ISO - Waste of time when shooting RAW?

[swanseamale47]

What a clever idea, no longer do I need to press a button and turn a dial to alter the ISO, my life is changed forever. Of course when I print AO size they look total rubbish but hey! I saved a second of my life.....

 

[Gaz J]

Why bother checking focus - you've taken the image so you can't adjust it; the 'moment' has gone; it's either tack sharp or in the bin. You can't preview film images. (Isn't 'chimp-ing' a bad habit where you miss so many images whilst looking at the back of your camera?)

Because I want to check critical focus. I shoot a lot of macro and close up. Quite often I get the opportunity to take more than one shot but if I've got it right the first time then I move on. That why I need to "see" the image. It doesn't have anything to do with chimping being a bad habit. It's part of my photography.

Exposure latitude on sensors, especially Sony and Nikon, is advancing all the time and camera reviews/comparisons point this out. I guess this gives rise to this idea. I will deliberately underexpose to gain shutter speed sometimes knowing that I can pull it back in post but not very often.

As I said I doubt he'll be converting many photographers to his ideas.

Whatever the pros and cons of it, the examples he's used and the way he's processed them wouldnt encourage me to try this. I'm quite happy trundling along the way I've always done. Each to their own however.

 

[Fraser Euan White]

What a clever idea, no longer do I need to press a button and turn a dial to alter the ISO, my life is changed forever. Of course when I print AO size they look total rubbish but hey! I saved a second of my life.....

The link to the article I posted earlier suggests IQ will be better so I don't understand why large prints would be worse Wayne?

We can spend thousands on new gear just to get a very slight improvement in IQ; Reading about ISO-Invariance it would appear to be a 'free' upgrade?

(P.S. Just because you are new to a forum doesn't mean you haven't been a photographer for ages.)

 

[gramps]

If the shutter speed & aperture are correct for the first shot what else may be wrong that you can adjust?

Well focus for a start ... don't tell me that you have never missed focus?
If I have a rare bird on a fence and take a shot using the 'suggested' method I cannot see of the focus has been missed ... so I don't know that I need to try again whilst the bird is still on the fence until I get home and it's too late.

 

[HoppyUK]

To Canon shooters, it’s all snake oil. We’re still using sensors from the 50’s and probably will be for a while yet

True

It's one of the reasons I've not yet upgraded to a 5D Mk4 which doesn't match the Sony sensors in this area.

 

[mikew]

I was a member of Nikonites during this members rise from not knowing about FOV versus sensor size to the point he started telling every one they where doing things wrong, about 12 months if i remember correctly.

I think if you feel he has it right then do it his way, i just felt he needed to be the man.

 

[PhilH04]

I was a member of Nikonites during this members rise from not knowing about FOV versus sensor size to the point he started telling every one they where doing things wrong, about 12 months if i remember correctly.

I think if you feel he has it right then do it his way, i just felt he needed to be the man.

I am not a Nikon or Sony user... I can fully understand what you say about the gent on Nikonites, his examples are hardly the best to demonstrate ISO Invariance. However that is not to say that there is no substance in the subject, there is, but like any other tool in the photographers toolbox it needs to be used well, properly and with regard to any limitations.

As Richard (HoppyuK) says it is fairly new to the playing field.... Most will feel more happy thinking in the traditional way, that is fine, it is also the school I am in, though if I had access to an ISO invariant camera I would love to experiment.

 

[Phil-D]

Why was I not surprised to see the image linked to on the 'other forum' was a Coot!

 

[Fraser Euan White]

At the end of the day its .......... Take a bad picture and fix later .........Somehting I totally disagree with....

..........but, you are not taking a bad picture! You are deliberately under exposing the image in camera to make a better final image; to me that is a wise move?

 

[Fraser Euan White]

Well focus for a start ... don't tell me that you have never missed focus?
If I have a rare bird on a fence and take a shot using the 'suggested' method I cannot see of the focus has been missed ... so I don't know that I need to try again whilst the bird is still on the fence until I get home and it's too late.

