Well great. Now you sent me into the black hole known as "ISO invariance", so lots of reading and digesting I need to do. This is all your fault you know.M43 cameras aren't isoless so there is a real gain in IQ with higher ISO.
That also means that ETTR could be in theory used at higher than base ISO.
But truth is that RAW shooter can limit its M43 camera at range ISO200-400 and will loose almost nothing in the IQ area.
It can be seen here at Dpreview site where images taken at the same physical exposure (aperture/shutter speed) but at different ISO setting can be compared.
OK I looked at them. They wouldn't open in PS, is that normal? I studied them in PhotLab 3. WorkSpace only up to two stops. This is a duplicate example of what Peter Forsgard presented in his ISO Variance video. Must say its remarkable results...I have uploaded 2 raw files to Dropbox and only showed JPEG’s from these two files in my previous posts.
I’m doing all this from my phone so it’s possible there are some sidecar files there that I’m not seeing but that shouldn’t be a problem.
Sorry, shouldn't have abbreviated. Look at all the extra typing it's cost me now.Took me a minute to figure out what "LuLa" is.
Interesting read. Is there a page 2 and 3 to that? When I click them I don't go to a new page but instead get an "index.php" file download.
Many of us choose to use sRGB (over Adobe RGB) cause it is more universally used and really unless you KNOW you are going to use something (printer, display, etc.) that is set for aRGB) you are likely to get something a bit off. But, at least for me, while my camera is set for sRGB, I shoot in RAW so that setting doesn't really matter at all since it is easy to churn out a JPG in either version. And for the points in this discussion (ETTR) if you are not shooting in RAW you are really tying your hands in what you can do or recover on the computer if you are starting out with jpegs.Why is your camera set for srgb? Try rgb, edit rgb and save in srgb when uploading to the web...
To add (having not yet read pages 2 and 3 (thanks for the links)), keep in mind that this discussion happened nearly a decade ago so certainly sensor technology has evolved since then. So many sensor technology points made may or may not still be true.For those wondering, what's shown in that thread is that increasing exposure in post is not the same as bumping ISO.
Siegfried, thank you.Great image John - I love the 12-50mm, probably one of Olympus best...
You do not say but it looks like the image was taken in Aperture Mode and you did not alter the exposure. If the case you could have dropped the background noise with 10 - 15% and increased the details between 5 - 8% by increasing the exposure with +/- half a stop at ISO6400.
It does seem you have no issue correcting the exposure in raw?
I always shoot RAW + JPEG. My cameras are all set to aRGB for the wider, balanced colour space. I convert to sRGB for the web and similar uses only. IMHO, sRGB is both deficient (too narrow) and defective (colour axes are not of equal length).Many of us choose to use sRGB (over Adobe RGB) cause it is more universally used and really unless you KNOW you are going to use something (printer, display, etc.) that is set for aRGB) you are likely to get something a bit off.
Actually what I took from Robin's video was with each increase in the ISO there was increasing loss of detail even when using the ETTR technique. He really didn't speak much about noise.I watched this video from Robin Wong yesterday. I would be interested to hear where he is wrong if he is.
He says ETTR won't reduce noise at all in low-light situations when you up the ISO number. He says getting the exposure right is the most important thing for quality. And that in landscape photography with low ISO ETTR works.
Personally in low-light I will use Manual Mode with Auto-ISO and Exposure Compensation. What I'm wondering shouldn't I try to ETTR in this situation?
Wow-what an honor to meet a guy like Bruce Postle, you a blessed man John...Siegfried, thank you.
That is an OoC JPEG with a small USM to compensate for all my cameras being set with noise filter low or off and likewise sharpening.
While the 12-50 macro isn't in the same league as my better FTs and mFTs lenses, I agree that it is far better than many give it credit for. That shot was in macro mode (43mm).
I posted this photo to show the importance of getting one's exposure correct in camera. That necessarily involves knowing how the metering modes work. I took one shot, as is my usual practice.
Bruce Postle reinforced this, even if it didn't need it, and he used mostly medium format film. A very nice man. He has been to our home once.
Too true, Siegfried!Wow-what an honor to meet a guy like Bruce Postle, you a blessed my John...
I REALLY do not like Workspace. Great that Olympus supply it. I have been using Photoshop for far too long, I guess. More to the point, I use PS as an appendage to ACR for the most part.I do the same with noise, in fact I have been experimenting with the different options in WorkSpace and find it very promising. I read people adjust the sharpness in the camera. I never found a need to do that but its OK and a decision each photographer should make...
It was with my E-M1 MkI. A much underrated camera and an almost universally underrated lens. The 'original' on my web site is here:I can see you comfortable with your camera - I did not see which one use, is it the EM1 MKI or one of the later models?
Take care, mate.Best
I think this video from 2016 says it all...Have you checked for updates (PS and Camera Raw)?
In camera options are SRGB or Adobe RGB. Conversion to jpeg done in LR on my phone using whatever it defaults to.
Remembering your criticism of Robin Wong’s Test, my shot uses natural light. Thought the range of colours would be a good test too. But, like I said, a minor global pandemic has limited my ability to shoot landscapes recently so I was unable to do a wide outdoor shot (which would inevitably have introduced atmospheric haze).
I’m not sure I follow. Are you suggesting a zero EV ISO 200 shot? Compared with...? Clear that up and I’ll see what I can do. Might have to wait until tomorrow now though.
I really appreciate your feedback, thank you.Thanks for all the time you’ve put into this Siegfried. Even if I don’t follow everything you’re saying, it’s got me to test this ETTR/ISO invariance stuff for my equipment and the conclusion I’ve drawn is that I can’t see any significant difference worth changing my technique for. That will save me a lot of energy worrying about it in the future. Cheers.
John, I see you enjoy your older camera bodies.I do not agree with the concept of using base ISO then lifting exposure in post. Here is why, all taken at ISO 100, which isn't in the image/s EXIF, probably because it got lost when I moved all my images from one web gallery s/w to ZenPhoto.
With this first image, the studio strobes didn't trigger, so a tad underexposed!
The same image, but lifted about 5 stops in post:
Hmmm. Seem to have lost a bit of data here!
This next shot was taken after we got the strobe triggers working properly.
Note exposure times of all the images.
I know, the last shot is also rotten, but these are good examples of trying to lift images from a 2003 sensor in post.
Camera was my dear old Nikon Coolpix E5000 - 5 MPx, P&S, with a full metal jacket. Nice little camera for its day - and bloody expensive! Retailed new for around AUD$1,500!
That's the reason ETTR has no value for you - you mastered metering and exposure...Haha, Siegfried. Those photos were taken in 2007, and the camera is long dead .
The above is why I keep imploring people to learn how to use the five metering modes properly - Matrix, Centre-weighted Spot, Centre Spot, High Key and Low Key.