DR100% vs 200/400%
p.6 #1DR100% vs 200/400%
ruthenium wrote:
Thus, the experience of shadow recovery on a raw file from a GFX100 can be different from the experience of shadow recovery on a raw file from a GFX50.Sure, what I'm trying to say is that "ISO doesn't matter". DR100/200/400 isn't about ISO. It's about exposure. 
"exposure" has a certain technical meaning (amount of light per unit sensor surface area); it depends exclusively on two settings: the shutter speed and the aperture. The problem is that this term "exposure" is used by photographers loosely, to mean something else, e.g. the brightness of an image.
It is because of this misunderstanding (or loose language) that there might be some ambiguity about what you have written above. You may want to elaborate. At ISO 160 and above (on a GFX100 II or GFX100S II body) switching from DR100 to DR200 doesn't change the exposure (the shutter speed and the aperture remain unchanged). In this case, only the analogue gain is different by a factor of 2 between DR100 and DR200 at ISO 160 or above (without changing the ISO when switching from DR100 to DR200).This is exactly what I mean by exposure. How much light the sensor is exposed to.
The camera uses higher gain (which is equivalent to higher ISO) to lift the shadows, while the highlights are (more or less) unaffected.
I think a lot of confusion comes from the fact that many (not necessarily you) don't understand that lifting an image 1 stop in PP is effectively the same as using 1 stop higher ISO when taking the image. Same exposure. Same theoretical DR (if you ignore that the camera and your computer program probably don't give exactly the same results).
The DR200/400 modes do that with a curve that affects the shadows, but not the highlights.Do you refer to out of camera jpegs when you say "The camera uses higher gain (which is equivalent to higher ISO) to lift the shadows, while the highlights are (more or less) unaffected"?
Both.
I am asking this because the highlights in raw files obtained with DR200 are shifted by 1 stop to the left in raw histograms, when compared to the equivalent images obtained with DR100 at the same ISO.
It would help if you make this clear whether you suggest that a curve is baked into the raw files with DR200 when you suggest "The DR200/400 modes do that with a curve that affects the shadows."
My understanding is that you refer to out of camera jpegs but this needs to be stated, for clarity. I haven't paid attention to what is happening in the...Show more →
Unless there is some fundamental difference between the sensors, you can't use DR200 at ISO 100.
Shoot in manal mode at the same aperture and shutter speed, and change from DR100 @ ISO 100 to DR200 @ ISO 200 and you will probably see what I mean. Highlights will be similarly bright in both, because exposure of light on the sensor is the same, but the DR200 image will have lifted shadows and midtones.
Which means that you are effectively using ISO 200, because gain is one stop higher for everything except the highlights. EXIF will also show ISO 200.
Edit: If you instead raised ISO to 200 but still using DR100, you would blow the highlights because now there is +1 stop of gain over the entire luminance range from dark to light.
Makten wrote
ruthenium wrote
Makten wrote
ruthenium wrote
It is worth keeping in mind that GFX100 and GFX50 bodies don't have the same dynamic range. From ISO 500, the PDR of GFX100 bodies is about 1 stop better than that of the GFX50 bodies. I attached the relevant PDR data from Bill Claff (photonstophotos).Thus, the experience of shadow recovery on a raw file from a GFX100 can be different from the experience of shadow recovery on a raw file from a GFX50.
It is because of this misunderstanding (or loose language) that there might be some ambiguity about what you have written above. You may want to elaborate. At ISO 160 and above (on a GFX100 II or GFX100S II body) switching from DR100 to DR200 doesn't change the exposure (the shutter speed and the aperture remain unchanged). In this case, only the analogue gain is different by a factor of 2 between DR100 and DR200 at ISO 160 or above (without changing the ISO when switching from DR100 to DR200).
The camera uses higher gain (which is equivalent to higher ISO) to lift the shadows, while the highlights are (more or less) unaffected.
I think a lot of confusion comes from the fact that many (not necessarily you) don't understand that lifting an image 1 stop in PP is effectively the same as using 1 stop higher ISO when taking the image. Same exposure. Same theoretical DR (if you ignore that the camera and your computer program probably don't give exactly the same results).
The DR200/400 modes do that with a curve that affects the shadows, but not the highlights.
Both.
I am asking this because the highlights in raw files obtained with DR200 are shifted by 1 stop to the left in raw histograms, when compared to the equivalent images obtained with DR100 at the same ISO.
It would help if you make this clear whether you suggest that a curve is baked into the raw files with DR200 when you suggest "The DR200/400 modes do that with a curve that affects the shadows."
My understanding is that you refer to out of camera jpegs but this needs to be stated, for clarity. I haven't paid attention to what is happening in the...Show more →
Unless there is some fundamental difference between the sensors, you can't use DR200 at ISO 100.
Shoot in manal mode at the same aperture and shutter speed, and change from DR100 @ ISO 100 to DR200 @ ISO 200 and you will probably see what I mean. Highlights will be similarly bright in both, because exposure of light on the sensor is the same, but the DR200 image will have lifted shadows and midtones.
Which means that you are effectively using ISO 200, because gain is one stop higher for everything except the highlights. EXIF will also show ISO 200.
Edit: If you instead raised ISO to 200 but still using DR100, you would blow the highlights because now there is +1 stop of gain over the entire luminance range from dark to light.
Mar 02, 2026 at 11:31 AM
p.6 #2DR100% vs 200/400%
Makten wrote:
Thus, the experience of shadow recovery on a raw file from a GFX100 can be different from the experience of shadow recovery on a raw file from a GFX50.Sure, what I'm trying to say is that "ISO doesn't matter". DR100/200/400 isn't about ISO. It's about exposure. "exposure" has a certain technical meaning (amount of light per unit sensor surface area); it depends exclusively on two settings: the shutter speed and the aperture. The problem is that this term "exposure" is used by photographers loosely, to mean something else, e.g. the brightness of an image.