Generally, with a modern DSLR YOU don't adjust focus, it is the camera that adjusts focus. Instead of taking one picture of this rare bird and 'chimping' take 20 pictures - that way there should be at least one in focus and, according to the link I have posted you may well get a better IQ on that in-focus rare bird shot - surely a better result?

It costs nothing to record a digital image and we should never really be taking just one picture. (The first image on the sensor is usually the worst due to the fact we are actually pressing the shutter release and inducing a movement to the camera itself). Hence most successful photographers encourage shooting in 'burst' mode.

 

[HoppyUK]

..........but, you are not taking a bad picture! You are deliberately under exposing the image in camera to make a better final image; to me that is a wise move?

KIPAX shoots everything straight to JPEG. He has to, like many professional sports photographers, to meet deadlines. ISO invariance is useless without post-processing from Raw.

 

[woof woof]

Lol, I can only but laugh out loud. Stop trying to shortcut the fundamentals of photography which to all and intense purposes are all to do with light, rather the quantity and quality of light.
The originator of this thread thinks he's hit on something new, well sorry but I don't think so.
With regard to digital cameras, use them in the normal manner and expose to the right and you'll not go far wrong, think you've hit on a new phenomenon and you'll screw up.

You think you've discovered something new, grow up, try and grasp the fundamentals, then come back to me and admit you were sidetracked, then I'll have a discussion with you!

You're missing something here.

It's not messing with any carved in stone laws of photography, it's a characteristic of some sensors and it may be that some people see an advantage in altering the way they'd normally take pictures in some circumstances.

Read up on it.

There's no need to worry about your manhood shrinking or falling off. It's just an interesting subject that once you're read up on you can choose to embrace to some degree or just completely ignore.

As for having a discussion with you... Why should I waste my time...

 

[gramps]

Generally, with a modern DSLR YOU don't adjust focus, it is the camera that adjusts focus. Instead of taking one picture of this rare bird and 'chimping' take 20 pictures - that way there should be at least one in focus

But I do adjust focus, my choice of focus point or focus 'group' may and does frequently change just prior to pressing the shutter button.
Sometimes the camera itself gets it wrong and decides focusing on a nearby feather/flower/blade of grass is a better idea ... 'machine-gunning' isn't going to alter that, it will just serve to amuse/annoy anyone nearby.
Much simpler to check the image taken, if required see where it went wrong and take another, adjusting as necessary.
An out of focus shot with great IQ is no use to me.
I am not questioning whether this method of itself doesn't have a time-saving benefit or that it might improve image quality, (though I don't see that in the Nikonites examples, some of which look like awful HDR), just that it imposes a visual confirmation limitation that many will find unacceptable.

 

[Phil V]

..........but, you are not taking a bad picture! You are deliberately under exposing the image in camera to make a better final image; to me that is a wise move?

Not if you’re @KIPAX and you have to be wiring the images to the newspaper during the game or you’re not getting paid.

 

[Fraser Euan White]

But I do adjust focus, my choice of focus point or focus 'group' may and does frequently change just prior to pressing the shutter button.
Sometimes the camera itself gets it wrong and decides focusing on a nearby feather/flower/blade of grass is a better idea ... 'machine-gunning' isn't going to alter that, it will just serve to amuse/annoy anyone nearby.
Much simpler to check the image taken, if required see where it went wrong and take another, adjusting as necessary.
An out of focus shot with great IQ is no use to me.
I am not questioning whether this method of itself doesn't have a time-saving benefit or that it might improve image quality, (though I don't see that in the Nikonites examples, some of which look like awful HDR), just that it imposes a visual confirmation limitation that many will find unacceptable.

No wonder it's a rare bird.............it spends far to much time sitting on that fence!

Jokes aside; The Camera doesn't 'get it wrong' it is an inanimate object with no intelligence - it is the end user that makes the errors. Nobody can claim they don't miss focus but using the camera more and analysing the results makes us far more competent with that tool and
we 'should' be able to guess it most circumstances what is the best focusing mode for a given situation with our cameras.

Not if you’re @KIPAX and you have to be wiring the images to the newspaper during the game or you’re not getting paid.

