Question about exposure correction in RAW

[adamwilliamking]

No! Just as a reminder, the digital camera fundamentally works the same as a film camera. The big difference is, changing ISO is like changing film midstream. That chip in the back of the camera is like a different kind of film. So, if you use different "f" stops and the same speed you under or over expose. If you change aperture and speed to compensate, the length of exposure will have an effect on the final image. See, same as film. How much depends on the camera. But, it won't be exactly the same. Your tolerance is what counts.
Arnie

huh?

 

[Sherman Banks]

No! Just as a reminder, the digital camera fundamentally works the same as a film camera. The big difference is, changing ISO is like changing film midstream. That chip in the back of the camera is like a different kind of film. So, if you use different "f" stops and the same speed you under or over expose. If you change aperture and speed to compensate, the length of exposure will have an effect on the final image. See, same as film. How much depends on the camera. But, it won't be exactly the same. Your tolerance is what counts.
Arnie

WTH?

 

[JerryPH]

.... and, and, and, there was this one time.. at band camp...

 

[Garbz]

I think someone typed into the wrong window :lmao:

 

[Trey T]

I am new to this board and I gotta say, there are too many philosophers here. You gotta check it out for yourself and see. Take some .raw and adjust the exposure to see its limit.

The whole point of having .RAW format is to make adjustment that give you flexibility in editing the exposure, WB, etc... This is another tool built-in to make our life easier. Now this is not the same as "color correction" or "color grading" bc no information is added or taken away.

There is a definite range that you can control exposure. the sensor can only have a limit range of "color gamut," therefore adjustment has a limited range.

No, the quality should still be good. Again, the range of raw information is limited but the quality is still there. most still camera today have robust sensor to hold the raw information unlike motion camera. Higher-end hollywood motion camera utilize .raw-specific format to do the similar task.

But yes, get the exposure and WB right is always wise but you got .raw to get your back if you screw up a bit.

Well, the reason I originally asked the question was to determine if I could get comparable results using my 3.5 zoom (and adjusting exposure in PP) as opposed to switching lenses to the 1.8 prime. I was trying to get away with being lazy.

As I suspected, it seems the quality would not be as good. The key, I'm learning, is to get it (the exposure) right the first time.

Jon

 

[Garbz]

No, the quality should still be good. Again, the range of raw information is limited but the quality is still there. most still camera today have robust sensor to hold the raw information unlike motion camera. Higher-end hollywood motion camera utilize .raw-specific format to do the similar task.

Well we are talking about comparing a modified f/3.5 (kit lens) image playing around with settings that push shades closer to one of the limits of dynamic range, to shooting standard with a f/1.8 lens.

No one here is really saying that this will not produce a usable image (I've saved some images before with a more severe bump in exposure), but it will not be comparable to going the optical route. I'd say the quality should still be ok, but not good in the sense that it is realistic to simply boost all your shots instead of buying the right gear for the job.

Also sensors are not limited in colour gamut, they are limited in dynamic range (the whitest and blackest point they can capture for any single exposure).