way to get keep them from blowing out without having the interior coming out quite dark.

In this case, there was no choice but to recover the rest of the image from the shadows. A low ISO would provide the greatest chance of having enough DR to do that.

But the image has other problems. The dark interior ended up with a heavy green cast. Only the altar has the right color. The post processing was poor.

PS: Just saw the exposure information. ISO 1250 1/20 @ f/7.1 A lot longer exposure at a much lower ISO would have helped immensely but would have needed a tripod.

TriX Loc: Raleigh, NC

I agree. My issue in general with extreme intentional underexposure is that while a low ISO (such as base) should result in a greater DR, that potential advantage is lost because you’re not using the full DR of the A/D. From a system perspective, if your brightest pixel is only setting the 8th bit of a 12 bit A/D, then the max system resolution from the A/D is 8 bits. I grant that you can multiply the 8 bit output by a constant in post to produce a 12 bit array of data, but that doesn’t magically recreate the resolution. You either don’t have those data points or they are interpolated from the adjacent points.

Ron did a similar experiment some time ago and was kind enough to share with me both the raw data and the associated histograms before and after bringing up in post. Not only was the histogram moved to the right as expected, but the color distribution and individual color curves were altered in shape, not just in intensity. An invariant camera is very useful if you accidentally underexpose, but I don’t think always shooting at base ISO even when it results at an extreme underexposure and bringing up in post produces the best possible image.