What does 'hi' means?

[fjrabon]

BS. YOU CAN ABSOLUTELY CLIP SHADOWS. If you take a photo that is severely underexposed the shadow areas will be SO DARK THAT THE CAMERA DOES NOT RECORD DETAIL IN THEM.

The left side only gets blocked out when the amount of photons hitting the sensor falls to an EXTREMELY low number. You can bring back a shadowed out area most of the time, if you're willing to deal with the noise. And with today's digital noise removal improvements and sensor improvements, that's going away faster and faster. Whereas a highlight, when it's gone, it's gone.

You mean like shooting a scene at f/4, 1/30th, and iso 100, when the proper exposure is f/4, 1/30th, and iso6400. I'm pretty sure you just proved the point that i've been trying to prove throughout this entire thread for me.

no, you'd be able to pull most of the shadows up under those settings with a raw image.

 

[fjrabon]

here's an example on my D3100


DSC_0002 by franklinrabon, on Flickr

THis is just what the camera decided on in aperture priority mode. f/1.8, ISO 3200 1/15th of a sec


DSC_0003 by franklinrabon, on Flickr

same picture, same settings, but in manual mode, with ISO 100


DSC_0004 by franklinrabon, on Flickr

finally, same picture, same settings, but ISO 100 and only 1/40 shutter speed. While, yes, the noise here is pretty out of control, notice that none of the shadows were actually 'clipped' everything is fully there, albeit with a lot of noise. This image was completely dark originally, except the LEDs on my guitar amp.

You've got to go a long way before shadows get to the point to where the source image is completely indistinguishable from the noise. And shadows never actually clip, which actually doesn't even make sense, since clipping literally means that the sensor is overloaded at that point. That's why shadows are actually referred to as being 'blocked out', if anything, and it only happens when the image falls below the noise floor. Which is EXTREMELY LOW.

 

[sm4him]

"What does 'hi' mean?," she read. And she thought, Oh, I know something about that, and look at all the replies; I didn't know there was that much to be said about "hi" ISO(is) settings.

And so I had a look...and then I fell down the Rabbit Hole.
I have NO idea what some of you are even talking about, but it all sounds very intelligent and informative...until you read the next post, which sounds MORE intelligent and informative, and makes you think clearly the first poster was just wrong.

All I know is, I suddenly feel the need to go watch an episode of the Simpsons, to equalize all the high-intelligence techno-babble that is now rattling around in my head. :lmao:

 

[Destin]

D7000 has very low read noise - so digitally amplifying it wouldn't increase much noise, as long as there is sufficient bits/dithering. Underexposing using lower ISO doesn't decrease dynamic range - you can only clip highlights, you can't clip shadows - it can only be covered by noise. When you increase ISO, you are essentially throwing away the highlight information, you can't amplify detail that is covered by noise because there is no detail.

BS. YOU CAN ABSOLUTELY CLIP SHADOWS. If you take a photo that is severely underexposed the shadow areas will be SO DARK THAT THE CAMERA DOES NOT RECORD DETAIL IN THEM.

One more thing - if you read my previous post - underexpose by using a lower ISO wouldn't clip shadows. I didn't say that it was not possible to clip shadows - what I said may not be what you're thinking. What I meant is that underexposing by using a lower ISO wouldn't clip more shadows compared to using a higher ISO. A monitor capable of displaying high bits would show that it isn't really clipped.

I TOTALLY disagree. Again, if I take a photo at f/4, 1/30th, and iso 100, but the proper exposure (per the histogram) for said image would be f/4, 1/30th, and iso 6400, THE EXPOSURE TAKEN AT ISO 100 WILL LOSE DETAIL IN THE SHADOW AREAS. There is no way you can possibly argue against this. You just can't.

 

[Destin]

The left side only gets blocked out when the amount of photons hitting the sensor falls to an EXTREMELY low number. You can bring back a shadowed out area most of the time, if you're willing to deal with the noise. And with today's digital noise removal improvements and sensor improvements, that's going away faster and faster. Whereas a highlight, when it's gone, it's gone.

You mean like shooting a scene at f/4, 1/30th, and iso 100, when the proper exposure is f/4, 1/30th, and iso6400. I'm pretty sure you just proved the point that i've been trying to prove throughout this entire thread for me.

no, you'd be able to pull most of the shadows up under those settings with a raw image.

no, you wouldn't. I've tried it several times and you can't.

