How-to: Making an underexposed low-ISO Canon image look like an underexposed low-ISO Sony image

Anyone can come on a forum and type words, like I'm doing now. But as they say, the proof is in the Pudding Picture. Until I see side by side pictures in a controlled experiment, like was done byFed Miranda when comparing the shadow recovery of the 5D3 and D800, it's all just words.

I don't have time to prove these things to someone who wants to be difficult. If you don't want to try it, then keep living with your images the way they are. You obviously don't care enough to find out if you can improve your images. LOL

CRCchemist wrote in post #17349931
I don't have time to prove these things to someone who wants to be difficult. If you don't want to try it, then keep living with your images the way they are. You obviously don't care enough to find out if you can improve your images. LOL

Since when is wanting proof of a claim being difficult? And let's admit, this claim is WAY out there. You're the one who started this thread and then has not posted one image to support your position. That is odd.

CRCchemist wrote in post #17349830
I'm not sure why you'd say that Why Fi... the pattern noise was eliminated 100%. That post-production procedure I wrote out completely eliminated the pattern noise. I didn't give you a procedure to eliminate all of the other noise that is inherent in an image (that a Nikon and Sony also has.) I only told you how to eliminate the horizontal and vertical pattern noise that shows up when you increase the brightness of the image by several stops at low ISO.

Why would I say that? Because it's what I think to be true. To me, the photo (now deleted) showing the results of the process weren't significantly better than the lifted photo in the OP - the pattern wasn't 100% eliminated and, counter to the premise of the thread title, the results didn't look nearly as good as I've seen from the Sony sensors. We can go back and forth with our "it's just as good"/ "no it wasn't" or you can put the image back up and let people decide for themselves (I'm curious as to why you deleted the post with the "final," though I can certainly speculate).

I don't know why either, but you can keep speculating. Haha

No need for me to "keep speculating" - saying that I was curious was a nicety; I took me about .03 seconds to decide that it was probably deleted because the results fell far short of the hype.

Ending posts with "LOL" and "Haha" does not help the image you're projecting... I just have that mental picture of a none-too-bright teenage girl with pimples giggling in front of her pink cased iPad.

If you have a point to prove, post the end result. Otherwise, it's just an unsubstantiated claim.