Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="BackdoorArts" data-source="post: 605695" data-attributes="member: 9240">When shooting raw you're effectively working with all the available light information, so whether you're amplifying it in camera or in post the light you have is the light you have. The question is, "At what point does the camera's introduction of noise do more to distort than to reveal the image?"  Up to a certain ISO the properly exposed image will be far easier to work with in post, but when you come out of camera with more noise to clean up than details then I have to believe that you're going to be able to do more with the underexposed image than with the properly exposed but noisier version. It's going to happen at the extreme end of things which is why I work to determine for each of my cameras at what point I'm trading feather details for speckles. This point is not hard and fast for each body, it only points to where I'm comfortable going for when I shoot little flying critters that I may need to crop down on as well. The fewer the details in the photo the higher you can boost the ISO and come away with something because recovering the details there is far easier.  But again, a properly exposed image that doesn't need to be further amplified in post is likely going to win every time in most normal circumstances.  I did play with stuff like this once and recall (on the D750) that there was virtually no difference in noise introduced to an image shot at a particular ISO and the same image shot at a lower ISO with the same shutter speed and aperture but underexposed.  In other words, a shot at ISO 100 that's 3 stops undereposed and the same one shot at ISO 800 and perfectly exposed look just about identical when I boost the exposure +3 in Camera Raw/Lightroom.</blockquote>

Verification