It is because of this misunderstanding (or loose language) that there might be some ambiguity about what you have written above. You may want to elaborate. At ISO 160 and above (on a GFX100 II or GFX100S II body) switching from DR100 to DR200 doesn't change the exposure (the shutter speed and the aperture remain unchanged). In this case, only the analogue gain is different by a factor of 2 between DR100 and DR200 at ISO 160 or above (without changing the ISO when switching from DR100 to DR200).This is exactly what I mean by exposure. How much light the sensor is exposed to.
The camera uses higher gain (which is equivalent to higher ISO) to lift the shadows, while the highlights are (more or less) unaffected.
I think a lot of confusion comes from the fact that many (not necessarily you) don't understand that lifting an image 1 stop in PP is effectively the same as using 1 stop higher ISO when taking the image. Same exposure. Same theoretical DR (if you ignore that the camera and your computer program probably don't give exactly the same results).
The DR200/400 modes do that with a curve that affects the shadows, but not the highlights.Do you refer to out of camera jpegs when you say "The camera uses higher gain (which is equivalent to higher ISO) to lift the shadows, while the highlights are (more or less) unaffected"?Both.
It would help if you make this clear whether you suggest that a curve is baked into the raw files with DR200 when you suggest "The DR200/400 modes do that with a curve that affects the shadows."
My understanding is that you refer to out of camera jpegs but this needs to be stated, for clarity. I haven't paid attention to what is happening in the DR100/DR200 jpegs out of my camera; thus, I cannot comment on this. My interest here is about the effect of DR200 on the raw data.Unless there is some fundamental difference between the sensors, you can't use DR200 at ISO 100.
Shoot in manal mode at the same aperture and shutter speed, and change from DR100 @ ISO 100 to DR200 @ ISO 200 and you will probably see what I mean. Highlights will be similarly bright in both, because exposure of light on the sensor is the same, but the DR200 image will have lifted shadows and midtones.
Which means that you are effectively using ISO 200, because gain is one stop higher for everything except the highlights. EXIF will also show ISO 200.
Edit:...Show more →
I honestly don't have a comprehensive understanding of what you are saying. I am sure this is a communication problem.
For example, you suggested "Shoot in manual mode at the same aperture and shutter speed, and change from DR100 @ ISO 100 to DR200 @ ISO 200 and you will probably see what I mean." I am left wondering where I should see that: (a) by looking at the images as displayed by my camera (that is by looking at the jpegs), or (b) by looking at the raw files? You apparently refer to your experience and observations. On what device and in what application did YOU see "Highlights will be similarly bright in both, because exposure of light on the sensor is the same, but the DR200 image will have lifted shadows and midtones"? Can you be more specific?
Your experience is with the GFX50 camera system. To know what happens upon a "change from DR100 @ ISO 100 to DR200 @ ISO 200" I need to know what is the "Raw Exposure Bias" in your camera with DR100 @ ISO 100 and also with DR200 @ ISO 200?
To explain why I am asking about the Raw Exposure Bias, here is how this should work in my camera GFX100S II.
The change from the base ISO 80 and DR100 to ISO 160 and DR200 does this:
1) From ISO 100 to 200, the read noise is doubled. Let's use some numbers. For example, if read noise is 1 micro-volts at ISO80, then it is doubled to 2 micro-volts at ISO160.
2) The "Raw Exposure Bias" scales the gain back by -0.5 (half-a-stop) at ISO 80, from 1 micro-volts to 0.71 micro-volts. At ISO160 and DR200, the bias is -1.7 stops, thus the read noise is scaled back from 2 micro-volts to 0.62 micro-volts. The noise (and shadows, and the midtones)) should be slightly lower (by ca. 15%) at ISO 160 and DR200 than at ISO 80 and DR100. The dynamic range is slightly better at ISO160 and DR200 than it is at ISO80 and DR100.
This case, from base ISO and DR100 to 2xbase ISO and DR200 is rather a special case.
From 2xbase ISO (that is from ISO 160 in my camera), things become trivial.
Doubling the ISO gain is perfectly negated by the Raw Compensation Bias with DR200.
As a result, for example, the gain at ISO320 and DR200 is exactly the same as the gain at ISO160 and DR100. Hence, the dynamic range at ISO320 and DR200 is the same as the dynamic range at ISO160 and DR100. In other words, the dynamic range at ISO320 and DR200 is ca. 1 stop larger than the dynamic range at ISO320 and DR100.
There has been repeated speculation about DR200 (and DR400) employing a curve. I doubt this very much that the RAF files with DR200 (or DR400) are not genuine raw files (as you seem to suggest, if I understand you correctly). That is, that the RAF files are saved after having being modified by a curve that selectively shifts the shadows (and midtones) to the right. By looking at the raw histograms in my earlier post https://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic/1930866/3#16977815 I see a shift of the entire histogram with DR200 to the left vs DR100, but I don't see a conspicuous change in the shape of the histograms that might have indicated a modification by a curve.
ruthenium wrote
Makten wrote
ruthenium wrote
Makten wrote
ruthenium wrote
It is worth keeping in mind that GFX100 and GFX50 bodies don't have the same dynamic range. From ISO 500, the PDR of GFX100 bodies is about 1 stop better than that of the GFX50 bodies. I attached the relevant PDR data from Bill Claff (photonstophotos).Thus, the experience of shadow recovery on a raw file from a GFX100 can be different from the experience of shadow recovery on a raw file from a GFX50.
It is because of this misunderstanding (or loose language) that there might be some ambiguity about what you have written above. You may want to elaborate. At ISO 160 and above (on a GFX100 II or GFX100S II body) switching from DR100 to DR200 doesn't change the exposure (the shutter speed and the aperture remain unchanged). In this case, only the analogue gain is different by a factor of 2 between DR100 and DR200 at ISO 160 or above (without changing the ISO when switching from DR100 to DR200).
The camera uses higher gain (which is equivalent to higher ISO) to lift the shadows, while the highlights are (more or less) unaffected.
I think a lot of confusion comes from the fact that many (not necessarily you) don't understand that lifting an image 1 stop in PP is effectively the same as using 1 stop higher ISO when taking the image. Same exposure. Same theoretical DR (if you ignore that the camera and your computer program probably don't give exactly the same results).
The DR200/400 modes do that with a curve that affects the shadows, but not the highlights.
