Please post links to the raw files.
Please post links to the raw files.
Please post links to the raw files.
Yep, the raw files can help verify the authenticity and legitimacy of those images.
@DonaldB has written: @JimKasson has written: @TheDavinator has written:I could show pics at iso 100 without noise and pics at 6400 with noise.
With the same exposure?
Please post links to the raw files.
Knock yourself out boys.
1drv.ms/i/s!ArStsPjQ301PmRUe49DZTOs1w3ht?e=jgJIbV
1drv.ms/i/s!ArStsPjQ301PmRT4oVSiLLPUqGZ8?e=rzXWDo
@DonaldB has written: @SrMi has written: @DonaldB has written: @JimKasson has written: @TheDavinator has written:I could show pics at iso 100 without noise and pics at 6400 with noise.
With the same exposure?
Did you change the scene light? Use an ND filter? Then it is not the same exposure.
In all my tests, the same exposure showed equal or less noise with higher ISOs (same scene lighting).I copied and pasted this information from an expert photographer ,so it must be right .๐๐คจ
- exposure - amount of light that struck the sensor per unit area while the shutter was open
optimal exposure - the maximum exposure within dof and motion blur requirements without clipping important highlights.
under exposed - more exposure* could have been added with the DOF and blur constraints still being met without clipping important highlightsso are you telling me he is wrong ?
I assume you changed the scene light and therefore changed the exposure (the amount of light reaching the sensor).
are you saying there is a third setting thats is calculated for exposure ? sorry im just being a pain in the a..s ๐
@JimKasson has written: @DonaldB has written: @JimKasson has written: @TheDavinator has written:I could show pics at iso 100 without noise and pics at 6400 with noise.
With the same exposure?
Please post links to the raw files.
Knock yourself out boys.
1drv.ms/i/s!ArStsPjQ301PmRUe49DZTOs1w3ht?e=jgJIbV
1drv.ms/i/s!ArStsPjQ301PmRT4oVSiLLPUqGZ8?e=rzXWDo
I know what a jpeg and tiff are worth here Don, I would sting them like a wounded bull for a RAW. Next they will want exclusive rights as well ๐
@SrMi has written: @DonaldB has written: @SrMi has written: @DonaldB has written: @JimKasson has written: @TheDavinator has written:I could show pics at iso 100 without noise and pics at 6400 with noise.
With the same exposure?
Did you change the scene light? Use an ND filter? Then it is not the same exposure.
In all my tests, the same exposure showed equal or less noise with higher ISOs (same scene lighting).I copied and pasted this information from an expert photographer ,so it must be right .๐๐คจ
* exposure - amount of light that struck the sensor per unit area while the shutter was open
optimal exposure - the maximum exposure within dof and motion blur requirements without clipping important highlights.
* under exposed - more exposure could have been added with the DOF and blur constraints still being met without clipping important highlightsso are you telling me he is wrong ?
I assume you changed the scene light and therefore changed the exposure (the amount of light reaching the sensor).
are you saying there is a third setting thats is calculated in exposure ? sorry im just being a pain in the a..s ๐
You quoted the definition "exposure - amount of light that struck the sensor per unit area while the shutter was open".
That means that exposure depends on shutter speed, aperture, and scene light.
@JimKasson has written: @DonaldB has written: @JimKasson has written: @TheDavinator has written:I could show pics at iso 100 without noise and pics at 6400 with noise.
With the same exposure?
Please post links to the raw files.
Knock yourself out boys.
1drv.ms/i/s!ArStsPjQ301PmRUe49DZTOs1w3ht?e=jgJIbV
1drv.ms/i/s!ArStsPjQ301PmRT4oVSiLLPUqGZ8?e=rzXWDo
isnt the sony a74 amazing at iso 2000 , i love this camera as i shoot and video my daughters live gigs with it its on another level compared to other cameras ive owned. iso 12k is amazing as well.
@JimKasson has written: @DonaldB has written: @JimKasson has written: @TheDavinator has written:I could show pics at iso 100 without noise and pics at 6400 with noise.
With the same exposure?
Please post links to the raw files.
Knock yourself out boys.
