U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Photography
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 1.5 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Jump to a detailed profile or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Business Search - 14 Million verified businesses
Search for:  near: 
 
 
Old 09-15-2011, 01:02 PM
 
Location: Barrow, Alaska
3,538 posts, read 4,161,098 times
Reputation: 1787
Quote:
Originally Posted by HighlandLady View Post
Perhaps aberrations was not the right word I was looking for. Just something with the edging that is peculiar to my eye - and with the differences perhaps between my monitor and yours, it is nothing more simpler than that. Yes, I do see the difference between the 5:00 petal and the 10:00. The one petal that stands out the most as having some sort of 'noise', harshness...is that particular petal that is nearly straight - or 12:00.
Really interesting.

The petal that is straight up differs in having some highlights right along the edges that are very nearly at maximum white values. That probably means that, particularly on a laptop screen because they all have higher contrast, that those highlights might be blocking on your monitor and not on mine, thus showing us two very different things!

I've recently seen a really kewl effect from this sort of thing. A young fellow here in town is interested in learning photography and borrowed a couple of lenses to experiment with bokeh (particularly an old manual focus 85mm f/1.4 lens). So the first set of examples he emailed me had a very harshly surreal effect due to contrast and color saturation that were just plain strange! Then I saw them on a laptop... and they looked pretty close to "normal".

Quote:
I've noticed a distinct difference in images and resolutions with the two laptops I own - one with Windows 7 as an operating system, running with 32-bit colour and that I've calibrated and the other with Windows Vista - and god knows what else on it. It is why I asked. There are some images I've viewed that appear to have more of a green-hued, or cooler hue than what perhaps would've been original.
Color is just all over the place! A few people like to make comments about white balance for images shown on line, but in reality it's a joke when they try. Even with the usually claimed "on my calibrated monitor", it means very little. I have a menu option on my widow manager (this is Linux, and I don't have a clue how to do this with Windows) that allows me to switch between literally half a dozen very different calibrations!
Quick reply to this message

 
Old 09-15-2011, 01:27 PM
 
Location: Barrow, Alaska
3,538 posts, read 4,161,098 times
Reputation: 1787
Quote:
Originally Posted by EinsteinsGhost View Post
1) The petals are darker, along with the ridges. At least on my screen.
The petals are not darker. They have more contrast. The bright parts, if anything, are actually brighter.
Quote:
2) Because the flower wasn't dark pink.
That's nonsense. The flower has a shade of color. The "darkness" is not a characteristic of the flower, it's a measure of how much light is falling on it and/or how wide the aperture you view it through happens to be. Of course with a photograph the exposure time is also significant for how bright the image is. None of that relates to the flower itself.
Quote:
3) I know that. But I would rather achieve it on the field, as the rest of the photograph would also have a bit softer feel to go with natural lighting.
Then why didn't you? Regardless, your statement about the rest of the photograph being this or that because of it is simply false. That is not necessarily true either for getting that effect with original lighting or as an effect using lens characteristics or as a software edit.
Quote:
4) I think you have a tendency to over sharpen pictures at hand. This shows in virtually everything I've seen from you, probably as a fix to address a shortcoming in your visualizations. The operator error you speak of, comes from conditions (wind, distance, and a lens with shallow depth of field). But see, those are the kind of things only the photographer can appreciate. Consumers tend to look only at the end result, whether they like it or not. To me, this was a matter of achieving a balance between going for smaller aperture at the expense of shutter speed (which was already at 1/160s for a 200mm lens) and going against windy conditions.
That is all therapeutic noise to rationalize acceptance of the results obtained from simply using a default camera configuration and hoping to get something useful even though the adjustments pre-shutter release or grossly granular in effect. You have what, 5 steps of sharpness or contrast up or down with that camera? Do you ever actually reconfigure the camera's saturation either? Do you even so much as adjust the Exposure Compensation, or just accept what the light meter gives you for exposure?