Earlier quote
I am asking this because the highlights in raw files obtained with DR200 are shifted by 1 stop to the left in raw histograms, when compared to the equivalent images obtained with DR100 at the same ISO.It would help if you make this clear whether you suggest that a curve is baked into the raw files with DR200 when you suggest "The DR200/400 modes do that with a curve that affects the shadows."
My understanding is that you refer to out of camera jpegs but this needs to be stated, for clarity. I haven't paid attention to what is happening in the DR100/DR200 jpegs out of my camera; thus, I cannot comment on this. My interest here is about the effect of DR200 on the raw data.
Shoot in manal mode at the same aperture and shutter speed, and change from DR100 @ ISO 100 to DR200 @ ISO 200 and you will probably see what I mean. Highlights will be similarly bright in both, because exposure of light on the sensor is the same, but the DR200 image will have lifted shadows and midtones.
Which means that you are effectively using ISO 200, because gain is one stop higher for everything except the highlights. EXIF will also show ISO 200.
Edit:...Show more →
I honestly don't have a comprehensive understanding of what you are saying. I am sure this is a communication problem.
For example, you suggested "Shoot in manual mode at the same aperture and shutter speed, and change from DR100 @ ISO 100 to DR200 @ ISO 200 and you will probably see what I mean." I am left wondering where I should see that: (a) by looking at the images as displayed by my camera (that is by looking at the jpegs), or (b) by looking at the raw files? You apparently refer to your experience and observations. On what device and in what application did YOU see "Highlights will be similarly bright in both, because exposure of light on the sensor is the same, but the DR200 image will have lifted shadows and midtones"? Can you be more specific?
Your experience is with the GFX50 camera system. To know what happens upon a "change from DR100 @ ISO 100 to DR200 @ ISO 200" I need to know what is the "Raw Exposure Bias" in your camera with DR100 @ ISO 100 and also with DR200 @ ISO 200?
To explain why I am asking about the Raw Exposure Bias, here is how this should work in my camera GFX100S II.
The change from the base ISO 80 and DR100 to ISO 160 and DR200 does this:
1) From ISO 100 to 200, the read noise is doubled. Let's use some numbers. For example, if read noise is 1 micro-volts at ISO80, then it is doubled to 2 micro-volts at ISO160.
2) The "Raw Exposure Bias" scales the gain back by -0.5 (half-a-stop) at ISO 80, from 1 micro-volts to 0.71 micro-volts. At ISO160 and DR200, the bias is -1.7 stops, thus the read noise is scaled back from 2 micro-volts to 0.62 micro-volts. The noise (and shadows, and the midtones)) should be slightly lower (by ca. 15%) at ISO 160 and DR200 than at ISO 80 and DR100. The dynamic range is slightly better at ISO160 and DR200 than it is at ISO80 and DR100.
This case, from base ISO and DR100 to 2xbase ISO and DR200 is rather a special case.
From 2xbase ISO (that is from ISO 160 in my camera), things become trivial.
Doubling the ISO gain is perfectly negated by the Raw Compensation Bias with DR200.
As a result, for example, the gain at ISO320 and DR200 is exactly the same as the gain at ISO160 and DR100. Hence, the dynamic range at ISO320 and DR200 is the same as the dynamic range at ISO160 and DR100. In other words, the dynamic range at ISO320 and DR200 is ca. 1 stop larger than the dynamic range at ISO320 and DR100.
There has been repeated speculation about DR200 (and DR400) employing a curve. I doubt this very much that the RAF files with DR200 (or DR400) are not genuine raw files (as you seem to suggest, if I understand you correctly). That is, that the RAF files are saved after having being modified by a curve that selectively shifts the shadows (and midtones) to the right. By looking at the raw histograms in my earlier post https://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic/1930866/3#16977815 I see a shift of the entire histogram with DR200 to the left vs DR100, but I don't see a conspicuous change in the shape of the histograms that might have indicated a modification by a curve.
Mar 02, 2026 at 01:08 PM
p.6 #3DR100% vs 200/400%
ruthenium wrote:
I honestly don't have a comprehensive understanding of what you are saying. I am sure this is a communication problem.
For example, you suggested "Shoot in manual mode at the same aperture and shutter speed, and change from DR100 @ ISO 100 to DR200 @ ISO 200 and you will probably see what I mean." I am left wondering where I should see that: (a) by looking at the images as displayed by my camera (that is by looking at the jpegs), or (b) by looking at the raw files? You apparently refer to your experience and observations. On what...Show more →
I mean both JPG and RAW, at least with the 50S II (and 50R previously) when opening RAW's in Capture One.
To explain why I am asking about the Raw Exposure Bias, here is how this should work in my camera GFX100S II.
The change from the base ISO 80 and DR100 to ISO 160 and DR200 does this:
1) From ISO 100 to 200, the read noise is doubled. Let's use some numbers. For example, if read noise is 1 micro-volts at ISO80, then it is doubled to 2 micro-volts at ISO160.
2) The "Raw Exposure Bias" scales the gain back by -0.5 (half-a-stop) at ISO 80, from 1 micro-volts to 0.71 micro-volts. At ISO160 and DR200, the bias is -1.7 stops, thus...Show more →
And I don't understand half of the above.
DR shouldn't really change unless you change "real" exposure (which ISO doesn't).
It seems really odd that your histogram shifts to the left with DR200 if you are not changing aperture or shutter speed. Mine shifts to the right.
I think I have to upload a couple of examples...
I honestly don't have a comprehensive understanding of what you are saying. I am sure this is a communication problem.
For example, you suggested "Shoot in manual mode at the same aperture and shutter speed, and change from DR100 @ ISO 100 to DR200 @ ISO 200 and you will probably see what I mean." I am left wondering where I should see that: (a) by looking at the images as displayed by my camera (that is by looking at the jpegs), or (b) by looking at the raw files? You apparently refer to your experience and observations. On what...Show more →
I mean both JPG and RAW, at least with the 50S II (and 50R previously) when opening RAW's in Capture One.
To explain why I am asking about the Raw Exposure Bias, here is how this should work in my camera GFX100S II.
