Forums
New posts
Search forums
What's new
New posts
New media
New media comments
New profile posts
Latest activity
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Members
Current visitors
New profile posts
Search profile posts
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
New posts
Search forums
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Forums
General Photography
Low Light & Night
Post your low light long exposures
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="J-see" data-source="post: 404927" data-attributes="member: 31330"><p>Here's another I shot some days ago using different ISO to blend but it can serve as an example.</p><p></p><p>I shot one at ISO 100 for 30 seconds fully open to get as much light in as possible ignoring the star blur that caused. With those settings it is underexposed. </p><p>The other I shot at a faster shutter to avoid star trails, I closed down 2/3th of a stop but increased ISO to 3200. It is as much exposed to the right as was possible without clipping more than needed.</p><p></p><p>[ATTACH]134151[/ATTACH]</p><p></p><p>[ATTACH]134152[/ATTACH]</p><p></p><p></p><p>Here are both after processing them to a rather similar version. The one increasing exposure while the decreasing the other. </p><p>In terms of quality that's the worst and best approach in regards to noise and other imperfections.</p><p></p><p>[ATTACH]134153[/ATTACH]</p><p></p><p>[ATTACH]134154[/ATTACH]</p><p></p><p></p><p>Now let's look at a 100% detail of both shots. They both still have noise; when light is low photon shot noise is very visible. ISO 100 does not magically make that disappear.</p><p></p><p>[ATTACH]134155[/ATTACH]</p><p></p><p>[ATTACH]134156[/ATTACH]</p><p></p><p>While the 3200 shot has a lot of stops more exposure than the 100 in the RAW it captured, when it comes to true sensor exposure, it is the 100 ISO that had more exposure to the light. That's why even when both are fairly similar when processed, it is the better of both shots in regards to noise. 3200 only made its sensor exposure disadvantage worse.</p><p></p><p>And then there's a severe loss in DR too.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="J-see, post: 404927, member: 31330"] Here's another I shot some days ago using different ISO to blend but it can serve as an example. I shot one at ISO 100 for 30 seconds fully open to get as much light in as possible ignoring the star blur that caused. With those settings it is underexposed. The other I shot at a faster shutter to avoid star trails, I closed down 2/3th of a stop but increased ISO to 3200. It is as much exposed to the right as was possible without clipping more than needed. [ATTACH=CONFIG]134151._xfImport[/ATTACH] [ATTACH=CONFIG]134152._xfImport[/ATTACH] Here are both after processing them to a rather similar version. The one increasing exposure while the decreasing the other. In terms of quality that's the worst and best approach in regards to noise and other imperfections. [ATTACH=CONFIG]134153._xfImport[/ATTACH] [ATTACH=CONFIG]134154._xfImport[/ATTACH] Now let's look at a 100% detail of both shots. They both still have noise; when light is low photon shot noise is very visible. ISO 100 does not magically make that disappear. [ATTACH=CONFIG]134155._xfImport[/ATTACH] [ATTACH=CONFIG]134156._xfImport[/ATTACH] While the 3200 shot has a lot of stops more exposure than the 100 in the RAW it captured, when it comes to true sensor exposure, it is the 100 ISO that had more exposure to the light. That's why even when both are fairly similar when processed, it is the better of both shots in regards to noise. 3200 only made its sensor exposure disadvantage worse. And then there's a severe loss in DR too. [/QUOTE]
Verification
Post reply
Forums
General Photography
Low Light & Night
Post your low light long exposures
Top