This business of just accepting camera defaults, or even the crudely granular in camera processing adjustments, all of which are made pre-shutter release, is simply guessing at what might produce an effective visual representation of a scene. The idea that that is somehow an accurate representation of reality just because you don't change it later is preposterous. And for those who do actually adjust the camera for different conditions, the idea that course granularity set by guessing before hand is more accurate than fine granularity set by observation and measurement, is also preposterous.

There are good reasons to use a JPEG straight out of the camera with no editing. Photojournalism is one, convenience and speed are another, and the simple fact that critical results are unnecessary is also valid. Take your pick; but claiming that what you get is not "artificial" is absurd.
Quote:
This is why I had said, I would take on-field imperfection over anything artificially perfected for a sense of personal achievement. You clearly don't subscribe to it.
I know better.
Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-15-2011, 01:54 PM
 
Location: Dallas, TX
30,727 posts, read 11,496,064 times
Reputation: 9383
Quote:
Originally Posted by Floyd_Davidson View Post
The petals are not darker. They have more contrast. The bright parts, if anything, are actually brighter.
Contrast has made them darker.

Quote:
That's nonsense. The flower has a shade of color. The "darkness" is not a characteristic of the flower, it's a measure of how much light is falling on it and/or how wide the aperture you view it through happens to be.
Darkness is a characteristic of the portrayal of the flower, hence its characteristic as it appears, which is darker than the natural lighting provided. Oh, and I addressed the aperture aspect earlier.

Quote:
Of course with a photograph the exposure time is also significant for how bright the image is. None of that relates to the flower itself.
It will determine how flower gets presented. Don't tell me that by changing the contrast, you are not altering the attributes of the subject as well.

Quote:
Then why didn't you? Regardless, your statement about the rest of the photograph being this or that because of it is simply false.
In your head anyway. Why didn't I? It was explained earlier.

Quote:
That is not necessarily true either for getting that effect with original lighting or as an effect using lens characteristics or as a software edit.
I'm sorry if it bothers you that I choose to rely more on the on-field equipment and settings than on tweaks on a computer that any person with basic knowledge of a software can accomplish, as you just proved here.

Quote:
That is all therapeutic noise to rationalize acceptance of the results obtained from simply using a default camera configuration and hoping to get something useful even though the adjustments pre-shutter release or grossly granular in effect.
Spoken like an expert, now only you can back it up with real world experience.

Quote:
You have what, 5 steps of sharpness or contrast up or down with that camera? Do you ever actually reconfigure the camera's saturation either?... Do you even so much as adjust the Exposure Compensation, or just accept what the light meter gives you for exposure?
As experts like you would, I prefer not to over-saturate my pictures. Give me a camera/lens combination that produces results as close to natural colors as I see them, and I'm happy.

Quote:
This business of just accepting camera defaults, or even the crudely granular in camera processing adjustments...
And how do you avoid that? If anything, you should be very concerned with granular photographs you present as an accomplishment around here. More talk... it is free.

Quote:
There are good reasons to use a JPEG straight out of the camera with no editing. Photojournalism is one, convenience and speed are another, and the simple fact that critical results are unnecessary is also valid. Take your pick; but claiming that what you get is not "artificial" is absurd.I know better.
I can tell. Hence, for a change, let your pictures speak for themselves. But then, should I wait to see any contribution of your amazing abilities as a photographer to shine a bit of light in this thread, as intended?
Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-15-2011, 03:48 PM
 
Location: South Dakota
4,165 posts, read 5,656,298 times
Reputation: 1835
Quote:
Originally Posted by Floyd_Davidson View Post
Really interesting.

The petal that is straight up differs in having some highlights right along the edges that are very nearly at maximum white values. That probably means that, particularly on a laptop screen because they all have higher contrast, that those highlights might be blocking on your monitor and not on mine, thus showing us two very different things!

I've recently seen a really kewl effect from this sort of thing. A young fellow here in town is interested in learning photography and borrowed a couple of lenses to experiment with bokeh (particularly an old manual focus 85mm f/1.4 lens). So the first set of examples he emailed me had a very harshly surreal effect due to contrast and color saturation that were just plain strange! Then I saw them on a laptop... and they looked pretty close to "normal".