The change from the base ISO 80 and DR100 to ISO 160 and DR200 does this:
1) From ISO 100 to 200, the read noise is doubled. Let's use some numbers. For example, if read noise is 1 micro-volts at ISO80, then it is doubled to 2 micro-volts at ISO160.
2) The "Raw Exposure Bias" scales the gain back by -0.5 (half-a-stop) at ISO 80, from 1 micro-volts to 0.71 micro-volts. At ISO160 and DR200, the bias is -1.7 stops, thus...Show more →
And I don't understand half of the above.
DR shouldn't really change unless you change "real" exposure (which ISO doesn't). It seems really odd that your histogram shifts to the left with DR200 if you are not changing aperture or shutter speed. Mine shifts to the right.
I think I have to upload a couple of examples...
Mar 02, 2026 at 02:07 PM
p.6 #4DR100% vs 200/400%
Ok, so here are three images shot with the same aperture and shutter speed.
#1: ISO 100, DR100 – The brightest highlights are just barely touching the upper limit.
#2: ISO 400, DR400 – The brightest highlights are more or less the same as in #1, but the rest of the image is two stops brighter.
#3: ISO 400, DR100 – The highlights are blown but the rest of the image is identical to #2.
These are just "as shot", no nothing applied except for the same white balance because I forgot the camera was in auto WB.
Edit: My conclusion is that the camera applies equivalent to ISO 400 gain except for the highlights, when shooting at DR400. This applies both to JPG and RAW. Effectively, it's like lifting the image two stops and pull back the highlights to where they were before the lift. So, you get an ISO 400 image with ISO 100 highlights. If you want to do that in PP instead, you will have to compose the image with very dark shadows at ISO 100 (or whatever base ISO your camera has) and then do the lifting yourself. Same thing, sort of.
#1: ISO 100, DR100 – The brightest highlights are just barely touching the upper limit.
#2: ISO 400, DR400 – The brightest highlights are more or less the same as in #1, but the rest of the image is two stops brighter.
#3: ISO 400, DR100 – The highlights are blown but the rest of the image is identical to #2.
These are just "as shot", no nothing applied except for the same white balance because I forgot the camera was in auto WB.
Edit: My conclusion is that the camera applies equivalent to ISO 400 gain except for the highlights, when shooting at DR400. This applies both to JPG and RAW. Effectively, it's like lifting the image two stops and pull back the highlights to where they were before the lift. So, you get an ISO 400 image with ISO 100 highlights.
If you want to do that in PP instead, you will have to compose the image with very dark shadows at ISO 100 (or whatever base ISO your camera has) and then do the lifting yourself. Same thing, sort of. Mar 02, 2026 at 02:24 PM
p.6 #5DR100% vs 200/400%
Makten wrote:
Ok, so here are three images shot with the same aperture and shutter speed.
#1: ISO 100, DR100 – The brightest highlights are just barely touching the upper limit.
#2: ISO 400, DR400 – The brightest highlights are more or less the same as in #1, but the rest of the image is two stops brighter.
#3: ISO 400, DR100 – The highlights are blown but the rest of the image is identical to #2.
These are just "as shot", no nothing applied except for the same white balance because I forgot the camera was in auto WB.
Edit: My conclusion is that...Show more →
Now, I know what you mean - thank you! Interesting...
Would you be willing to share the three raw files with me?
If yes, please, upload to the shared folder in my Dropbox:
I would like to see and compare the raw histograms in RawDigger, as well as to find the values for Raw Exposure Bias in the EXIF. This Bias is negative (e.g. -0.7 stops in the GFX100S II at ISO above the base 80); thus, being negative it offsets the ISO gain. Mathematically, the raw data is multiplied by 2 to the -0.7 power, that is by 0.616
When using DR200, the bias changes to -1.7, that is the raw data is multiplied by 2 to the -1.7 power = 0.308
This happens prior to ADC.
The Raw Exposure Bias is in the EXIF, and the raw converters (e.g., Capture One) read the number, and use it.
Therefore, the image brightness that you see in Capture One is almost certainly not indicative of the brightness of the raw file. Furthermore, the raw conversion in Capture One involves applying a curve, and the question is whether the curve that you have been referring to in your earlier posts is particular to Capture One. In other words the question is whether the brighter shadows that you see in Capture One are (or aren't) the result of Capture One being smart enough to know how to treat DR200 and DR400 raw files from Fuji, by applying an appropriate curve.
The principal question is whether something else is done to the raw data with, for example, DR200, except the data being uniformly multiplied by 2 to the power of the number in Raw Exposure Bias (as I explained above). My current thinking is that the raw data are linearly scaled (shifted to the left in the histogram, to give more headroom for the highlights at ISO from 2xbase ISO and higher).
Edited on Mar 07, 2026 at 10:51 AM · View previous versions
Ok, so here are three images shot with the same aperture and shutter speed.
#1: ISO 100, DR100 – The brightest highlights are just barely touching the upper limit.
#2: ISO 400, DR400 – The brightest highlights are more or less the same as in #1, but the rest of the image is two stops brighter.
#3: ISO 400, DR100 – The highlights are blown but the rest of the image is identical to #2.
These are just "as shot", no nothing applied except for the same white balance because I forgot the camera was in auto WB.
Edit: My conclusion is that...Show more →
Now, I know what you mean - thank you! Interesting...
Would you be willing to share the three raw files with me?
If yes, please, upload to the shared folder in my Dropbox:
I would like to see and compare the raw histograms in RawDigger, as well as to find the values for Raw Exposure Bias in the EXIF. This Bias is negative (e.g. -0.7 stops in the GFX100S II at ISO above the base 80); thus, being negative it offsets the ISO gain. Mathematically, the raw data is multiplied by 2 to the -0.7 power, that is by 0.616
When using DR200, the bias changes to -1.7, that is the raw data is multiplied by 2 to the -1.7 power = 0.308
This happens prior to ADC.
The Raw Exposure Bias is in the EXIF, and the raw converters (e.g., Capture One) read the number, and use it.
