HAND.
HAND.
That idea that changing ISO setting somehow changes the nature of a photodiode.
@IliahBorg has written: @finnan has written: @IliahBorg has written: @DonaldB has written:you cant push a raw image 5 stops without image degrading consequences.
And what do you think ISO + 5 stops does other than push?
A push with less image degrading consequences?
E.g. dual ISO.
Still a push.
So what?
"you cant push a raw image 5 stops without image degrading consequences."
So, changing ISO is still a push.
HAND.
@JimKasson has written: @finnan has written: @IliahBorg has written:And what do you think ISO + 5 stops does other than push?
A push with less image degrading consequences?
Often, pushing in post yields better IQ than cranking up the ISO.
That idea that changing ISO setting changes the nature of a photodiode.
Are there any clear limits to this IQ retention when the pushing is done in-camera?
Doesn't the camera manufacturer has more knowledge and more technical resources / alternatives to do that push with less image degrading consequences?
What can be done in the camera is limited by the computing power and heat dissipation. The computer can execute more complicated algorithms. In addition, if you do the push in post, you can change your mind or use advanced techniques as they become available.
My philosophy is to never do in camera what can be done at least as well in postproduction.
@JimKasson has written:Often, pushing in post yields better IQ than cranking up the ISO.
Really that often?
Quite often. The highlight treatments available in raw developers are much better than the hard clipping that happens in camera.
Are the camera designers to blame that their ISO setting implementation is worse than an accordingly pushed raw file at a lower ISO setting?
I think not. They have provided a machine that does certain things. It's up to the user to understand what it does and pick the best way to use it.
Are there any clear limits to this IQ retention when the pushing is done in-camera?
With lower than ETTR exposure image quality objectively degrades. Retention here needs a definition or at least a criteria.
and you cant push a raw image 5 stops without image degrading consequences.
Pushing in camera compared to pushing in post, five stops. One to one crops.
@DonaldB has written:you cant push a raw image 5 stops without image degrading consequences.
f1 lens for MF 🙄
Are there any clear limits to this IQ retention when the pushing is done in-camera?
Clipping.
f1 lens for MF 🙄
Adapted Otus 85/1.4. Dumb adapter. Camera doesn't know f-stop or focal length. Makes up a number for f-stop.
HAND.
@DonaldB has written:and you cant push a raw image 5 stops without image degrading consequences.
Pushing in camera compared to pushing in post, five stops. One to one crops.
white is not white and black is not black
white is not white and black is not black
If I had pushed the white and black squares to the white and black points, you wouldn't be able to judge noise or color there.
@JimKasson has written: @finnan has written:Really that often?
Quite often. The highlight treatments available in raw developers are much better than the hard clipping that happens in camera.
IMHO that's primarily a question of proper ETTR.
With specularity, a lot of the time you can't escape clipping. The question is how to deal with it.
white is not white and black is not black
BTW, do you know that there is no white and no black on this target?