• site home
  • blog home
  • galleries
  • contact
  • underwater
  • the bleeding edge

the last word

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

You are here: Home / The Last Word / Sony a6300 — underexposure and pushing in post

Sony a6300 — underexposure and pushing in post

March 17, 2016 JimK 3 Comments

This is part of a long series of posts about the Sony a6300. The series starts here.

We saw in the a6300 read noise tests that I posted earlier that the input-referred read noise of the Sony 6300 in single shot shutter mode didn’t vary much from ISO 100 to 320 and from ISO 400 to 1600 or so. That usually means that images in those ranges underexposed and pushed in post processing have very similar noise as images whose brightness is raised by cranking up the camera’s ISO knob. A benefit of pushing in post with the ISO set lower than normal is that you can get a film-like slow clopping behavior in post processing that doesn’t happen if you just twist that ISO knob up.

I set up an a6300 with a Zeiss Loxia 21mm f/2.8 lens on a nice sturdy RRS tripod and aimed it at my bookcase. I set the ISO to 1600, attached a remote shutter release, and made an exposure with the f-stop set to 5.6, and the shutter set to give me some, but minimal slipping in the highlights. This produced a rather dark image when developed in Lr CC 2015.5 with custom white balance and default settings utherwise.

ISO 1600
ISO 1600

Then I made five more images progressively more underexposed in one-stop intervals:

One stop under
One stop under
Two stops under
Two stops under
Three stops under
Three stops under
Four stops under
Four stops under
Five stops under
Five stops under

Then I took the underexposed images as gave each of them a Lightroom exposure boost equal to the underexposure.

No boost
No boost
One stop boost
One stop boost
Two stop boost
Two stop boost
Three stop boost
Three stop boost
Four stop boost
Four stop boost
Five-stop boost
Five-stop boost

OK, the color twist isn’t bad, but what about the noise? I picked a section with some nice dark areas and blew it up to 200%:

No boost
No boost
One stop boost
One stop boost
Two stop boost
Two stop boost
Three stop boost
Three stop boost
Four stop boost
Four stop boost
Five stop boost
Five stop boost

There is a fair amount of noise in the four and five-stop boosted images. Note that they are the equivalent of in-camera exposures of ISO 25600 and ISO 51200, respectively.

I’ll be doing dome comparisons of in-camera-pushed versus post-pushed images. I just wanted to set the stage with this post.

 

 

 

 

The Last Word

← Sony a6300 — PRNU Sony a6300 — pushing in post at low ISOs, single shot shutter →

Comments

  1. Jack Hogan says

    March 17, 2016 at 12:21 pm

    Interesting, not isoless in this range

    Reply
    • Jim says

      March 17, 2016 at 12:42 pm

      Jack, in this test you can’t tell if it’s ISOless or not, because the exposures vary. I’m going to have to change the confusing title. Thanks.

      Reply
  2. CarVac says

    March 17, 2016 at 1:21 pm

    Of course, when pushing in camera you’ll run into baked in noise reduction.

    Reply

Leave a Reply Cancel reply

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

May 2025
S M T W T F S
 123
45678910
11121314151617
18192021222324
25262728293031
« Apr    

Articles

  • About
    • Patents and papers about color
    • Who am I?
  • How to…
    • Backing up photographic images
    • How to change email providers
    • How to shoot slanted edge images for me
  • 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 35-70 MF 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

  • bob lozano on The 16-Bit Fallacy: Why More Isn’t Always Better in Medium Format Cameras
  • JimK on Goldilocks and the three flashes
  • DC Wedding Photographer on Goldilocks and the three flashes
  • Wedding Photographer in DC on The 16-Bit Fallacy: Why More Isn’t Always Better in Medium Format Cameras
  • JimK on Fujifilm GFX 100S II precision
  • Renjie Zhu on Fujifilm GFX 100S II precision
  • JimK on Fuji 20-35/4 landscape field curvature at 23mm vs 23/4 GF
  • Ivo de Man on Fuji 20-35/4 landscape field curvature at 23mm vs 23/4 GF
  • JimK on Fuji 20-35/4 landscape field curvature at 23mm vs 23/4 GF
  • JimK on Fuji 20-35/4 landscape field curvature at 23mm vs 23/4 GF

Archives

Copyright © 2025 · Daily Dish Pro On Genesis Framework · WordPress · Log in

Unless otherwise noted, all images copyright Jim Kasson.