Timeline for What are the practical differences between the exposure settings my camera picked for me in auto mode and my own choices?
Current License: CC BY-SA 4.0
13 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Oct 23, 2019 at 5:13 | comment | added | thirtythreeforty | For those worried about noise when the camera shoots at a lower ISO then pushes the shadows - don't be... The sensors on Fuji X cameras are really close to iso-invariant, which is what lets them implement this. (The "best" iso-invariance is actually on the older X-T1, with the newer X-T2 and X-T3 only slightly behind.) | |
| Oct 23, 2019 at 3:27 | comment | added | mattdm | @xiota No — it works by underexposing so the highlights are protected, and then bringing up the shadows. So the nominal ISO of the median exposure of the final shot is (say) 400 or 800, but the actual RAW file was recorded at ISO 200. | |
| Oct 22, 2019 at 21:32 | comment | added | xiota | "where the camera actually shoots at a lower ISO and then brings up the shadows in internal post-processing" -- should it be "higher ISO"? | |
| Oct 22, 2019 at 14:40 | history | edited | mattdm | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
added 5 characters in body
|
| Oct 22, 2019 at 13:32 | comment | added | mattdm | @MichaelC Yep, I'll add a note on that too. | |
| Oct 22, 2019 at 13:32 | history | edited | mattdm | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
thanks michaelc!
|
| Oct 22, 2019 at 13:26 | comment | added | Michael C | The difference in metering is fully explainable by the difference in framing. There's more sky in the shot exposed 2/3 stop darker (which really makes a difference with corner vignetting in the upper left corner), and less sky in the shot exposed 2/3 stops brighter. | |
| Oct 22, 2019 at 13:15 | comment | added | Michael C | After opening both images in separate tabs and switching back and forth, I think the ISO 400 image is about 2/3 stop brighter than the ISO 200 images. Look at the sand in the shadow in the center foreground. | |
| Oct 22, 2019 at 13:13 | history | edited | mattdm | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
added 305 characters in body
|
| Oct 22, 2019 at 13:12 | comment | added | Michael C | I haven't shot with any of the Fuji "X" series, but I would imagine the ISO shown in the EXIF info reflects that actual analog amplification used rather than the "effective ISO" after digital processing. But the ISO 400 shot is not "brighter" than it should be compared to the ISO 200 shot, it is "darker" than one would expect for an image exposed 2/3 stops brighter than the ISO 200 image. | |
| Oct 22, 2019 at 12:14 | history | edited | mattdm | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
added 917 characters in body
|
| Oct 22, 2019 at 12:05 | vote | accept | Anthony Kong | ||
| Oct 22, 2019 at 12:03 | history | answered | mattdm | CC BY-SA 4.0 |