Welcome to City-Data.com Forum!
U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Photography
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 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.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Closed Thread Start New Thread
 
Old 09-16-2011, 10:27 AM
 
Location: Bellingham, WA
9,726 posts, read 16,689,615 times
Reputation: 14887

Advertisements

Lately I've also been shooting RAW as well. It's a different process than simply pushing the shutter button on a point and shoot camera. You can't just take the memory card to Walgreens and print off the pictures. The camera is basically just capturing raw info that you'll later use to create the image you want. Digital has changed photography in a lot of ways, one of which being the process that goes on after the image is captured. Although in way that's no different that film (in principle). Film is useless until it's been developed, and some of the best photographers in history have manipulated many of their images in the darkroom, just like some of the best photographers now manipulate their photos in Photoshop, Lightroom, etc.

 
Old 09-16-2011, 11:03 AM
 
Location: Barrow, Alaska
3,539 posts, read 7,615,701 times
Reputation: 1836
Quote:
Originally Posted by EinsteinsGhost View Post
Thank you... but not so imperceptible that I could notice without pixel peeping. Tonal changes using highlight and shadow manipulation on the curves is not quite a strange idea.
Once again you are ignoring reality. Let me repeat, the flower is not actually darker by an amount your eyes would perceive. It appears to be so because it now has more contrast (your original image had no true blacks in it at all), but primarily because the entire background is darker.

Making up "observations" based on which derogatory comment you want to apply is even worse that the habit of labeling any technique you are either unwilling or unable to make use of as "artificial".
 
Old 09-16-2011, 11:05 AM
 
Location: Dallas, TX
31,767 posts, read 28,736,999 times
Reputation: 12341
Quote:
Originally Posted by Floyd_Davidson View Post
Once again you are ignoring reality. Let me repeat, the flower is not actually darker by an amount your eyes would perceive. It appears to be so because it now has more contrast (your original image had not true blacks in it at all), but primarily because the entire background is darker.
Let me repeat... the tonal change has made for a deeper pink than the flower presents itself. You accepted that earlier (but downplayed it with "amount"). Could you take a color picture, adjust highlights and shadows and produce an image with a deeper color? No?
 
Old 09-16-2011, 11:11 AM
 
Location: Barrow, Alaska
3,539 posts, read 7,615,701 times
Reputation: 1836
Quote:
Originally Posted by EinsteinsGhost View Post
Let me repeat... the tonal change has made for a deeper pink than the flower presents itself. You accepted that earlier (but downplayed it with "amount"). Could you take a color picture, adjust highlights and shadows and produce an image with a deeper color? No?
No, that is not what would happen. You still haven't understood what I've said.

The change in contrast makes more of the flower's detail visible. It did not change the tone of the pink. If the camera recorded that detail then it necessarily existed in the scene you viewed, even if you didn't notice it.
 
Old 09-16-2011, 11:19 AM
 
Location: Dallas, TX
31,767 posts, read 28,736,999 times
Reputation: 12341
Quote:
Originally Posted by Floyd_Davidson View Post
No, that is not what would happen. You still haven't understood what I've said.

The change in contrast makes more of the flower's detail visible. It did not change the tone of the pink. If the camera recorded that detail then it necessarily existed in the scene you viewed, even if you didn't notice it.
Okay, instead of going around in circles, I will give you a googled up link:
How to Fix Dull Colors in Photoshop

After you've seen it, tell me if you see a deeper color in the finished picture or there is no difference that your eyes register.
 
Old 09-16-2011, 11:27 AM
 
Location: Barrow, Alaska
3,539 posts, read 7,615,701 times
Reputation: 1836
Quote:
Originally Posted by kdog View Post
I shoot RAW and to the right, and my images look like crap straight out of the camera. That's because I concentrate on capturing DATA, not a picture. I then turn the data into a picture during the RAW conversion at some future point on the computer. I may be doing it all wrong, but I ain't changing.
Heh, just for grins and giggles I should set up something close to a UNIWB configuration for a camera, shoot a couple shots of some nice looking person, and post both the out of the camera JPEG image and a properly processed JPEG from the NEF raw data file.

For those who don't know what kdog meant by "to the right", it is also called "Expose To The Right", or ETTR, and refers to setting exposure to get an histogram on the camera as far to the right side of the graph as possible, which produces sensor data that has the highest possible dynamic range. The benefit is lower noise.

The problem is with the accuracy of the histogram, which can be improved greatly (enough to nail exposures within 1/10 of an fstop with a little care) by adjusting the camera's JPEG processing for the "correct" White Balance. The "correct" White Balance to get an accurate histogram has twice as much green as it does red or blue (because the sensor has twice as many green filters in the Bayer patttern).

An accurate histogram means the out of the camera JPEG is a sickly green looking image!
A very sickly green... :-)
 
Old 09-16-2011, 11:29 AM
 
Location: Dallas, TX
31,767 posts, read 28,736,999 times
Reputation: 12341
Quote:
Originally Posted by Floyd_Davidson View Post
Heh, just for grins and giggles I should set up something close to a UNIWB configuration for a camera, shoot a couple shots of some nice looking person, and post both the out of the camera JPEG image and a properly processed JPEG from the NEF raw data file.
Actually, posting such comparison shots is the point of this thread. Why not do it?
 
Old 09-16-2011, 11:32 AM
 
Location: Barrow, Alaska
3,539 posts, read 7,615,701 times
Reputation: 1836
Quote:
Originally Posted by EinsteinsGhost View Post
Okay, instead of going around in circles, I will give you a googled up link:
How to Fix Dull Colors in Photoshop

After you've seen it, tell me if you see a deeper color in the finished picture or there is no difference that your eyes register.
What significance is there to someone's intentful effort to change "dull" colors, and your comments about a totally different edit on a totally different image?
 
Old 09-16-2011, 11:34 AM
 
Location: Dallas, TX
31,767 posts, read 28,736,999 times
Reputation: 12341
Quote:
Originally Posted by Floyd_Davidson View Post
What significance is there to someone's intentful effort to change "dull" colors, and your comments about a totally different edit on a totally different image?
I'm speaking of an effect that can be applied to any image, a tutorial you could use to get the point you won't accept with my words.
 
Old 09-16-2011, 11:52 AM
 
Location: Barrow, Alaska
3,539 posts, read 7,615,701 times
Reputation: 1836
Quote:
Originally Posted by EinsteinsGhost View Post
I'm speaking of an effect that can be applied to any image, a tutorial you could use to get the point you won't accept with my words.
I fully understand how to get the effects that I do want.

The tutorial is probably something that helps you, and that is fine. It has nothing to do with the image that I edited.
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.


Closed Thread


Over $104,000 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
Similar Threads

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2024, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - 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, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 - Top