the last word

Photography meets digital computer technology. Photography wins -- most of the time.

  • site home
  • blog home
  • galleries
  • contact
  • underwater
  • the bleeding edge
You are here: Home / The Last Word / ETTR — just crank up the ISO? Part 4

ETTR — just crank up the ISO? Part 4

February 13, 2013 JimK Leave a Comment

I’ve refined the calculations behind the graphs in the first post of this series. Specifically, I’ve added normalization to the 1.5 dB/octave lines so that they are corrected for the actual exposure of the test images, as measured by the mean value of the pixels in the selection box. The Poisson-limited lines had already been so corrected. This calibrates out exposure variations caused by inaccuracies in the shutter and the aperture, gain of the amplifiers in the camera, and variations in monitor brightness caused by power line variation and the phase of the moon.

As before, the way to use these curves is to find the ISO/DIN setting beyond which the Actual (red) line drops as faster (or faster — look at the M9 graph) as the 1.5 decibel/octave line. Beyond that point, for a given shutter speed and f-stop, you can get just as good SNR (or better, in the case of the M9) by increasing the Exposure control in Lightroom as you can by further increasing the ISO setting on your camera, and you’ll have more headroom to boot.

Now we can see that the small improvements in the Nikon D4 results at high ISOs were illusionary, an artifact of the high-ISO frames getting a bit more exposure and/or gain than the low-ISO exposures. We can also see clearly that the ISO setting below 100 is useless for reducing noise, since it just doubles the exposure.

The D800E results are substantially the same as before, but the corrected green line shows that the ISO 50 setting just increases the exposure:

The M9 results are also similar to what they were before. The camera’s ISO 80 setting is seen to operate similarly to the Nikons’. By the way, note that ISOs over 640 (DIN 29), not only don’t yield any improvement in SNR over push development in Lightroom, they actually give worse SNRs:

By the way, I had to come up with an algorithmic way to convert ISO to DIN for these graphs. Here’s my formula, which produces results that agree with the tables: DIN = 1 + 10 * log(ISO).

The Last Word

← ETTR — just crank up the ISO? Part 3 ETTR — just crank up the ISO? Part 5 →

Leave a Reply Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

May 2022
S M T W T F S
1234567
891011121314
15161718192021
22232425262728
293031  
« Apr    

Articles

  • About
    • Patents and papers about color
    • Who am I?
  • Good 35-70 MF lens
  • How to…
    • Backing up photographic images
    • How to change email providers
  • Lens screening testing
    • Equipment and Software
    • Examples
      • Bad and OK 200-600 at 600
      • Excellent 180-400 zoom
      • Fair 14-30mm zoom
      • Good 100-200 mm MF zoom
      • Good 100-400 zoom
      • Good 100mm lens on P1 P45+
      • Good 120mm MF lens
      • Good 18mm FF lens
      • Good 24-105 mm FF lens
      • Good 24-70 FF zoom
      • Good 35 mm FF lens
      • Good 60 mm lens on IQ3-100
      • Good 63 mm MF lens
      • Good 65 mm FF lens
      • Good 85 mm FF lens
      • Good and bad 25mm FF lenses
      • Good zoom at 24 mm
      • Marginal 18mm lens
      • Marginal 35mm FF lens
      • Mildly problematic 55 mm FF lens
      • OK 16-35mm zoom
      • OK 60mm lens on P1 P45+
      • OK Sony 600mm f/4
      • Pretty good 16-35 FF zoom
      • Pretty good 90mm FF lens
      • Problematic 400 mm FF lens
      • Tilted 20 mm f/1.8 FF lens
      • Tilted 30 mm MF lens
      • Tilted 50 mm FF lens
      • Two 15mm FF lenses
    • Found a problem – now what?
    • Goals for this test
    • Minimum target distances
      • MFT
      • APS-C
      • Full frame
      • Small medium format
    • Printable Siemens Star targets
    • Target size on sensor
      • MFT
      • APS-C
      • Full frame
      • Small medium format
    • Test instructions — postproduction
    • Test instructions — reading the images
    • Test instructions – capture
    • Theory of the test
    • What’s wrong with conventional lens screening?
  • Previsualization heresy
  • Privacy Policy
  • Recommended photographic web sites
  • Using in-camera histograms for ETTR
    • Acknowledgments
    • Why ETTR?
    • Normal in-camera histograms
    • Image processing for in-camera histograms
    • Making the in-camera histogram closely represent the raw histogram
    • Shortcuts to UniWB
    • Preparing for monitor-based UniWB
    • A one-step UniWB procedure
    • The math behind the one-step method
    • Iteration using Newton’s Method

Category List

Recent Comments

  • JimK on D850 exposure strategy — manual settings
  • Alex Ramsay on D850 exposure strategy — manual settings
  • Michael Klein on Moving away from Sony cameras
  • JimK on Leica Q2 has a real raw histogram
  • JimK on Leica Q2 has a real raw histogram
  • Srdjan on Leica Q2 has a real raw histogram
  • JimK on Leica Q2 Monochrom vs GFX 50S — Siemens star
  • JimK on Leica Q2 Monochrom vs GFX 50S — Siemens star
  • James Sullivan on Leica Q2 Monochrom vs GFX 50S — Siemens star
  • Luís Filipe da Cunha on Subscribe to comments — going once…

Archives

Copyright © 2022 · Daily Dish Pro On Genesis Framework · WordPress · Log in

Unless otherwise noted, all images copyright Jim Kasson.