 

[fjrabon]

BS. YOU CAN ABSOLUTELY CLIP SHADOWS. If you take a photo that is severely underexposed the shadow areas will be SO DARK THAT THE CAMERA DOES NOT RECORD DETAIL IN THEM.

One more thing - if you read my previous post - underexpose by using a lower ISO wouldn't clip shadows. I didn't say that it was not possible to clip shadows - what I said may not be what you're thinking. What I meant is that underexposing by using a lower ISO wouldn't clip more shadows compared to using a higher ISO. A monitor capable of displaying high bits would show that it isn't really clipped.

I TOTALLY disagree. Again, if I take a photo at f/4, 1/30th, and iso 100, but the proper exposure (per the histogram) for said image would be f/4, 1/30th, and iso 6400, THE EXPOSURE TAKEN AT ISO 100 WILL LOSE DETAIL IN THE SHADOW AREAS. There is no way you can possibly argue against this. You just can't.

it depends on how much noise there is. If you have low atmospheric noise, and the camera creates very little noise of its own, then you can go really low without losing left side detail.

Clipping isn't the same as losing detail, either. Clipping means that the sensor is overloaded, and can't register anything but a pure color. That never happens on the left side of the histogram. On the left side of the histogram, your only worry is how much noise there is. And noise isn't a constant, it depends on environment and camera. A really good camera and a really low noise environment would allow you to take a seemingly black picture and in post processing have it look relatively normal.

I think your biggest problem is calling having lots of noise in the shadows clipping, they're entirely different concepts. Clipping cannot, in any, way, shape, or form be fixed. Once the sensor clips, there's nothing you can do about it, that information is just completely gone. Noise can be fixed to varying degrees with powerful enough software. Black points can be adjusted.

 

[fjrabon]

You mean like shooting a scene at f/4, 1/30th, and iso 100, when the proper exposure is f/4, 1/30th, and iso6400. I'm pretty sure you just proved the point that i've been trying to prove throughout this entire thread for me.

no, you'd be able to pull most of the shadows up under those settings with a raw image.

no, you wouldn't. I've tried it several times and you can't.

yes, yes you can, I've done it.

 

[Destin]

no, you'd be able to pull most of the shadows up under those settings with a raw image.

no, you wouldn't. I've tried it several times and you can't.

yes, yes you can, I've done it.

Okay, we're arguing slightly different concepts here. Let's take it to the REAL world, and not technical BS.

Are the details there? Maybe. Let's for the sake of argument say they are. Because I for one don't care if they're there or not. It doesn't matter.

Why? Because there is NO way that you'll ever restore them without introducing enough noise to render the image completely useless. I don't care how good your software is. Example:

First image: Take at iso 3200 on my Nikon D80. Admittedly crappy noise performance but that should only help your argument because the next image is taken at iso 100, where my camera produces clean photos. For the sake of my argument, this first shot is straight out of camera, just converted to JPG. Both are 100% crops btw.

Image 2, taken at iso 100 on my D80. Upped the exposure and fill light to balance the histogram with image one, AND applied the strongest noise reduction settings in lightroom to try and restore it to a useable image. You're still left with Chicken **** for an image. There is no recovering more detail out of it. There is no way to fix the noise to make it useable. The first shot however, I could apply some noise reduction and make it a somewhat useable image.

Now don't go and say the results in the second image would be better with a different camera. That's bogus because the image came out of the camera clean because it was taken at iso 100.

 

[fjrabon]

no, you wouldn't. I've tried it several times and you can't.

yes, yes you can, I've done it.

Okay, we're arguing slightly different concepts here. Let's take it to the REAL world, and not technical BS.

Are the details there? Maybe. Let's for the sake of argument say they are. Because I for one don't care if they're there or not. It doesn't matter.

Why? Because there is NO way that you'll ever restore them without introducing enough noise to render the image completely useless. I don't care how good your software is. Example:

First image: Take at iso 3200 on my Nikon D80. Admittedly crappy noise performance but that should only help your argument because the next image is taken at iso 100, where my camera produces clean photos. For the sake of my argument, this first shot is straight out of camera, just converted to JPG. Both are 100% crops btw.



