Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2013/09/28
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]Yes, that's what I'm pointing out in my slide show. Tina On Sat, Sep 28, 2013 at 6:27 PM, John McMaster <john at mcmaster.co.nz> wrote: > That is just a digital adage of expose for the highlights and develop for > the shadows.... > > john > > > -----Original Message----- > > > > After a lot of experimentation, I have to agree with Thomas Knoll and his > > comments in Luminous Landscape that the best signal to noise ration is > > obtained if you expose to the right. I'm speaking on this next week in > > Wisconsin. You can read more about it in Jeff Schewe's excellent book > "The > > Digital Negative". It's amazing to me what a difference it makes. > > > > Tina > > > > > > On Sat, Sep 28, 2013 at 6:04 PM, Peter Klein <pklein at threshinc.com> > wrote: > > > > > When the M8 first came out, some people reported that they got better > > > low-light results by underexposing ISO 640 by one stop and > > > compensating in their RAW developer, rather than setting the ISO to > > > 1250. I think Tina was one of them. I tried this myself, didn't like > > > either results much, and have pretty much stuck to ISO 640 and lower. > > > > > > Well, things have changed. Today's RAW developers are better, and > > > this approach does even better than before. I decided to revisit it > with my > > M8 > > > and the current Capture One v. 7. The results are much better than I > > > remember with Capture One v.4 (which came with the M8) or even > > Capture > > > One v.6. Here are a couple of real-world pictures taken in my den, > > > with some deep shadows. > > > > > > Here's ISO 640 pushed one stop (top) vs. 1250 (bottom): > > > <http://gallery.leica-users.**org/d/366816-1/M8-640_**1pushVs1250- > > NoNR > > > .jpg<http://gallery.leica-users.org/d/366816-1/M8-640_1pushVs1250- > > NoNR > > > .jpg>< > > > http://gallery.leica-users.**org/d/366816-1/M8-640_**1pushVs1250- > > NoNR. > > > jpg<http://gallery.leica-users.org/d/366816-1/M8-640_1pushVs1250- > > NoNR. > > > jpg> > > > >> > > > > > > ISO 640 pushed two stops (top) vs. 2500 (bottom) > > > <http://gallery.leica-users.**org/v/pklein/album170/M8-640_** > > > 2pushVs2500-NoNR.jpg.html<http://gallery.leica-users.org/v/pklein/albu > > > m170/M8-640_2pushVs2500-NoNR.jpg.html>< > > > http://gallery.leica-users.**org/v/pklein/album170/M8-640_** > > > 2pushVs2500-NoNR.jpg.html<http://gallery.leica-users.org/v/pklein/albu > > > m170/M8-640_2pushVs2500-NoNR.jpg.html> > > > >> > > > > > > Dim tungsten light, fixed tungsten white balance "as shot" in camera. > > > Sharpening and color NR was at default, and Luminance NR was turned > > > off to see what we're really getting. > > > > > > ISO 640 pushed one stop looks decidedly better than 1250 to my eyes. > > > Quite usable, actually. I just got another stop out of my M8. > > > > > > I wouldn't want to use either 2500 or 640 pushed two stops if I had a > > > choice. The pushed 640 does look a little better. It might do in B&W > > > with some careful NR and black point fussing. > > > > > > If I recall correctly, C-1 v.7 shows the same default NR numbers for > > > all ISOs. "50" is nominal, but behind the scenes it's applying more NR > > > when the camera ISO is higher. My rule of thumb at higher ISOs is to > > > keep the color NR at default, and use 1/4 to 1/2 the default luminance > > > NR. And sometimes I just turn it off, as I prefer a little grit to the > > > plastic look. I'm still experimenting, but I have found that by > > > raising the black point a little and using very sparing NR, the pushed > ISO 640 > > picture looks pretty good. > > > The 1250 picture is inherently more muddy and gets more smeary. > > > > > > The point is that current RAW developers can push the M8 at least one > > > stop, so you can get an effective ISO 1250 from 640. The LUF thread > > > shows that the M9 can be pushed even farther. Current software is way > > > better than turning up the electronic amplifier in the M8/9 beyond > > > 640. Sure, the > > > M240 and MM are objectively better high-ISO cameras. But if you don't > > > wish to change cameras, there's life in that old CCD sensor yet. > > > > > > There's a whole thread about this on l-camera-forum.com (LUF): > > > http://www.l-camera-forum.com/**leica-forum/leica-m9-forum/** > > > 301422-m9-iso-performance-new-**life.html<http://www.l-camera- > > forum.co > > > m/leica-forum/leica-m9-forum/301422-m9-iso-performance-new- > > life.html> > > > > > > --Peter > > > > > _______________________________________________ > Leica Users Group. > See http://leica-users.org/mailman/listinfo/lug for more information > > -- Tina Manley http:// <http://tina-manley.artistwebsites.com/>www.tinamanley.com