Color is just all over the place! A few people like to make comments about white balance for images shown on line, but in reality it's a joke when they try. Even with the usually claimed "on my calibrated monitor", it means very little. I have a menu option on my widow manager (this is Linux, and I don't have a clue how to do this with Windows) that allows me to switch between literally half a dozen very different calibrations!
The new laptop with Windows 7 OS and all the bells and whistles I added to it has more than half a dozen...it's a bit daft.

This is why I am a little hesitant when offering opinions when asked on photos shown online. What may be perceived as 'normal' for one person may not be necessarily the case for me and vice versa.
Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-15-2011, 03:57 PM
 
Location: Barrow, Alaska
3,538 posts, read 4,161,098 times
Reputation: 1787
Quote:
Originally Posted by EinsteinsGhost View Post
Contrast has made them darker.
Yes, except of course for the half that it makes brighter...

I deleted everything that was either a non-sequitur or Ad Hominem. Nothing left to discuss?
Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-15-2011, 03:59 PM
 
Location: Dallas, TX
30,727 posts, read 11,496,064 times
Reputation: 9383
Quote:
Originally Posted by HighlandLady View Post
The new laptop with Windows 7 OS and all the bells and whistles I added to it has more than half a dozen...it's a bit daft.

This is why I am a little hesitant when offering opinions when asked on photos shown online. What may be perceived as 'normal' for one person may not be necessarily the case for me and vice versa.
This sort of reminds me when my friend and I hired a PS expert in India couple of years ago. Even though the claim was made that the person was well versed with PS CS3 Extended, we'd assumed he would be fine with Illustrator which we really wanted to use (not Photoshop) considering that the project was on Usability Sciences. We had to get him acquainted with Illustrator.

It was a matter of presenting different scenario before he realized the differences, and that what he perceived to be great, wasn't so under other circumstances.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Floyd_Davidson View Post
Yes, except of course for the half that it makes brighter...
You boost color when you increase contrast. You can do it using curves in PS, no?

Last edited by EinsteinsGhost; 09-15-2011 at 04:09 PM..
Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-15-2011, 06:35 PM
 
Location: Bellingham, WA
8,578 posts, read 6,270,926 times
Reputation: 10905
Most of my digital photos receive some sort of post processing, some more than others. I seem to be incapable of holding a camera level, so I have to straighten nearly all of them. And I have my camera set up to do minimal processing in-camera, so I usually alter the contrast and color some using curves in Photoshop. This photo is, I feel, I pretty good representation of what my photos typically undergo.

Before:


After:


While there's obvious color enhancement going on there, the final product is, to my eyes, closer to what I actually saw when taking the picture. With no in-camera saturation boost my camera usually produces images with fairly dull colors. But that's the way I prefer it since I'd rather decide what to do with the image later. Also, I've recently started using film again and I prefer to leave those images untouched once they're scanned onto my computer, besides straightening crooked images (which is most of them!) I've experimented with some of my film images in Photoshop, and except for one or two the others all simply looked better to me untouched.
Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-15-2011, 07:21 PM
 
Location: Barrow, Alaska
3,538 posts, read 4,161,098 times
Reputation: 1787
Quote:
Originally Posted by EinsteinsGhost View Post
TYou boost color when you increase contrast. You can do it using curves in PS, no?
No. Contrast is the slope of the graph you see when looking at a curves display. If the slope is made steeper the contrast is higher, if the slope is decreased the contrast is lower. Hence if contrast is adjusted by rotating the curve around the center of the graph, half of the tonal range gets brighter and half gets darker, with the average being exactly the same.

Brightness and color saturation can't be changed in RBG mode without color shift, so image data is changed to either HSV (Hue, Saturation, Level) or HSL (Hue, Saturation, LIghtness) to make those adjustments. In any case, just as the average brightness stays the same with the change in contrast, the same is true of saturation.