I would assume most PJ's shoot Jpeg anyway since all RAW files have to be edited and they see this as a waste of time/money? (This 'theory' certainly doesn't apply to Jpeg shooters).

 

[gramps]

The Camera doesn't 'get it wrong' it is an inanimate object with no intelligence - it is the end user that makes the errors.

I'm sorry but that just isn't correct, the end user may make an error in deciding the best focus mode to use, but the camera can easily 'get it wrong', (I take it that you have never tried using 3D Tracking for example!).
Being pedantic it's design and programming (artificial intelligence) come from human intelligence.

 

[Craigus]

I was a member of Nikonites during this members rise from not knowing about FOV versus sensor size to the point he started telling every one they where doing things wrong, about 12 months if i remember correctly.

I think if you feel he has it right then do it his way, i just felt he needed to be the man.

This is exactly why I would never listen to the advice. It's the first time I've ever heard of this and not come from a manufacturer or even a well known photographer with a good portfolio, but from someone who can't take a good photo at all.

Reminds me of the analogy of the man who can tell you how to be a millionaire, but when asked if he is a millionaire he goes quiet.

 

[Fraser Euan White]

This is exactly why I would never listen to the advice. It's the first time I've ever heard of this and not come from a manufacturer or even a well known photographer with a good portfolio, but from someone who can't take a good photo at all.

Reminds me of the analogy of the man who can tell you how to be a millionaire, but when asked if he is a millionaire he goes quiet.

But you choose to ignore the link I posted later? Why?

 

[HoppyUK]

But I do adjust focus, my choice of focus point or focus 'group' may and does frequently change just prior to pressing the shutter button.
Sometimes the camera itself gets it wrong and decides focusing on a nearby feather/flower/blade of grass is a better idea ... 'machine-gunning' isn't going to alter that, it will just serve to amuse/annoy anyone nearby.
Much simpler to check the image taken, if required see where it went wrong and take another, adjusting as necessary.
An out of focus shot with great IQ is no use to me.
I am not questioning whether this method of itself doesn't have a time-saving benefit or that it might improve image quality, (though I don't see that in the Nikonites examples, some of which look like awful HDR), just that it imposes a visual confirmation limitation that many will find unacceptable.

You have to be careful in post-processing when exploiting ISO-invariance. Brightening the shadows obviously distorts the natural range of tones and it's easy to take that too far and get an artificial-looking result. It's also worth noting that adjusting 'exposure' in some post-processing programmes doesn't change all tones equally in the same way that adjusting ISO does. Lightroom for example puts a strong emphasis on mid-tones with the Exposure slider in the current Process Version 2012 and was more linear in previous versions.

It's not a problem though and easy to compensate for, just something to be aware of.

 

[gman]

Would the ISO invariance method allow for more localised exposure editing in a high dynamic range scene as opposed to using ISO in camera, which is a global scene adjustment?

 

[Fraser Euan White]

I'm sorry but that just isn't correct, the end user may make an error in deciding the best focus mode to use, but the camera can easily 'get it wrong', (I take it that you have never tried using 3D Tracking for example!).
Being pedantic it's design and programming (artificial intelligence) come from human intelligence.

I really don't agree but feel it isn't adding to the debate on ISO.

 

[Gaz J]

Generally, with a modern DSLR YOU don't adjust focus, it is the camera that adjusts focus. Instead of taking one picture of this rare bird and 'chimping' take 20 pictures - that way there should be at least one in focus and, according to the link I have posted you may well get a better IQ on that in-focus rare bird shot - surely a better result?

It costs nothing to record a digital image and we should never really be taking just one picture. (The first image on the sensor is usually the worst due to the fact we are actually pressing the shutter release and inducing a movement to the camera itself). Hence most successful photographers encourage shooting in 'burst' mode.

So now instead of the three I normally take to get a result I'm taking 20 which then have to be processed and compared in LR to find the best one. So now I'm spending more time in post than I did before with final results that may or may not be better than those I obtain using my normal method. It just doesn't work for my photography and it won't for many others.