Image 2, taken at iso 100 on my D80. Upped the exposure and fill light to balance the histogram with image one, AND applied the strongest noise reduction settings in lightroom to try and restore it to a useable image. You're still left with Chicken **** for an image. There is no recovering more detail out of it. There is no way to fix the noise to make it useable. The first shot however, I could apply some noise reduction and make it a somewhat useable image.


Now don't go and say the results in the second image would be better with a different camera. That's bogus because the image came out of the camera clean because it was taken at iso 100.

low ISO =/= low noise. You seem to have a lot of misconceptions about what causes noise, what clipped out means, etc. That seems to be where all your confusion is coming from. The statement "That's bogus because it came out of the camera clean because it was taken at ISO 100" doesn't make any sense at all. What do you even mean by "came out of the camera clean"? Your camera takes clean photos at ISO 100 WHEN PROPERLY EXPOSED. High ISO can amplify noise, but that doesn't mean that low ISO's don't also amplify noise, they're just less sensitive to it, so it would take longer exposure to the noise for it to be noticeable with a low ISO. ISO doesn't make noise, cameras and environment make noise. ISOs, in digital cameras at least, AMPLIFY noise. WHen you brighten a picture with software, you're essentially doing the same thing, you're amplifying the lowest light signals from the sensor to be brighter. So, if your camera produced a lot of noise, it doesn't matter what ISO you shot it at, the noise your camera created will be amplified (along with any environmental noise). Again, ISO doesn't create noise, so saying your camera takes clean shots at ISO 100 is completely meaningless. All that matters is how much that noise was amplified, and how good the programs that reduced it were.

This is the whole point that everybody has ben trying to make. If you have low enough noise, you can underexpose almost much as you want to. There is no such thing as 'clipping' on the left side of the histogram. Sure, with cameras that create lots of noise the left side can become pretty unusable pretty quickly. And some older sensors don't pick up low levels of light very well, especially in short exposures, meaning that they can run into noise problems really fast from environmental noise. But as long as the sensor registered photons, you don't lose that information, and it's certainly not like you lose information on the right side, where it just disappears, as the sensor cannot physically record above a certain level.

Clipping has to do with overloading the sensor on the right side of the histogram. The left side being unusable has to do with the signal to noise ratio.

 

[Destin]

yes, yes you can, I've done it.

Okay, we're arguing slightly different concepts here. Let's take it to the REAL world, and not technical BS.

Are the details there? Maybe. Let's for the sake of argument say they are. Because I for one don't care if they're there or not. It doesn't matter.

Why? Because there is NO way that you'll ever restore them without introducing enough noise to render the image completely useless. I don't care how good your software is. Example:

First image: Take at iso 3200 on my Nikon D80. Admittedly crappy noise performance but that should only help your argument because the next image is taken at iso 100, where my camera produces clean photos. For the sake of my argument, this first shot is straight out of camera, just converted to JPG. Both are 100% crops btw.



Image 2, taken at iso 100 on my D80. Upped the exposure and fill light to balance the histogram with image one, AND applied the strongest noise reduction settings in lightroom to try and restore it to a useable image. You're still left with Chicken **** for an image. There is no recovering more detail out of it. There is no way to fix the noise to make it useable. The first shot however, I could apply some noise reduction and make it a somewhat useable image.


Now don't go and say the results in the second image would be better with a different camera. That's bogus because the image came out of the camera clean because it was taken at iso 100.

low ISO =/= low noise. You seem to have a lot of misconceptions about what causes noise, what clipped out means, etc. That seems to be where all your confusion is coming from. The statement "That's bogus because it came out of the camera clean because it was taken at ISO 100" doesn't make any sense at all. What do you even mean by "came out of the camera clean"? Your camera takes clean photos at ISO 100 WHEN PROPERLY EXPOSED. High ISO can amplify noise, but that doesn't mean that low ISO's don't also amplify noise, they're just less sensitive to it, so it would take longer exposure to the noise for it to be noticeable with a low ISO. ISO doesn't make noise, cameras and environment make noise. ISOs, in digital cameras at least, AMPLIFY noise. WHen you brighten a picture with software, you're essentially doing the same thing, you're amplifying the lowest light signals from the sensor to be brighter. So, if your camera produced a lot of noise, it doesn't matter what ISO you shot it at, the noise your camera created will be amplified (along with any environmental noise). Again, ISO doesn't create noise, so saying your camera takes clean shots at ISO 100 is completely meaningless. All that matters is how much that noise was amplified, and how good the programs that reduced it were.

