Same here. I did my own test, but going from 6400 ISO down to 200 ISO. I also used 2 exposure modules (1 @ +3, and 1 @ +2) and found the images to be almost indistinguishable from each other. If anything, the noise distribution was subtly different in it's randomisation. As for white balance differences, that should not be an issue if you're shooting RAW. A RAW file is not, after all, an "image". It's simply data. That's why white balance can be selected after the fact. And no, I don't believe there to be any issue with darktable either. Just noobie error on the part of f-stoppers. Cheers, Bruce Williams ------------------------------ Mobile: +61 41 250 6349
audio2u.com brucewilliamsphotography.com shuttersincpodcast.com sinelanguagepodcast.com e-mail <stu...@audio2u.com> | Twitter <http://twitter.com/@audio2u> | LinkedIn <http://au.linkedin.com/pub/bruce-williams/1/318/489> | Facebook <http://www.facebook.com/audio2u> | Soundcloud <http://www.soundcloud.com/audio2u> | Quora <https://www.quora.com/profile/Bruce-Williams-5> ------------------------------ ---------- Forwarded message --------- From: Bryan Leaman <bllea...@gmail.com> Date: Tue, Mar 5, 2019 at 11:07 AM Subject: Re: [darktable-dev] Pushing ISO (ISO invarience) To: <darktable-dev@lists.darktable.org> I saw that video and have no idea what F-Stoppers may have done wrong in their test, but I expect unfamiliarity with the software may be a factor. I just tried to replicate the essense of the test using my Nikon D3200, 50mm @ F5. Shot properly exposed at 3200 on a tripod, then at 100. After boosting the exposure 5 stops (1 exposure instance) and selecting the same white balance, the overall luminosity looks equivalent to me. I also tried boosting using 2 instances, 1 at +3ev and another at +2ev. I noticed that duplicating the instance and changing the exposure still leaves the duplicate turned off, so maybe that's what happened. The camera's white balance selection was very different between the two and even after setting the boosted image's setting it still looks a little yellow to me. Also, some areas that were darker to begin with (dark wood in shadow) did not appear as bright after boosting 5ev. The long & short of it is I don't think there's any issue with Darktable. --Bryan On 3/3/19 2:31 AM, Wiktor Nowak wrote: > Normally You use one exposure module and push it 3EV max. They > duplicated it and pusched it 1 stop more so maybe here something tricky > happens. I did a test witch 5EV underexposed image on 80D and I didn't > noticed any exposure difference when I pushed it 3EV plus 2EV in > darktable. It could be a difference in darktable overall in a shape of > base curve for this Nikon or anything else. > > Actually I don't think it's a problem at all. Do You think it is? > > W dniu 02.03.2019 o 11:22, Andreas Schneider pisze: >> Hi, >> >> there a video where they did take and underexposed image and then pushed the >> exposure 4 EVs. darktable produced a darker image than the other raw >> developers. >> >> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RAb85TukSuc >> >> >> ___________________________________________________________________________ >> darktable developer mailing list >> to unsubscribe send a mail to darktable-dev+unsubscr...@lists.darktable.org >> > ___________________________________________________________________________ > darktable developer mailing list > to unsubscribe send a mail to darktable-dev+unsubscr...@lists.darktable.org > > ___________________________________________________________________________ darktable developer mailing list to unsubscribe send a mail to darktable-dev+unsubscr...@lists.darktable.org ___________________________________________________________________________ darktable developer mailing list to unsubscribe send a mail to darktable-dev+unsubscr...@lists.darktable.org