I cannot say whether this method gives a better final image quality than a more normal approach. I have no intention of trying it as I don't see as being a benefit to my photography. I would probably pay a bit more attention to it if it came from a high profile respected photographer who could post examples that really show what is possible rather than someone who has probably seen some reviews where the reviewer has posted some images showing how much recovery can be got from a modern sensor and decided that this is the way that photography should now be approached and whose post processing ability seems to be somewhat lacking anyway.

 

[HoppyUK]

Would the ISO invariance method allow for more localised exposure editing in a high dynamic range scene as opposed to using ISO in camera, which is a global scene adjustment?

Erm... probably yes in practise, but no in theory. HDR technique involves making multiple exposures, gathering progessively more and more light/photons each time. You can't beat that, but it's different (and way more laborious).

In practical terms though, ISO-invariance allows you to a) pull an enormous amount of detail from dark shadows (like raising ISO), but also b) you can adjust exposure so that highlights are retained and not blown (unlike raising ISO, and also a serious downside of ETTR technique). You could also add c) cock-up recovery.

There is a penalty for all this, but overall the impact on image quality is minimal while the practical benefits are huge.

 

[gramps]

I really don't agree but feel it isn't adding to the debate on ISO.

Fair enough.

he is photographing and doesn't worry what the exposure 'in camera' looks like (most look virtually black and are very under exposed).
Thoughts?

 

[swanseamale47]

Because I want to check critical focus. I shoot a lot of macro and close up. Quite often I get the opportunity to take more than one shot but if I've got it right the first time then I move on. That why I need to "see" the image. It doesn't have anything to do with chimping being a bad habit. It's part of my photography.

Exposure latitude on sensors, especially Sony and Nikon, is advancing all the time and camera reviews/comparisons point this out. I guess this gives rise to this idea. I will deliberately underexpose to gain shutter speed sometimes knowing that I can pull it back in post but not very often.

As I said I doubt he'll be converting many photographers to his ideas.

Whatever the pros and cons of it, the examples he's used and the way he's processed them wouldnt encourage me to try this. I'm quite happy trundling along the way I've always done. Each to their own however.

I tried it this morning just for fun, I used a pro nikon and a pro canon (I don't have a sony at the house), both gave vastly better shots at a higher iso with correct exposure that the "black" 100 iso shot pushed, I actually ran out of exposure slider in camera raw so I couldn't get it to the full brightness. Indeed the "pushed" shot was unusable as far as any commercial use was concerned, Frankly I wouldn't even put it on the web it was terrible.
Personally I don't see the point, or the advantage, it's been known for some time that ETTR gives the best results.
I'm sticking to what works and has been proved to work with the cameras I use everyday.

 

[HoppyUK]

I tried it this morning just for fun, I used a pro nikon and a pro canon (I don't have a sony at the house), both gave vastly better shots at a higher iso with correct exposure that the "black" 100 iso shot pushed, I actually ran out of exposure slider in camera raw so I couldn't get it to the full brightness. Indeed the "pushed" shot was unusable as far as any commercial use was concerned, Frankly I wouldn't even put it on the web it was terrible.
Personally I don't see the point, or the advantage, it's been known for some time that ETTR gives the best results.
I'm sticking to what works and has been proved to work with the cameras I use everyday.

What were the camera bodies exactly? Nikons D750 and D850 only are ISO-invariant I think (or close to it). No Canons, though 5D Mk4 is at least a move in that direction.

Edit: And yes, Adobe need to rethink their various exposure adjustment sliders

 

[ChrisJ_SLH]

My main problem with this concept is that the tonal dynamic range isn't quantised in a linear manner. My understanding is that weighting priority is given to the lighter tones after ISO amplification occurs in camera. This being the principle that 'shooting to the right' replies upon.

Producing an under-exposed RAW file will therefore cripple detail as it will have been binned during quantisation.

 

[Fraser Euan White]

I find it interesting that you can post a link to an excellent article yet posters don't bother to read it before commenting - why is this?

