Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2013/09/28
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]The amazing thing is the difference when you view the images at 100%. Tina On Sat, Sep 28, 2013 at 6:36 PM, Tina Manley <images at comporium.net> wrote: > Yes, that's what I'm pointing out in my slide show. > > Tina > > > On Sat, Sep 28, 2013 at 6:27 PM, John McMaster <john at > mcmaster.co.nz>wrote: > >> That is just a digital adage of expose for the highlights and develop for >> the shadows.... >> >> john >> >> > -----Original Message----- >> > >> > After a lot of experimentation, I have to agree with Thomas Knoll and >> his >> > comments in Luminous Landscape that the best signal to noise ration is >> > obtained if you expose to the right. I'm speaking on this next week in >> > Wisconsin. You can read more about it in Jeff Schewe's excellent book >> "The >> > Digital Negative". It's amazing to me what a difference it makes. >> > >> > Tina >> > >> > >> > On Sat, Sep 28, 2013 at 6:04 PM, Peter Klein <pklein at threshinc.com> >> wrote: >> > >> > > When the M8 first came out, some people reported that they got better >> > > low-light results by underexposing ISO 640 by one stop and >> > > compensating in their RAW developer, rather than setting the ISO to >> > > 1250. I think Tina was one of them. I tried this myself, didn't like >> > > either results much, and have pretty much stuck to ISO 640 and lower. >> > > >> > > Well, things have changed. Today's RAW developers are better, and >> > > this approach does even better than before. I decided to revisit it >> with my >> > M8 >> > > and the current Capture One v. 7. The results are much better than I >> > > remember with Capture One v.4 (which came with the M8) or even >> > Capture >> > > One v.6. Here are a couple of real-world pictures taken in my den, >> > > with some deep shadows. >> > > >> > > Here's ISO 640 pushed one stop (top) vs. 1250 (bottom): >> > > <http://gallery.leica-users.**org/d/366816-1/M8-640_**1pushVs1250- >> > NoNR >> > > .jpg<http://gallery.leica-users.org/d/366816-1/M8-640_1pushVs1250- >> > NoNR >> > > .jpg>< >> > > http://gallery.leica-users.**org/d/366816-1/M8-640_**1pushVs1250- >> > NoNR. >> > > jpg<http://gallery.leica-users.org/d/366816-1/M8-640_1pushVs1250- >> > NoNR. >> > > jpg> >> > > >> >> > > >> > > ISO 640 pushed two stops (top) vs. 2500 (bottom) >> > > <http://gallery.leica-users.**org/v/pklein/album170/M8-640_** >> > > 2pushVs2500-NoNR.jpg.html< >> http://gallery.leica-users.org/v/pklein/albu >> > > m170/M8-640_2pushVs2500-NoNR.jpg.html>< >> > > http://gallery.leica-users.**org/v/pklein/album170/M8-640_** >> > > 2pushVs2500-NoNR.jpg.html< >> http://gallery.leica-users.org/v/pklein/albu >> > > m170/M8-640_2pushVs2500-NoNR.jpg.html> >> > > >> >> > > >> > > Dim tungsten light, fixed tungsten white balance "as shot" in camera. >> > > Sharpening and color NR was at default, and Luminance NR was turned >> > > off to see what we're really getting. >> > > >> > > ISO 640 pushed one stop looks decidedly better than 1250 to my eyes. >> > > Quite usable, actually. I just got another stop out of my M8. >> > > >> > > I wouldn't want to use either 2500 or 640 pushed two stops if I had a >> > > choice. The pushed 640 does look a little better. It might do in B&W >> > > with some careful NR and black point fussing. >> > > >> > > If I recall correctly, C-1 v.7 shows the same default NR numbers for >> > > all ISOs. "50" is nominal, but behind the scenes it's applying more NR >> > > when the camera ISO is higher. My rule of thumb at higher ISOs is to >> > > keep the color NR at default, and use 1/4 to 1/2 the default luminance >> > > NR. And sometimes I just turn it off, as I prefer a little grit to the >> > > plastic look. I'm still experimenting, but I have found that by >> > > raising the black point a little and using very sparing NR, the >> pushed ISO 640 >> > picture looks pretty good. >> > > The 1250 picture is inherently more muddy and gets more smeary. >> > > >> > > The point is that current RAW developers can push the M8 at least one >> > > stop, so you can get an effective ISO 1250 from 640. The LUF thread >> > > shows that the M9 can be pushed even farther. Current software is way >> > > better than turning up the electronic amplifier in the M8/9 beyond >> > > 640. Sure, the >> > > M240 and MM are objectively better high-ISO cameras. But if you don't >> > > wish to change cameras, there's life in that old CCD sensor yet. >> > > >> > > There's a whole thread about this on l-camera-forum.com (LUF): >> > > http://www.l-camera-forum.com/**leica-forum/leica-m9-forum/** >> > > 301422-m9-iso-performance-new-**life.html<http://www.l-camera- >> > forum.co >> > > m/leica-forum/leica-m9-forum/301422-m9-iso-performance-new- >> > life.html> >> > > >> > > --Peter >> > > >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Leica Users Group. >> See http://leica-users.org/mailman/listinfo/lug for more information >> >> > > > -- > Tina Manley > http:// <http://tina-manley.artistwebsites.com/>www.tinamanley.com > > > -- Tina Manley http:// <http://tina-manley.artistwebsites.com/>www.tinamanley.com