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
Project 365 & Daily Photos
Project 52's
Stoshowicz weekly 52
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="Stoshowicz" data-source="post: 563611" data-attributes="member: 31397"><p>Im not thinking that my demonstration is very instructive, other than to say its possible to drop the ISO to base and push , or one can drop the ISO a bit and underexpose and push a little in post , with really fairly similar results after everything. The biggest determinant of the image quality was probably the distance to the target THEN secondly would be saturating the sensor to midpoint. IF I was going to come to a temporary theory , I'd say that some low ISO , maybe 200 or 400, is better than either base iso OR 800. I already read that after 800 the conversion is not as smooth from signal to image because its done digital rather than analog and so above 800 there is zero reason to raise ISO.</p><p>It was certainly easier to process the image with some ISO to begin with , and doing a lot of pushing I tended to get either a dim sky or a spotty grainy look to the sky , but certainly that may be my ineptitude rather than physics.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Stoshowicz, post: 563611, member: 31397"] Im not thinking that my demonstration is very instructive, other than to say its possible to drop the ISO to base and push , or one can drop the ISO a bit and underexpose and push a little in post , with really fairly similar results after everything. The biggest determinant of the image quality was probably the distance to the target THEN secondly would be saturating the sensor to midpoint. IF I was going to come to a temporary theory , I'd say that some low ISO , maybe 200 or 400, is better than either base iso OR 800. I already read that after 800 the conversion is not as smooth from signal to image because its done digital rather than analog and so above 800 there is zero reason to raise ISO. It was certainly easier to process the image with some ISO to begin with , and doing a lot of pushing I tended to get either a dim sky or a spotty grainy look to the sky , but certainly that may be my ineptitude rather than physics. [/QUOTE]
Verification
Post reply
Forums
General Photography
Project 365 & Daily Photos
Project 52's
Stoshowicz weekly 52
Top