I would probably pay a bit more attention to it if it came from a high profile respected photographer who could post examples that really show what is possible rather than someone who has probably seen some reviews where the reviewer has posted some images showing how much recovery can be got from a modern sensor and decided that this is the way that photography should now be approached and whose post processing ability seems to be somewhat lacking anyway.

So, here it is again:

https://photographylife.com/iso-invariance-explained

...........and a bit about the author:

About Spencer Cox
Spencer Cox is a landscape photographer and writer who spends his free time... taking landscape photos and writing. It works out well. His photos have gained international recognition and awards, and his work has been displayed worldwide, including at the Smithsonian Museum of Natural History.


Hopefully contributors will find his credentials more appealing than the author in the Nikonites forum?

 

[Box Brownie]

In practical terms though, ISO-invariance allows you to a) pull an enormous amount of detail from dark shadows (like raising ISO), but also b) you can adjust exposure so that highlights are retained and not blown (unlike raising ISO, and also a serious downside of ETTR technique). You could also add c) cock-up recovery.

There is a penalty for all this, but overall the impact on image quality is minimal while the practical benefits are huge.

So far what little extra I have read and understood (?) there are no 100% compliant ISO invariant dSLR bodies and until there are the potential of this more novel approach to image post processing will be limited to those willing and able to "prove its worth....."

What were the camera bodies exactly? Nikons D750 and D850 only are ISO-invariant I think (or close to it). No Canons, though 5D Mk4 is at least a move in that direction.

Edit: And yes, Adobe need to rethink their various exposure adjustment sliders

In future with 100% compliant ISO invariant sensors this has the potential to be a game changer...... especially when the methodology of PP'ing is consistently understood.

For me this is perhaps more a 'watch this space'.

 

[HoppyUK]

My main problem with this concept is that the tonal dynamic range isn't quantised in a linear manner. My understanding is that weighting priority is given to the lighter tones after ISO amplification occurs in camera. This being the principle that 'shooting to the right' replies upon.

Producing an under-exposed RAW file will therefore cripple detail as it will have been binned during quantisation.

Not quite sure what you mean here, or at what stage in the processing chain, but 'shooting to the right' (ETTR - of the histogram) is quite conventional theory and basically means deliberate over-exposure (linear, all tones equally brightened) to put more detail in the shadows, but it runs the attendant risk of blown highlights that have to be assessed and managed on a shot by shot basis.

Edit: re your last sentence, no, not with an ISO-invariant sensor. That's the whole point.

 

[HoppyUK]

So far what little extra I have read and understood (?) there are no 100% compliant ISO invariant dSLR bodies and until there are the potential of this more novel approach to image post processing will be limited to those willing and able to "prove its worth....."

In future with 100% compliant ISO invariant sensors this has the potential to be a game changer...... especially when the methodology of PP'ing is consistently understood.

For me this is perhaps more a 'watch this space'.

If you are fortunate to have a camera with one of the so-called ISO-invariant sensors, then it is already pretty much a game-changer if you know what you're doing (not difficult). It doesn't actually re-write the concept of ISO adjustment at all, but moves it to a different point in the chain - basically from an in-camera adjustment to a post-processing tool that can be used in several new and beneficial ways.

And yes, there are no truly ISO-invariant sensors around yet, but in practical terms they're close enough. For example, I can drag one or maybe two stops out of the shadows from my 5D2's Raws at ISO100, pretty typical I think. With the right Nikon or Sony, you can get five or six stops before noise etc gets too intrusive. Subjective, but it's that kind of order - BIG difference.

 

[ChrisJ_SLH]

Not quite sure what you mean here, or at what stage in the processing chain, but 'shooting to the right' (ETTR - of the histogram) is quite conventional theory and basically means deliberate over-exposure (linear, all tones equally brightened) to put more detail in the shadows, but it runs the attendant risk of blown highlights that have to be assessed and managed on a shot by shot basis.

So my argument is based on: Exposure -> ISO amplification -> Quantisation -> RAW File creation.