This is the whole point that everybody has ben trying to make. If you have low enough noise, you can underexpose almost much as you want to. There is no such thing as 'clipping' on the left side of the histogram. Sure, with cameras that create lots of noise the left side can become pretty unusable pretty quickly. And some older sensors don't pick up low levels of light very well, especially in short exposures, meaning that they can run into noise problems really fast from environmental noise. But as long as the sensor registered photons, you don't lose that information, and it's certainly not like you lose information on the right side, where it just disappears, as the sensor cannot physically record above a certain level.

Clipping has to do with overloading the sensor on the right side of the histogram. The left side being unusable has to do with the signal to noise ratio.

Then why does just about EVERY professional photographer use the ETTR method rather than just shooting everything at iso 100 and fixing it later. THERE IS NO REAL WORLD APPLICATION FOR WHAT YOU ARE ARGUING, AS IT CAN BE DONE BETTER BE EXPOSING PROPERLY IN CAMERA IN THE FIRST PLACE.

 

[o hey tyler]

yes, yes you can, I've done it.

Okay, we're arguing slightly different concepts here. Let's take it to the REAL world, and not technical BS.

Are the details there? Maybe. Let's for the sake of argument say they are. Because I for one don't care if they're there or not. It doesn't matter.

Why? Because there is NO way that you'll ever restore them without introducing enough noise to render the image completely useless. I don't care how good your software is. Example:

First image: Take at iso 3200 on my Nikon D80. Admittedly crappy noise performance but that should only help your argument because the next image is taken at iso 100, where my camera produces clean photos. For the sake of my argument, this first shot is straight out of camera, just converted to JPG. Both are 100% crops btw.



Image 2, taken at iso 100 on my D80. Upped the exposure and fill light to balance the histogram with image one, AND applied the strongest noise reduction settings in lightroom to try and restore it to a useable image. You're still left with Chicken **** for an image. There is no recovering more detail out of it. There is no way to fix the noise to make it useable. The first shot however, I could apply some noise reduction and make it a somewhat useable image.


Now don't go and say the results in the second image would be better with a different camera. That's bogus because the image came out of the camera clean because it was taken at iso 100.

low ISO =/= low noise. You seem to have a lot of misconceptions about what causes noise, what clipped out means, etc. That seems to be where all your confusion is coming from. The statement "That's bogus because it came out of the camera clean because it was taken at ISO 100" doesn't make any sense at all. What do you even mean by "came out of the camera clean"? Your camera takes clean photos at ISO 100 WHEN PROPERLY EXPOSED. High ISO can amplify noise, but that doesn't mean that low ISO's don't also amplify noise, they're just less sensitive to it, so it would take longer exposure to the noise for it to be noticeable with a low ISO. ISO doesn't make noise, cameras and environment make noise. ISOs, in digital cameras at least, AMPLIFY noise. WHen you brighten a picture with software, you're essentially doing the same thing, you're amplifying the lowest light signals from the sensor to be brighter. So, if your camera produced a lot of noise, it doesn't matter what ISO you shot it at, the noise your camera created will be amplified (along with any environmental noise). Again, ISO doesn't create noise, so saying your camera takes clean shots at ISO 100 is completely meaningless. All that matters is how much that noise was amplified, and how good the programs that reduced it were.

This is the whole point that everybody has ben trying to make. If you have low enough noise, you can underexpose almost much as you want to. There is no such thing as 'clipping' on the left side of the histogram. Sure, with cameras that create lots of noise the left side can become pretty unusable pretty quickly. And some older sensors don't pick up low levels of light very well, especially in short exposures, meaning that they can run into noise problems really fast from environmental noise. But as long as the sensor registered photons, you don't lose that information, and it's certainly not like you lose information on the right side, where it just disappears, as the sensor cannot physically record above a certain level.

Clipping has to do with overloading the sensor on the right side of the histogram. The left side being unusable has to do with the signal to noise ratio.