1drv.ms/i/s!ArStsPjQ301PmRUe49DZTOs1w3ht?e=jgJIbV
1drv.ms/i/s!ArStsPjQ301PmRT4oVSiLLPUqGZ8?e=rzXWDo
As I thought, different exposures. Less exposure at ISO 2000, therefore more noise.
isnt the sony a74 amazing at iso 2000 , i love this camera as i shoot and video my daughters live gigs with it its on another level compared to other cameras ive owned. iso 12k is amazing as well.
I'll pre type something for you Don and send it to you mate. I bet it happens ;-)
are you saying there is a third setting thats is calculated for exposure ? sorry im just being a pain in the a..s
There is a third just as your images show but it was not the iso setting that increased the noise.
It was the difference in the size of the exposure that was the cause
are you saying there is a third setting thats is calculated for exposure ?
What is the meaning of the word exposure you used in your question?
Aperture, shutter speed and scene luminance affect exposure*
* exposure - amount of light that struck the sensor per unit area while the shutter was open
** optimal exposure - the maximum exposure* within dof and motion blur requirements without clipping important highlights.
*** under exposed - more exposure* could have been added with the DOF and blur constraints still being met without clipping important highlights.
@DonaldB has written:are you saying there is a third setting thats is calculated for exposure ?
What is the meaning of the word exposure you used in your question?
Aperture, shutter speed and scene luminance affect exposure*
* exposure - amount of light that struck the sensor per unit area while the shutter was open
** optimal exposure - the maximum exposure* within dof and motion blur requirements without clipping important highlights.
*** under exposed - more exposure* could have been added with the DOF and blur constraints still being met without clipping important highlights.
really, 3 things now .
ou quoted the definition "exposure - amount of light that struck the sensor per unit area while the shutter was open".
That means that exposure depends on shutter speed, aperture, and scene light.
not my quote. re-read what i posted
@DannoB has written: @DonaldB has written:are you saying there is a third setting thats is calculated for exposure ?
What is the meaning of the word exposure you used in your question?
Aperture, shutter speed and scene luminance affect exposure*
* exposure - amount of light that struck the sensor per unit area while the shutter was open
** optimal exposure - the maximum exposure* within dof and motion blur requirements without clipping important highlights.
*** under exposed - more exposure* could have been added with the DOF and blur constraints still being met without clipping important highlights.Its a direct quote from you ๐did you decide to research and then add some more ๐คจ
I have always posted Aperture, shutter speed and scene luminance affect exposure*
What is the meaning of the word exposure you used in your question? because in other threads you said that exposure was how light or dark an image looked on the medium it was being viewed on.
* exposure - amount of light that struck the sensor per unit area while the shutter was open
** optimal exposure - the maximum exposure* within dof and motion blur requirements without clipping important highlights.
*** under exposed - more exposure* could have been added with the DOF and blur constraints still being met without clipping important highlights.
@DonaldB has written:are you saying there is a third setting thats is calculated for exposure ? sorry im just being a pain in the a..s
There is a third just as your images show but it was not the iso setting that increased the noise.
It was the difference in the size of the exposure that was the cause
is reflected light exposure now !
@SrMi has written:ou quoted the definition "exposure - amount of light that struck the sensor per unit area while the shutter was open".
That means that exposure depends on shutter speed, aperture, and scene light.not my quote. re-read what i posted
You posted this, but I changed the bolding to the relevant part of your post:
I copied and pasted this information from an expert photographer ,so it must be right .๐๐คจ
* exposure - amount of light that struck the sensor per unit area while the shutter was open
optimal exposure - the maximum exposure within dof and motion blur requirements without clipping important highlights.
* under exposed - more exposure could have been added with the DOF and blur constraints still being met without clipping important highlightsso are you telling me he is wrong ?
Whatever, if you change the scene lighting, you change the exposure. This has been mentioned several times.
P.S.: I am responding mainly for the benefit of others following this thread. Looking at DonaldB's history at DPR (aka Dspider, aka River Photography et al.), his mission on any forum is clear.
I have always posted Aperture, shutter speed and scene luminance affect exposure*
go and re-read some of your last posts. you will find it.
is reflected light exposure now !
well yes it is