Interesting, and it makes sense to me. I found your video because I'm going to shoot photos in a small club in San Francisco in a couple of nights and I shot there two years ago and know that I'm going to be challenged by poor lighting. My normal use case is shooting thousands of frames at conformation dog shows (like Westminster, but more regional in scope). The problem is that the shows are often held at midday in harsh natural lighting, or indoors in lousy florescent lighting. I've found that outdoors, by underexposing my shots, I can diminish the blown out highlight from reflections, often exacerbated by the white show tents that are found at outdoor events on a regular basis. Indoors, I generally rely on tweaks to white balance (temp) and tint in Adobe Lightroom Classic. I subscribe to Adobe Raw, but have never used it. I'll have to give it a try. Meanwhile, I'm looking forward to trying some of your tips out in a couple of nights.
Hi John! I have been a photoshop users for a long time and with camera raw it gives you a lot of control. The fine tuning settings are easier to understand and use in camera raw. Going from one extreme of comfort zone to something completely different can be a big challenge. One lighting condition to the extreme opposite. Sometimes it is good to make yourself do it. Let me know how things go and thanks for watching! -R
From what I understand, if your camera is iso invariant lifting shadows in post won't introduce more noise than increasing iso in camera. If it is iso variant it will introduce more noise.
Typically what I have experienced. I will underexpose the shot and kick the exposure up in camera raw. The noise seems to be a lot less in post than when done in camera. I actually found this out a couple years ago when shooting people inside a bowling center. Really bad lighting in the bowlers areas next to the ball returns. I made the best guess without jamming the ISO in the camera and pushed up the exposure by 3 or 4 stops. The noise was minimal to my surprise! Thanks for watching! -R
Some things in this video will surprise you!
very useful :) thanks
Glad it was helpful! -R
Great points, the finish product is all the matters to the customer. I will use your ideas on my next shoot. Thank you, and keep shooting .
Awesome Steve! Let me know how it works out and thanks for watching! -R
Interesting, and it makes sense to me. I found your video because I'm going to shoot photos in a small club in San Francisco in a couple of nights and I shot there two years ago and know that I'm going to be challenged by poor lighting. My normal use case is shooting thousands of frames at conformation dog shows (like Westminster, but more regional in scope). The problem is that the shows are often held at midday in harsh natural lighting, or indoors in lousy florescent lighting. I've found that outdoors, by underexposing my shots, I can diminish the blown out highlight from reflections, often exacerbated by the white show tents that are found at outdoor events on a regular basis. Indoors, I generally rely on tweaks to white balance (temp) and tint in Adobe Lightroom Classic. I subscribe to Adobe Raw, but have never used it. I'll have to give it a try. Meanwhile, I'm looking forward to trying some of your tips out in a couple of nights.
Hi John! I have been a photoshop users for a long time and with camera raw it gives you a lot of control. The fine tuning settings are easier to understand and use in camera raw. Going from one extreme of comfort zone to something completely different can be a big challenge. One lighting condition to the extreme opposite. Sometimes it is good to make yourself do it. Let me know how things go and thanks for watching! -R
Dont know why people are sleeping on this guy. Sure the editing could do with decent bit of work but the info is super useful!
Thank you!!! I'm working at the video production. I have been strictly a stills guy. It's a whole new world! -R
@@robertc.maxfieldiiphotography i left a sub
Appreciate it! I subscribed to yours too! I think the train stuff looks interesting. Going to check it out. -R
@@robertc.maxfieldiiphotography ah thanks man but dont feel you have to, completely different and specific niche
@@robertc.maxfieldiiphotography Think i sent you a linkedin as well
From what I understand, if your camera is iso invariant lifting shadows in post won't introduce more noise than increasing iso in camera. If it is iso variant it will introduce more noise.
Typically what I have experienced. I will underexpose the shot and kick the exposure up in camera raw. The noise seems to be a lot less in post than when done in camera. I actually found this out a couple years ago when shooting people inside a bowling center. Really bad lighting in the bowlers areas next to the ball returns. I made the best guess without jamming the ISO in the camera and pushed up the exposure by 3 or 4 stops. The noise was minimal to my surprise! Thanks for watching! -R