As you know, ETTR works because you have (significantly) more bit depth at the right of the histogram than you do at the left. It isn't linear on the basis there is generally much less detail in dark areas. ETTR would only be possible if the raw file was created after ISO amplification otherwise you aren't really shifting anything to the right. Hence by recovering a very under-exposed image in post must yield less detail overall as the non-linear (right weighted) quantisation will be working a largely left shifted histogram.

 

[Fraser Euan White]

I find it strange that people will spend thousands on the latest Camera or lens for a minuscule increase in performance (usually only in a certain area) yet are willing to 'shun' this approach without any investigation.

 

[Gaz J]

I find it strange that people will spend thousands on the latest Camera or lens for a minuscule increase in performance (usually only in a certain area) yet are willing to 'shun' this approach without any investigation.

Well folk are strange. They perhaps look at it and think "this won't fit in with my type of photography and I'm happy with the images I produce" and don't waste anymore of their time. Also, it would appear that very few cameras are completely suitable for this type of approach and I would guess that as most people will have no inclination to change their camera for one of those then there even less incentive to investigate it.

 

[HoppyUK]

So my argument is based on: Exposure -> ISO amplification -> Quantisation -> RAW File creation.

As you know, ETTR works because you have (significantly) more bit depth at the right of the histogram than you do at the left. It isn't linear on the basis there is generally much less detail in dark areas. ETTR would only be possible if the raw file was created after ISO amplification otherwise you aren't really shifting anything to the right. Hence by recovering a very under-exposed image in post must yield less detail overall as the non-linear (right weighted) quantisation will be working a largely left shifted histogram.

ETTR just muddies the waters here. Some of the effects are similar, but ISO-invariance is a completely different process. I think you cross-posted with my late edit above.

With 'conventional' sensors, applying signal amplification at sensor level by raising ISO (before it is locked into the Raw file) produces far better results than doing it in post-processing. No debate on that. What true ISO-invariance means is that brightening (applying signal gain) in post-processing is just as efficient as raising ISO in-camera. Plus there's the additional benefit of bright highlights not blowing nearly so readily.

This is very new, emerging technology with a few things still to sort out. Also, I think manufacturers are being cautious about it, despite the very real advantages, because it drives a coach and horses between the way we would shoot Raws to exploit ISO-invariance, and shooting to JPEG that can't benefit from it. That would just cause huge confusion and misunderstanding that might back-fire.

 

[ChrisJ_SLH]

ETTR just muddies the waters here. Some of the effects are similar, but ISO-invariance is a completely different process. I think you cross-posted with my late edit above.

Quite possibly. I was merely using ETTR to illustrate that things aren't equal at each end of the histogram when it comes to recorded detail.

With 'conventional' sensors, applying signal amplification at sensor level by raising ISO (before it is locked into the Raw file) produces far better results than doing it in post-processing. No debate on that. What true ISO-invariance means is that brightening (applying signal gain) in post-processing is just as efficient as raising ISO in-camera. Plus there's the additional benefit of bright highlights not blowing nearly so readily.

This is very new, emerging technology with a few things still to sort out. Also, I think manufacturers are being cautious about it, despite the very real advantages, because it drives a coach and horses between the way we would shoot Raws to exploit ISO-invariance, and shooting to JPEG that can't benefit from it. That would just cause huge confusion and misunderstanding that might back-fire.

Agreed. This would effectively enable you to re-quantise your shifted histogram in post.

 

[Fraser Euan White]

ETTR just muddies the waters here. Some of the effects are similar, but ISO-invariance is a completely different process. I think you cross-posted with my late edit above.

With 'conventional' sensors, applying signal amplification at sensor level by raising ISO (before it is locked into the Raw file) produces far better results than doing it in post-processing. No debate on that. What true ISO-invariance means is that brightening (applying signal gain) in post-processing is just as efficient as raising ISO in-camera. Plus there's the additional benefit of bright highlights not blowing nearly so readily.

This is very new, emerging technology with a few things still to sort out. Also, I think manufacturers are being cautious about it, despite the very real advantages, because it drives a coach and horses between the way we would shoot Raws to exploit ISO-invariance, and shooting to JPEG that can't benefit from it. That would just cause huge confusion and misunderstanding that might back-fire.