Just FYI, you're wrong. Underexposing by lets say 3 stops at ISO 100, is not going to look as good when the exposure is digitally manipulated in post to be properly exposed. If you shot it on ISO 800, the shot would come out much cleaner, as the image has gone through less digital exposure correction (hopefully, none). Granted cameras are getting better at retrieving detail in the shadows, but you want to get it AS CLOSE AS YOU CAN to properly exposed in camera rather than fixing it in post.

You've been at photography for ~2 months. Stop arguing.

 

[fjrabon]

Just FYI, you're wrong. Underexposing by lets say 3 stops at ISO 100, is not going to look as good when the exposure is digitally manipulated in post to be properly exposed. If you shot it on ISO 800, the shot would come out much cleaner, as the image has gone through less digital exposure correction (hopefully, none). Granted cameras are getting better at retrieving detail in the shadows, but you want to get it AS CLOSE AS YOU CAN to properly exposed in camera rather than fixing it in post.

You've been at photography for ~2 months. Stop arguing.

did you even read what I read? I certainly didn't say it would look as good. THe whole thing I've been saying is that having a noisy, degraded image is not the same as clipping. Read what you're responding to. Point out one single thing I said that was wrong. I said that you don't lose the information, it just starts getting noisy, whereas clipping, the information is completely gone. I never said everything should be shot at ISO 100, at any point. I will make the argument that if you're clipping, it's better to shoot underexposed and fix than it is to have clipped out highlights, which cannot be fixed at all, because the information was never there in teh first place. I will make the argument (as other people have backed up with links) that you get a decent amount more dynamic range when underexposed, though, especially with noisy cameras, it comes at a price.

Of course properly exposing is better, given current technology. I never said otherwise. What I did say is that you can recover information on the left side of the histogram more easily than on the right side. The only stop you run into is you start amplifying noise to unacceptable levels. Often times that's a big issue, but noise correction software continues to get better and better daily, and cameras get better and better at not creating their own noise every day. So, I don't htink it's unreasonable to say that at some point ISO will mostly just become meta data, in all but extreme cases.

The point I was responding to was Destin saying that you can clip out shadows, which just doesn't make sense. Shadows don't clip out. THey run into signal noise ratio problems.

Again, what did I say that was wrong?

 

[fjrabon]

Then why does just about EVERY professional photographer use the ETTR method rather than just shooting everything at iso 100 and fixing it later. THERE IS NO REAL WORLD APPLICATION FOR WHAT YOU ARE ARGUING, AS IT CAN BE DONE BETTER BE EXPOSING PROPERLY IN CAMERA IN THE FIRST PLACE.

THere are two points to be made here: 1) The original was mostly talking about "as technology and noise reduction gets better." and 2) Plenty of photographers shoot underexposed when they see highlights clipping and then fix it in post. It's an extremely common technique (the only reason it's not more common is the emergence of HDR), which is the 'real world' application of what is being talked about here. That it's easier to deal with noise than it is clipped out highlights.

 

[o hey tyler]

You mean like shooting a scene at f/4, 1/30th, and iso 100, when the proper exposure is f/4, 1/30th, and iso6400. I'm pretty sure you just proved the point that i've been trying to prove throughout this entire thread for me.

no, you'd be able to pull most of the shadows up under those settings with a raw image.

no, you wouldn't. I've tried it several times and you can't.

Just FYI, you're wrong. Underexposing by lets say 3 stops at ISO 100, is not going to look as good when the exposure is digitally manipulated in post to be properly exposed. If you shot it on ISO 800, the shot would come out much cleaner, as the image has gone through less digital exposure correction (hopefully, none). Granted cameras are getting better at retrieving detail in the shadows, but you want to get it AS CLOSE AS YOU CAN to properly exposed in camera rather than fixing it in post.

You've been at photography for ~2 months. Stop arguing.

what did I say that was wrong?

I used an example of 3 stops underexposed. The example Destin gave was a whopping 6 stops underexposed. You would not be able to restore enough detail from an image 6 stops underexposed. You are mistaken.

What would the shadows be in an image that's 6 stops underexposed? Clipped? Plugged? Unusable? All of the previous.

 

[Dao]

From what I understand. Each sensor has a dynamic range it can response to. It cannot record any information outside that range.

So you are inside a dark cave and point the camera at the opening that facing the sky at noon (sunny day). And you meter the bright sky. Do you think you can see the details in the dark shadow after post?