Makten wrote:
…the camera raises shadows instead of you doing it in PP, and many times the former looks much more natural than the latter.
I see it pretty much the opposite way. The automatic in-camera shadow raising away well be good enough in some cases and doesn’t require any input from the photographer — so it can be easier.
However, you can certainly duplicate the canned effect in post, but you are not limited to that.
For example, it isn’t unusual to want to bring up shadows in one particularly dark area of the frame while keeping that adjustment away from other parts of the image. That’s what masks are for. (In LR or ACR/PS you can, for example, select an area in many ways, including luminosity levels, etc. and then adjust only that area.)
The in-camera method (like shooting jpg) applies the camera’s adjustments uniformly to the entire image. (As I and others have pointed out, this dynamic range option is likely most useful to jpg shooters who aren’t interested in more sophisticated post-processing or doing things like the digital equivalent of zone system style exposure.)
ruthenium wrote:
You keep insisting on that DR200 or DR400 settings "under-expose(!) the RAW file by 1 (DR200) or 2 (DR400) stops"
Can you confirm that you have evidence for this at ISO above 320?
Can you confirm that it is the EXPOSURE that is reduced with DR200 and DR400, and not the analogue GAIN (when ISO is above 320)?
I don’t see any other way that this could work. To my understanding, what is going on is that the file is being “under-exposed” by one or two “stops” equivalent in order to retain highlight detail, and then a curve is applied that raises the levels at the dark end of the luminosity range.
You can’t actually apply a curve to the sensor input or its registration. Each photosite still receives and records whatever luminosity level strikes it, no matter what the setting. The sensor records what the sensor records. But you can manipulate the data from the sensor after the fact. And, while working with the raw image data (either in-camera before the camera produces a jpg, or in post) the shadows can be lifted while retaining good image quality.
The concept is roughly analogous to what film photographers did with the zone system back in the day. If you had a subject with a very wide dynamic range (determined by spot-metering the bright and dark areas) you would expose for the best compromise that wold give you sufficient detail in the highlights (densest part of the negative) and shadows (most transparent part) to work with in post. This meant that your exposure could create a negative that made a pretty awful straight (not dodged or burned) contact print, but which contained sufficient image data to allow you to extract the best detail in post. (Here “post” refers to film development variations and to darkroom techniques like dodging and burning.)
With digital, unless we want to let them blow out (sometimes OK) the most critical thing is protecting the highlights. When they blow out there is no way to restore them in post — all highlight areas simply get the same maximum luminosity value, e.g. pure white. As a result, in wide dynamic range scenes, the shadows can end up looking too dark. However, with wide dynamic range cameras today, there is sufficient good quality detail in those shadows so that we can bring back shadow detail quite effectively. Motto: Protect the highlights and restore the shadows in post.
Makten wrote:
…the camera raises shadows instead of you doing it in PP, and many times the former looks much more natural than the latter.
I see it pretty much the opposite way. The automatic in-camera shadow raising away well be good enough in some cases and doesn’t require any input from the photographer — so it can be easier.
However, you can certainly duplicate the canned effect in post, but you are not limited to that.
For example, it isn’t unusual to want to bring up shadows in one particularly dark area of the frame while keeping that adjustment away from other parts of the image. That’s what masks are for. (In LR or ACR/PS you can, for example, select an area in many ways, including luminosity levels, etc. and then adjust only that area.)
The in-camera method (like shooting jpg) applies the camera’s adjustments uniformly to the entire image. (As I and others have pointed out, this dynamic range option is likely most useful to jpg shooters who aren’t interested in more sophisticated post-processing or doing things like the digital equivalent of zone system style exposure.)
Jan 27, 2026 at 11:25 AM
Previous versions of gdanmitchell's message #16975204 « DR100% vs 200/400% »