Therefore, the image brightness that you see in Capture One is almost certainly not indicative of the brightness of the raw file. Furthermore, the raw conversion in Capture One involves applying a curve, and the question is whether the curve that you have been referring to in your earlier posts is particular to Capture One. In other words the question is whether the brighter shadows that you see in Capture One are (or aren't) the result of Capture One being smart enough to know how to treat DR200 and DR400 raw files from Fuji, by applying an appropriate curve.
The principal question is whether something else is done to the raw data with, for example, DR200, except the data being uniformly multiplied by 2 to the power of the number in Raw Exposure Bias (as I explained above). My current thinking is that the raw data are linearly scaled (shifted to the left in the histogram, to give more headroom for the highlights at ISO from 2xbase ISO and higher).
Edited on Mar 07, 2026 at 10:51 AM · View previous versions
Mar 02, 2026 at 03:34 PM
p.6 #6DR100% vs 200/400%
ruthenium wrote:
#1: ISO 100, DR100 – The brightest highlights are just barely touching the upper limit.
#2: ISO 400, DR400 – The brightest highlights are more or less the same as in #1, but the rest of the image is two stops brighter.
#3: ISO 400, DR100 – The highlights are blown but the rest of the image is identical to #2.
These are just "as shot", no nothing applied except for the same white balance because I forgot the camera was in auto WB.
Edit: My conclusion is that the camera applies equivalent to ISO 400 gain except for the highlights, when shooting at DR400. This applies both to JPG and RAW. Effectively, it's like lifting the image two stops and pull back the highlights to where they were before the lift. So, you get an ISO 400 image with ISO 100 highlights. If you want to do that in PP instead, you will have to compose the image with very dark shadows at ISO 100 (or whatever base ISO your camera has) and then do the lifting yourself. Same thing, sort of.Now, I know what you mean - thank you! Interesting...
Would you be willing to share the three raw files with me?
If yes, please, upload to the shared folder in my Dropbox:
https://www.dropbox.com/scl/fo/9erpap9gitc7vble3tg2c/ANcogE7miWYiPaQzVVPUyo4?rlkey=sgd2xdv9xw5m6zmwqgubolmpn&st=cdqd9zyb&dl=0
I would like to see and compare the raw histograms in RawDigger, as well as to find the values for Raw Exposure Bias in the EXIF. This Bias is negative (e.g. -0.7 stops in the GFX100S II at ISO above the base 80); thus, being negative it offsets the ISO gain. Mathematically, the raw data is multiplied by 2 to the -0.7 power, that is by 0.616
When using DR200, the...Show more →
It's possible that C1 applies a different curve to a standard ISO 100 image to get the DR modes, yes. They are collaborating with Fujifilm, so that would make sense.
I can't figure out how to upload files to your dropbox unfortunately. And they are too large to email. Any other ways?
Makten wrote
Ok, so here are three images shot with the same aperture and shutter speed.#1: ISO 100, DR100 – The brightest highlights are just barely touching the upper limit.
#2: ISO 400, DR400 – The brightest highlights are more or less the same as in #1, but the rest of the image is two stops brighter.
#3: ISO 400, DR100 – The highlights are blown but the rest of the image is identical to #2.
These are just "as shot", no nothing applied except for the same white balance because I forgot the camera was in auto WB.
Edit: My conclusion is that the camera applies equivalent to ISO 400 gain except for the highlights, when shooting at DR400. This applies both to JPG and RAW. Effectively, it's like lifting the image two stops and pull back the highlights to where they were before the lift. So, you get an ISO 400 image with ISO 100 highlights.
If you want to do that in PP instead, you will have to compose the image with very dark shadows at ISO 100 (or whatever base ISO your camera has) and then do the lifting yourself. Same thing, sort of.Would you be willing to share the three raw files with me?
If yes, please, upload to the shared folder in my Dropbox:
https://www.dropbox.com/scl/fo/9erpap9gitc7vble3tg2c/ANcogE7miWYiPaQzVVPUyo4?rlkey=sgd2xdv9xw5m6zmwqgubolmpn&st=cdqd9zyb&dl=0
I would like to see and compare the raw histograms in RawDigger, as well as to find the values for Raw Exposure Bias in the EXIF. This Bias is negative (e.g. -0.7 stops in the GFX100S II at ISO above the base 80); thus, being negative it offsets the ISO gain. Mathematically, the raw data is multiplied by 2 to the -0.7 power, that is by 0.616
When using DR200, the...Show more →
It's possible that C1 applies a different curve to a standard ISO 100 image to get the DR modes, yes. They are collaborating with Fujifilm, so that would make sense.
I can't figure out how to upload files to your dropbox unfortunately. And they are too large to email. Any other ways?
Mar 03, 2026 at 12:57 AM
p.6 #7DR100% vs 200/400%
Makten wrote:
ruthenium wrote
Makten wrote
Ok, so here are three images shot with the same aperture and shutter speed.#1: ISO 100, DR100 – The brightest highlights are just barely touching the upper limit.
#2: ISO 400, DR400 – The brightest highlights are more or less the same as in #1, but the rest of the image is two stops brighter.
#3: ISO 400, DR100 – The highlights are blown but the rest of the image is identical to #2.
These are just "as shot", no nothing applied except for the same white balance because I forgot the camera was in auto WB.
Edit: My conclusion is that the camera applies equivalent to ISO 400 gain except for the highlights, when shooting at DR400. This applies both to JPG and RAW. Effectively, it's like lifting the image two stops and pull back the highlights to where they were before the lift. So, you get an ISO 400 image with ISO 100 highlights.
If you want to do that in PP instead, you will have to compose the image with very dark shadows at ISO 100 (or whatever base ISO your camera has) and then do the lifting yourself. Same thing, sort of.Would you be willing to share the three raw files with me?
If yes, please, upload to the shared folder in my Dropbox:
https://www.dropbox.com/scl/fo/9erpap9gitc7vble3tg2c/ANcogE7miWYiPaQzVVPUyo4?rlkey=sgd2xdv9xw5m6zmwqgubolmpn&st=cdqd9zyb&dl=0
I would like to see and compare the raw histograms in RawDigger, as well as to find the values for Raw Exposure Bias in the EXIF. This Bias is negative (e.g. -0.7 stops in the GFX100S II at ISO above the base 80); thus, being negative it offsets the ISO gain. Mathematically, the raw data is multiplied by 2 to the -0.7 power, that is by 0.616
When using DR200, the bias changes to -1.7, that is the raw data is multiplied by 2 to the -1.7 power = 0.308
This happens prior to ADC.
