>>3892915>If you have to choose between raising iso and pushing in post, with a 2007 camera, you're better raising isoLiterally no one was suggesting you shoot massively underexposed photos and boost them in post. You were showing those shots to try and prove that raising iso gives you better highlights full stop. Because you're dumb.
>Look at P2P shadow recovery chart, it shows that if you sacrifice several full stops of dynamic range, the limited range left has up to half a stop less noiseAll this proved was that raising iso always gives worse performance. Getting half a stop better noise by throwing away 4 stops isn't a good deal.
Tell you what, if you give me £100, I'll give you back £5 and then you'll be £5 better off!
>Dxo uses log base 10No, it uses base 20, pic related
Why are you so set on stacking such easily proven L's today? Your Google broke?
>Dynamic range can be raised when raising isoShow me one piece of objective evidence that correlates with that. So far you've just repeatedly failed...
>>3892928>I don't understand what I'm linkingOh hun
>>3892929Oh sure, I did reverse image search it, and it agreed with me too, hence why the graph shows higher snr at lower iso... Maybe you just didn't understand that's what it was showing? Yikes.