Of course the image does not necessarily have an average of middle gray, so if it's average is actually lower than that it will get darker and if it's average is higher it will get brighter. The odd thing however is that saturation changes differently with HSV and HSL modes, so whether it increases or decreased depends on how "Contrast" adjustment is implemented.

I use GIMP, and didn't use curves at all. It was done with a "Brightness/Contrast" tool that has a slider for each. What I actually did was very carefully adjust brightness and contrast of the image to hit both absolute black and absolute white without significant blocking. That is not a visual judgment, it's a literally measurement. It makes the image "right", but it can't take into account monitors that are not well corrected for either brightness or contrast. (Note that gamma is the same thing as contrast.)

If you're interested, in the edited image there are 968 pixels with a value of 255. There are 4,393 pixels at black. That is out of a total of 424,800. The average value is 108, so it is a little darker than middle gray at 128. The original had 93 pixels at pure white, and no pixels at all in the lowest 16 values. The average value was 138. For the flower itself, the median value in the original is 190.4, and it's 186.6 in the edited version. That is to say, it is indeed darker... by an imperceptible amount (about 1/8th of an fstop).
Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-15-2011, 09:20 PM
 
Location: Point Hope Alaska
4,323 posts, read 1,211,439 times
Reputation: 1146
Before & After - A creative method to add some truly wild results to some of your favorite photographs

Too many of my images are filled with 'white' - Which is the 'presence' of all colors (RGB.)

It is difficult at times to be creative in such a limited enviroment; But here is a simple process that just adds so much color(s) in such a simple manner.

Here is the normal scene - miles out on the ocean ice. Waiting for animals to migrate through the open lead.

Open any photograph in Photoshop - Painter - Paint shop pro - Gimp any of them work in the same manner using different algorithms.





Next step is to just open the Curve Editor. This is very simple and easy to accomplish. Just click 4 , 5 or six times on that diagonal line. Spacing isn't important as you will soon see. You can easily add more points later to achieve more colors.

I am going to keep this as simple as possible; then you can explore using other layers with other controls in back of these results to tweak the image in ways you never thought of.




Click, click, click , click that's all -



Now begin to move these points. Some of them up and others down
You will see profound differences occur as you move these points. You can actually make some of the colors 'fit' to make the scene dramatic.



Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-16-2011, 03:33 AM
 
21,338 posts, read 14,671,278 times
Reputation: 6786
Quote:
Originally Posted by HighlandLady View Post
I do like the post-processed DOF/Bokeh...it brings the focus onto the petals more and it is more alluring.
The contrast and highlights, to me, are overblown. And the added sharpness appears to cause aberrations on the edges of the petals.
I'd agree with that but the other one appears to be too soft, somewhere in the middle would probably be perfect.


Quote:
That all being said, and of course only my opinion, I have to wonder with all the different resolutions of computers/monitors...if that doesn't effect the viewing of the images? Could it be that the images look optimal on one monitor, but due to different calibrations, lack in quality on another? Or is it even discernible enough to pose a quandry?
Images on web pages are shown at their standard pixel size unless a different size is specified in the markup. The only variables are the monitor size and what the resolution is set at.

The human eye can see about 200 to 300 DPI at viewing distance which is the distance you might hold an image at in your hand or be sitting from a monitor. For example my monitor has a physical width of 20 inches and resolution of 1920 for the width.

1920/20 = 96PPI in this case since we're discussing monitors.

This of course is far below what my eye can see, the image could have much more detail. If the physical size of the monitor is smaller but still the same resolution the image is much more detailed BUT it now has much smaller physical size. Of course you also have the color differences in monitors, graphic cards and a bunch of other things. In other words it's a cluster .........mmmmmmmm you know what I'm getting at.

Until the resolution of monitors exceed what the human eye can see there is no parity between different ones at least as far as the detail goes.
Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


 
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:
Over $79,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Photography

All times are GMT -6.

2005-2014, Advameg, Inc.

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25 - Top