i found exactly the same results in istdl. in general, underexposing digital is a bad idea http://www.luminous-landscape.com/tutorials/expose-right.shtml
best, mishka On 4/23/06, Paul Stenquist <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I've found that more noise is generated when shooting at a lower ISO > and pushing the exposure in conversion. Changing the ISO and exposing > correctly yields better results. Of course the lower ISO will yield > better results if a slower shutter speed is possible. But underexposing > one or two stops seems to increase noise. > Paul > On Apr 23, 2006, at 10:59 PM, Shel Belinkoff wrote: > > > Over the last couple of days I was thinking about noise that's > > generated in > > digital photo files, and was wondering if longer exposures at lower ISO > > gave more or less noise than a shorter exposure at higher ISO ratings, > > assuming the overall exposure is the same in both instances. It seemed > > like a good idea for some testing. > > > > Now, just a few minutes ago, I came across this comment: > > > > I believe (he) means that he's set the camera at > > ISO 400 and then (using the exposure > > compensation feature) deliberately underexposed 2 > > stops... thus yielding the same exposure as if the > > ISO had been set to 1600 to start with. Then, plus > > two stops of compensation is applied during > > "development" (the conversion of the RAW data) > > > > [...] > > > > With some digital systems [...] it tends to yield > > a bit more noise (the digital equivalent of grain) > > than with the (camera's) native ISO 400 setting, > > but much lower noise than obtained by > > using the (camera's) native ISO 1600 setting. > > So [...] it's a way of increasing the quality of shots > > at higher ISO's. > > > > Well, I'm no expert on such matters, but I tend to believe what I see, > > so i > > did a quick test. Unfortunately, the light was changing rapidly, and > > it > > might be better to try this when the light is more stable. However, > > this > > first Q&D experiment seems to indicate that lower noise is observable > > using > > this technique. But don't take my word for it, try it yourself under > > stable lighting conditions, and see what results you get. > > > > > > Shel > > > > > > > >