The Raw Exposure Bias is in the EXIF, and the raw converters (e.g., Capture One) read the number, and use it.
Therefore, the image brightness that you see in Capture One is almost certainly not indicative of the brightness of the raw file. Furthermore, the raw conversion in Capture One involves applying a curve, and the question is whether the curve that you have been referring to in your earlier posts is particular to Capture One. In other words the question is whether the brighter shadows that you see in Capture One are (or aren't) the result of Capture One being smart enough to know how to treat DR200 and DR400 raw files from Fuji, by applying an appropriate curve.
The principal question is whether something else is done to the raw data with, for example, DR200, except the data being uniformly multiplied by 2 to the power of the number in Raw Exposure Bias (as I explained above). My current thinking is that the raw data are linearly scaled (shifted to the left in the histogram, to give more headroom for the highlights at ISO from 2xbase ISO and higher).
I can't figure out how to upload files to your dropbox unfortunately. And they are too large to email. Any other ways?
If you have access to cloud storage like Dropbox, Google Drive, Microsoft One Drive etc., you can upload there and share the files by sending me a link to these files. All of the above cloud storage options are free to a certain limit, e.g. I believe that Dropbox gives free 5 GB cloud storage. I think Dropbox might be the simplest option, if you don't have a Google or Microsoft account. Type Dropbox in search in a browser - it should be easy to find. The link to my shared Dropbox folder should work as well.
Mar 03, 2026 at 06:44 AM
p.6 #8DR100% vs 200/400%
I'll try again this evening (it's now early afternoon in Europe).
Mar 03, 2026 at 07:00 AM
p.6 #9DR100% vs 200/400%
Makten wrote:
Ok, so here are three images shot with the same aperture and shutter speed.
#1: ISO 100, DR100 – The brightest highlights are just barely touching the upper limit.
#2: ISO 400, DR400 – The brightest highlights are more or less the same as in #1, but the rest of the image is two stops brighter.
#3: ISO 400, DR100 – The highlights are blown but the rest of the image is identical to #2.
These are just "as shot", no nothing applied except for the same white balance because I forgot the camera was in auto WB.
Edit: My conclusion is that...Show more →
One of the tricky things about these comparisons is that raw file converters (and LR, which does it internally to the application) may (or may not) automatically apply a curve and other adjustments to raw files that are designed to mimic what the camera does internally (and irrevocably) to jpg files.
So to really understand what the settings do and don’t do to raw files we need to look at them in an application that does not acknowledge the raw files flag indicating what DR setting was used in the camera.
Ok, so here are three images shot with the same aperture and shutter speed.
#1: ISO 100, DR100 – The brightest highlights are just barely touching the upper limit.
#2: ISO 400, DR400 – The brightest highlights are more or less the same as in #1, but the rest of the image is two stops brighter.
#3: ISO 400, DR100 – The highlights are blown but the rest of the image is identical to #2.
These are just "as shot", no nothing applied except for the same white balance because I forgot the camera was in auto WB.
Edit: My conclusion is that...Show more →
One of the tricky things about these comparisons is that raw file converters (and LR, which does it internally to the application) may (or may not) automatically apply a curve and other adjustments to raw files that are designed to mimic what the camera does internally (and irrevocably) to jpg files.
So to really understand what the settings do and don’t do to raw files we need to look at them in an application that does not acknowledge the raw files flag indicating what DR setting was used in the camera.
Mar 03, 2026 at 09:28 AM
RoamingScott
Offline
Activity
[X]
Details
p.6 #10DR100% vs 200/400%
RAW converters absolutely do not apply curves and settings to RAW files unless YOU have set the option for them to do that. Perhaps learn a bit more about your software before handing your files to it.
Mar 03, 2026 at 09:35 AM
|
p.6 #11DR100% vs 200/400%
RoamingScott wrote:
RAW converters absolutely do not apply curves and settings to RAW files unless YOU have set the option for them to do that. Perhaps learn a bit more about your software before handing your files to it.
WB? Sensitivity? To name but two...
Mar 03, 2026 at 11:47 AM
p.6 #12DR100% vs 200/400%
RoamingScott wrote:
RAW converters absolutely do not apply curves and settings to RAW files unless YOU have set the option for them to do that. Perhaps learn a bit more about your software before handing your files to it.
In Capture One (specifically), the Base Characteristics menu presents a choice of an ICC Profile and a Curve. What you are saying is correct in the sense that the choice is, in principle, under user control.
Nevertheless, Capture One defaults to Curve --> Auto; thus, it does apply a curve by default, and a user action (selecting a Linear Response curve, for example) is needed to override the default.
RAW converters absolutely do not apply curves and settings to RAW files unless YOU have set the option for them to do that. Perhaps learn a bit more about your software before handing your files to it.
In Capture One (specifically), the Base Characteristics menu presents a choice of an ICC Profile and a Curve. What you are saying is correct in the sense that the choice is, in principle, under user control.
Nevertheless, Capture One defaults to Curve --> Auto; thus, it does apply a curve by default, and a user action (selecting a Linear Response curve, for example) is needed to override the default.
Mar 03, 2026 at 12:09 PM
RoamingScott
Offline
Activity
[X]
Details
p.6 #13DR100% vs 200/400%
gyoung143 wrote:
WB? Sensitivity? To name but two...
You have proven too often that you are ill equipped for technical discussions. This is a nigh impossible conversation to have on this forum with the current participants.
ruthenium wrote:
In Capture One (specifically), the Base Characteristics menu presents a choice of an ICC Profile and a Curve. What you are saying is correct in the sense that the choice is, in principle, under user control.
Nevertheless, Capture One defaults to Curve --> Auto; thus, it does apply a curve by default, and a user action (selecting a Linear Response curve, for example) is needed to override the default.
