Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Blade Canyon" data-source="post: 406317" data-attributes="member: 15302">Well, J-see, my own quickie experiments don't prove you dead wrong, but they don't prove you right.&nbsp; Here are two shots, from a tripod, shot on Manual at 1/50th of a second, F5.&nbsp; One was shot at ISO 100 (and thus very underexposed in every way that we usually mean it), and the other was shot at ISO 1600 which the camera read as properly exposed.&nbsp; In ACR, I increased the &quot;exposure&quot; on the ASA 100 by exactly four stops. &nbsp;The color was not at all the same as the normal looking ISO 1600 shot.&nbsp; It was very yellow.&nbsp; So I adjusted that and cropped in on both of them.&nbsp; The &quot;underexposed&quot; shot looks noisier than the properly exposed shot.&nbsp; Here are extreme crops of both.&nbsp; Other than the color and slightly more noise, however, I do admit they are fairly similar.&nbsp; What do you think?[ATTACH]134755[/ATTACH][ATTACH]134756[/ATTACH]</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Blade Canyon, post: 406317, member: 15302"] Well, J-see, my own quickie experiments don't prove you dead wrong, but they don't prove you right. Here are two shots, from a tripod, shot on Manual at 1/50th of a second, F5. One was shot at ISO 100 (and thus very underexposed in every way that we usually mean it), and the other was shot at ISO 1600 which the camera read as properly exposed. In ACR, I increased the "exposure" on the ASA 100 by exactly four stops. [B]The color was not at all the same as the normal looking ISO 1600 shot. It was very yellow.[/B] So I adjusted that and cropped in on both of them. The "underexposed" shot looks noisier than the properly exposed shot. Here are extreme crops of both. Other than the color and slightly more noise, however, I do admit they are fairly similar. What do you think? [ATTACH=CONFIG]134755._xfImport[/ATTACH] [ATTACH=CONFIG]134756._xfImport[/ATTACH] [/QUOTE]

Verification