Certainly from what I have read on the subject this would appear very relevant - manufacturers are very worried that people won't understand the move from conventional ISO beliefs 'nailed into photographers' since film days and the new ISO-Invariance that offers significant advantages to image quality/capture control. (In other words they think we are thick and stuck in our ways!)

What an engineer can do and what a marketing man requests are often quite different.

Interestingly the author in the article I linked is using a D800 which isn't that new.

 

[HoppyUK]

Quite possibly. I was merely using ETTR to illustrate that things aren't equal at each end of the histogram when it comes to recorded detail.

Yes. And I see what you mean about the basis of ETTR now

Agreed. This would effectively enable you to re-quantise your shifted histogram in post.

 

[HoppyUK]

Certainly from what I have read on the subject this would appear very relevant - manufacturers are very worried that people won't understand the move from conventional ISO beliefs 'nailed into photographers' since film days and the new ISO-Invariance that offers significant advantages to image quality/capture control. (In other words they think we are thick and stuck in our ways!)

What an engineer can do and what a marketing man requests are often quite different.

Interestingly the author in the article I linked is using a D800 which isn't that new.

Tricky And the more you think about it, the trickier it gets. While ISO-invariance is great on one hand, the prospect of shooting with a very dark or almost black LCD and a useless histogram is unappealing. Perhaps they could give us a 'volume' control

And we would need a way of disabling all the fiddling around they do to Raw files. They've never been truly 'raw' data and the higher the ISO, the more messed with they get.

And what do JPEG shooters get out of this? Currently nothing, but maybe JPEGs could be reconfigured somehow? I have no idea, but as we stand today, how would two completely different workflows be integrated into the same camera?

There is also the view that, none of this really matters. While I'm very much in favour and it would directly benefit a lot of my work, others may not think that. "The shadows are dark because that's how they were" is a perfectly valid view.

NB I wasn't sure about the Nikon D800 and 810, but it seems they do have at least some degree of ISO-invariance, as do a few other cameras.

 

[Box Brownie]

ETTR just muddies the waters here. Some of the effects are similar, but ISO-invariance is a completely different process. I think you cross-posted with my late edit above.

With 'conventional' sensors, applying signal amplification at sensor level by raising ISO (before it is locked into the Raw file) produces far better results than doing it in post-processing. No debate on that. What true ISO-invariance means is that brightening (applying signal gain) in post-processing is just as efficient as raising ISO in-camera. Plus there's the additional benefit of bright highlights not blowing nearly so readily.

This is very new, emerging technology with a few things still to sort out. Also, I think manufacturers are being cautious about it, despite the very real advantages, because it drives a coach and horses between the way we would shoot Raws to exploit ISO-invariance, and shooting to JPEG that can't benefit from it. That would just cause huge confusion and misunderstanding that might back-fire.

Quite possibly. I was merely using ETTR to illustrate that things aren't equal at each end of the histogram when it comes to recorded detail.



Agreed. This would effectively enable you to re-quantise your shifted histogram in post.

Certainly from what I have read on the subject this would appear very relevant - manufacturers are very worried that people won't understand the move from conventional ISO beliefs 'nailed into photographers' since film days and the new ISO-Invariance that offers significant advantages to image quality/capture control. (In other words they think we are thick and stuck in our ways!)

What an engineer can do and what a marketing man requests are often quite different.

Interestingly the author in the article I linked is using a D800 which isn't that new.

This new approach will not reach mass market cameras until the manufacturers can or will put the money into both non sensor hardware i.e. processing power & the JPEG conversion 'engines'..........but whatever direction it takes some might say there will become renewed separation between Pro and Consumer dSLRs / cameras.

In the former, those that return to the old Kodak strapline.........."you press the button and we will do the rest" for the non enthusiast.

And in the latter, the new sensor PP'ing to yield greater potential out of the RAW files appealing to the enthusiast and the non JPEG shooting Pro.

Possibly interesting times indeed???