My brother, THIS IS A SETTING. You should not have your RAW converter applying Auto settings if you are serious about post processing
RoamingScott wrote
RAW converters absolutely do not apply curves and settings to RAW files unless YOU have set the option for them to do that. Perhaps learn a bit more about your software before handing your files to it.You have proven too often that you are ill equipped for technical discussions. This is a nigh impossible conversation to have on this forum with the current participants.
ruthenium wrote:
RoamingScott wrote
RAW converters absolutely do not apply curves and settings to RAW files unless YOU have set the option for them to do that. Perhaps learn a bit more about your software before handing your files to it.Nevertheless, Capture One defaults to Curve --> Auto; thus, it does apply a curve by default, and a user action (selecting a Linear Response curve, for example) is needed to override the default.
My brother, THIS IS A SETTING. You should not have your RAW converter applying Auto settings if you are serious about post processing
Mar 03, 2026 at 12:19 PM
p.6 #14DR100% vs 200/400%
ThatGuyAgain wrote:
RAW converters absolutely do not apply curves and settings to RAW files unless YOU have set the option for them to do that. Perhaps learn a bit more about your software before handing your files to it.
Get back to me about Fujifilm lenses and Adobe converters. (For example the Fujifilm lens optimization settings cannot be disabled. Go to the "optics" section in ACR with a Fujifilm file and learn how this works... or doesn't.)
Also, speaking of "learning a bit," you might try learning about how Adobe (and other) converters recognize camera-set flags in raw files to determine the how to interpret/process the raw file images.
Your willingness to be loudly and publicly dead wrong about stuff is impressive. Your constant ad hominem and snark do not cover up the fact that you are mostly blowing smoke in these forums when it comes to your supposed knowledge about photography. I'm not the only one who is getting very tired of your game.
RAW converters absolutely do not apply curves and settings to RAW files unless YOU have set the option for them to do that. Perhaps learn a bit more about your software before handing your files to it.
Get back to me about Fujifilm lenses and Adobe converters. (For example the Fujifilm lens optimization settings cannot be disabled. Go to the "optics" section in ACR with a Fujifilm file and learn how this works... or doesn't.)
Also, speaking of "learning a bit," you might try learning about how Adobe (and other) converters recognize camera-set flags in raw files to determine the how to interpret/process the raw file images.
Your willingness to be loudly and publicly dead wrong about stuff is impressive. Your constant ad hominem and snark do not cover up the fact that you are mostly blowing smoke in these forums when it comes to your supposed knowledge about photography. I'm not the only one who is getting very tired of your game.
Mar 03, 2026 at 12:37 PM
!p.6 #16DR100% vs 200/400%
gdanmitchell wrote:
Get back to me about Fujifilm lenses and Adobe converters. (For example the Fujifilm lens optimization settings cannot be disabled. Go to the "optics" section in ACR with a Fujifilm file and learn how this works... or doesn't.)
Also, speaking of "learning a bit," you might try learning about how Adobe (and other) converters recognize camera-set flags in raw files to determine the how to interpret/process the raw file images.
Your willingness to be loudly and publicly dead wrong about stuff is impressive. Your constant ad hominem and snark do not cover up the fact that you are mostly blowing smoke in...Show more →
100% true about the "converters recognize camera-set flags in raw files to determine the how to interpret/process the raw file images" - there are instructions in the raw files that are invisible in common converters (Adobe, C1, DxO). Like one that I mentioned in some of the recent posts: Raw Exposure Bias in Fuji RAF files.
ThatGuyAgain wrote
RAW converters absolutely do not apply curves and settings to RAW files unless YOU have set the option for them to do that. Perhaps learn a bit more about your software before handing your files to it.Also, speaking of "learning a bit," you might try learning about how Adobe (and other) converters recognize camera-set flags in raw files to determine the how to interpret/process the raw file images.
Your willingness to be loudly and publicly dead wrong about stuff is impressive. Your constant ad hominem and snark do not cover up the fact that you are mostly blowing smoke in...Show more →
100% true about the "converters recognize camera-set flags in raw files to determine the how to interpret/process the raw file images" - there are instructions in the raw files that are invisible in common converters (Adobe, C1, DxO). Like one that I mentioned in some of the recent posts: Raw Exposure Bias in Fuji RAF files.
Mar 03, 2026 at 02:57 PM
p.6 #17DR100% vs 200/400%
This might be the most simple and straightforward illustration of what changing Dynamic Range setting from DR100 to DR200 does to the raw data.
Here, two equally exposed raw files (one with DR100 and the other with DR200) were exported from RawDigger as tiff files, without exposure correction. The one on the right, with DR200, is visibly darker. The corresponding raw histograms display a 1-stop shift to the left with DR200. Note that this shift is linear: the shadows, midtones, and highlights are all shifted to the left by 1 stop, when compared to the same in the raw histograms with DR100. I see no evidence that the changes in the histograms from DR100 to DR200 could be a result of a curve applied (e.g., by compressing the highlights).
The difference in brightness between the two images is explained by the difference in Raw Exposure Bias in EXIF: -0.7 (DR100) vs. -1.7 stops with DR200. In other words, the analogue gain applied on the data from the sensor was reduced by 1 stop (by a factor of 2) with DR200. The objective is understandable, to increase the headroom for highlights.
The common post-processing applications (e.g. Capture One and DxO Photolab 9 that I use) are aware of the reduced brightness in the image with DR200, and correct this automatically when they convert the raw. The converted "uncorrected" images with DR100 and DR200 appear of the same brightness in Capture One and in Photolab 9, as if the same gain had been applied in camera. Thus, anyone who is not able to read the EXIF and/or see the raw data in a specialized application such as RawDigger would be left with the impression that the two raw files with DR100 and DR200 are practically the same except that if the former had clipped highlights, the latter wouldn't have clipped highlights or would suffer less from this problem.
Here, two equally exposed raw files (one with DR100 and the other with DR200) were exported from RawDigger as tiff files, without exposure correction. The one on the right, with DR200, is visibly darker. The corresponding raw histograms display a 1-stop shift to the left with DR200. Note that this shift is linear: the shadows, midtones, and highlights are all shifted to the left by 1 stop, when compared to the same in the raw histograms with DR100. I see no evidence that the changes in the histograms from DR100 to DR200 could be a result of a curve applied (e.g., by compressing the highlights).
