Learn to use camera, not the computer later, your shots will be better. You actually need to think about it when you are shooting there are things like shutter speed and f stop that you can't change on the computer, shot it right in camera. The computer should be like a dark room you develop and tweak a little but you shouldn't have to be fixing shots buy more then a stop.

I know how to use shutter speed and f stop thanks.

My point was that if I am shooting in low light with high shutter speed (aperture open all the way), I either need to up the ISO or underexpose the photo.

My question was whther these both gave the same result after correcting the exposure in the raw file. The answer I got was yes.

Since fiddling with the ISO requires picking through menus, I am much happier to leave the ISO on 100 and adjust the shutter speed and aperture to achieve the same result.

Actually the results will be very different. Unless you have a shitty camera then upping iso to 800 should not be bad enough to notice at regular sizes. 1600 looks perfectly fine with todays imaging. If you do underexpose and then change exposure in the computer the grain will in every case be way worse. Also colors, contrast and shadow detail will be horrible. The sensor itself changes it sensitivity it does not shoot at one iso and then adjust in camera.

I find that when shooting in low light, I am always making the trade off between blurry photos or noisy photos. One thing I have realized, is that if I use a low ISO and underexpose a photo (fast shutter speed) and then ramp up the exposure of the RAW file in post production, it looks roughly the same (in terms of noisiness) as if I take the same photo with the same fast shutter speed and a high ISO. Is there actually any difference?

So is changing the ISO before you take a photo effectively the same as tweaking the exposure after you take a photo?

I ask because I have to go through menus to get to the ISO setting and I frequently forget to change it to what I need. It would be easier if I could just leave it on 100 and then just underexpose shots rather than change the ISO setting

Looks like a mis-focus?

Same focus, had the camera propped on a couch arm.

That really doesn't matter, just cause you had it propped doesn't mean it had the same focus, that could have stopped the camera shake but not necessarily.

I'm not sure what kind of pictures you take that you can not take the 10 secs to change the iso, you don't need to change it for each shot. If you want to be lazy that is your deal, if you forget once in a while this will help you save the images. Yet no one will agree with you to not shoot it right. Do it right its simple and you seem to know what to do just don't be lazy and do it.

First, look at the purple noise in the midtown areas. do you not see the vertical banding?

Second look at the noise in the background. See the much more prominent blue noise?

Third, the focus is off. Sorry but the left image is soft, not just from noise reduction, from either shake or other movement.

For slow shutter speeds you need either a cable release or IR remote, even touching the shutter introduces shake.

What camera are you shooting? The ISO 1600 was awful to begin with...


BTW, if your camera is to hard to change shutter speeds than you need a new camera. I realize in a digital age we change shutter speeds much more often but you shouldn't need to change shot to shot, if you are than you need a camera with solid external controls.

If the camera is on manual focus, and has two shots from the same location of the same subject, how does the focus change?


And why so angry at me? I asked a single straight forward question. I never argued that shooting an underexposed picture will be better. I asked if it would be equivalent to shooting a high ISO picture. I got two different answers and eventually just did the test to find out for myself. I never called anybody stupid, or made crazy claims, but half of the responses are along the lines of "Learn to use a camera newb"

Why so angry, most people that will comment on this post are passionate about photography, and it just sounds like you are being lazy. Imagine if you just said will a two piece anchor be as good as a three piece I don't like to take the time to do it right. Every one would say your going to die noob. Now cutting this corner wont result in death or injury (unless you are shooting a wedding and mess up)

Asking if it is all right to cut the corner just makes you look lazy and like you don't know what you are doing. You don't need our approval do what every you want. I will be shooting right in my camera cause I care about my images

I think many would say that it depends. Having all of the knowledge is what will let you make the right choice. In some situations going fast is safer than maximizing safety at every belay. Sometimes two anchors is good enough, like almost every bolted anchor. Sometimes it is important to know what the trade offs are between choices, instead of just saying, this is the right way, only do it this way.

If I know what the trade off is between high ISO and underexposure, I can judge for myself whether it is worthwhile to hunt through a menu, and maybe miss a shot or end up with a slightly grainy shot. Not all photos are destined for art galleries.