The difference in brightness between the two images is explained by the difference in Raw Exposure Bias in EXIF: -0.7 (DR100) vs. -1.7 stops with DR200. In other words, the analogue gain applied on the data from the sensor was reduced by 1 stop (by a factor of 2) with DR200. The objective is understandable, to increase the headroom for highlights.
The common post-processing applications (e.g. Capture One and DxO Photolab 9 that I use) are aware of the reduced brightness in the image with DR200, and correct this automatically when they convert the raw. The converted "uncorrected" images with DR100 and DR200 appear of the same brightness in Capture One and in Photolab 9, as if the same gain had been applied in camera. Thus, anyone who is not able to read the EXIF and/or see the raw data in a specialized application such as RawDigger would be left with the impression that the two raw files with DR100 and DR200 are practically the same except that if the former had clipped highlights, the latter wouldn't have clipped highlights or would suffer less from this problem.
Mar 03, 2026 at 04:41 PM
p.6 #18DR100% vs 200/400%
ruthenium wrote:
This might be the most simple and straightforward illustration of what changing Dynamic Range setting from DR100 to DR200 does to the raw data.
Here, two equally exposed raw files (one with DR100 and the other with DR200) were exported from RawDigger as tiff files, without exposure correction. The one on the right, with DR200, is visibly darker. The corresponding raw histograms display a 1-stop shift to the left with DR200. Note that this shift is linear: the shadows, midtones, and highlights are all shifted to the left by 1 stop, when compared to the same in the raw histograms...Show more →
Interesting! However, the difference from my examples is explained by you using the same ISO for both images, while since I used base ISO (100) for DR100, the camera forced me to use ISO 400 to be able to use DR400. Then C1 obviously applies a different curve. I mean, otherwise there is no point with the DR modes.
Edit: Your second shot is basically shot at ISO 250, but labeled as ISO 500. In my case both the first shot are at ISO 100 while one have a different curve and therefore labeled ISO 400. I think the exact same thing is happening in both cameras, but I would never use DR200/400 like you did.
I you'd open your files in C1, I bet they have the same brightness, just like the JPG's would.
Here are my files, finally: https://we.tl/t-GnwTZXjuQT
They should be available for three days.
This might be the most simple and straightforward illustration of what changing Dynamic Range setting from DR100 to DR200 does to the raw data.
Here, two equally exposed raw files (one with DR100 and the other with DR200) were exported from RawDigger as tiff files, without exposure correction. The one on the right, with DR200, is visibly darker. The corresponding raw histograms display a 1-stop shift to the left with DR200. Note that this shift is linear: the shadows, midtones, and highlights are all shifted to the left by 1 stop, when compared to the same in the raw histograms...Show more →
Interesting! However, the difference from my examples is explained by you using the same ISO for both images, while since I used base ISO (100) for DR100, the camera forced me to use ISO 400 to be able to use DR400. Then C1 obviously applies a different curve. I mean, otherwise there is no point with the DR modes.
Edit: Your second shot is basically shot at ISO 250, but labeled as ISO 500. In my case both the first shot are at ISO 100 while one have a different curve and therefore labeled ISO 400. I think the exact same thing is happening in both cameras, but I would never use DR200/400 like you did.
I you'd open your files in C1, I bet they have the same brightness, just like the JPG's would.
Here are my files, finally: https://we.tl/t-GnwTZXjuQT
They should be available for three days.
Mar 04, 2026 at 12:26 AM
p.6 #19DR100% vs 200/400%
I downloaded the files - thank you!
I shall prepare a reply later this afternoon (in Canada); thus, you will see it tomorrow in Europe.
I shall prepare a reply later this afternoon (in Canada); thus, you will see it tomorrow in Europe.
Mar 04, 2026 at 06:57 AM
p.6 #20DR100% vs 200/400%
Makten wrote:
Interesting! However, the difference from my examples is explained by you using the same ISO for both images, while since I used base ISO (100) for DR100, the camera forced me to use ISO 400 to be able to use DR400. Then C1 obviously applies a different curve. I mean, otherwise there is no point with the DR modes.
I think that if one is just trying to sort out how the DR settings do or do not affect the raw file, it is best to test all three options at the same ISO, which means at ISO 400.
The next step would be to look at the three resulting images using a raw file app that ignores (or can turn off) any Fujifilm file data that tells converters how to alter the underlying raw to look more like the in-camera jpg. My prediction, based on looking at some files of my own (though with a test that was admittedly a bit imprecise) is that the underlying raw data is not changed by the DR settings.
Beyond that, it would also be interesting to do a couple of other comparisons. One could be to simply shoot at ISO 100, 200, and 400 without using the 200 and 400 DR settings. We assume that there is some IQ effect from using a higher ISO, so in the end what difference, if any, might there be between using, say, the DR400 setting versus just shooting at the lowest ISO, exposing to protect highlights, and then recovering darker tones in post rather than letting the camera do it at DR400?
Interesting! However, the difference from my examples is explained by you using the same ISO for both images, while since I used base ISO (100) for DR100, the camera forced me to use ISO 400 to be able to use DR400. Then C1 obviously applies a different curve. I mean, otherwise there is no point with the DR modes.
I think that if one is just trying to sort out how the DR settings do or do not affect the raw file, it is best to test all three options at the same ISO, which means at ISO 400.
The next step would be to look at the three resulting images using a raw file app that ignores (or can turn off) any Fujifilm file data that tells converters how to alter the underlying raw to look more like the in-camera jpg. My prediction, based on looking at some files of my own (though with a test that was admittedly a bit imprecise) is that the underlying raw data is not changed by the DR settings.
Beyond that, it would also be interesting to do a couple of other comparisons. One could be to simply shoot at ISO 100, 200, and 400 without using the 200 and 400 DR settings. We assume that there is some IQ effect from using a higher ISO, so in the end what difference, if any, might there be between using, say, the DR400 setting versus just shooting at the lowest ISO, exposing to protect highlights, and then recovering darker tones in post rather than letting the camera do it at DR400?
Mar 04, 2026 at 10:31 AM