You are in Guest mode. If you want to post, you'll need to register (we promise it's painless).
Registered users should log in now. (Forgot your password?)

Guest-accessible forum This forum allows unregistered guests access to read. You must register to post in this forum.

Photography.16

Topic HomeTopicsForum HomeForumsHomeSearchSettingsHelpExit

It's all about the light!

--------

{Photography.16.1}: Kai Hagen {kai} Sat, 26 Jul 2003 08:37:12 CDT (HTML)

Moving this here...

{Photography.12.24}: Kai Hagen {kai} Sat, 26 Jul 2003 09:36:06 EDT

> if all else is equal (a proper exposure being primary), one would
> expect a highly accurate recording of the light and color present
> at the moment of exposure...

Well...yes. And no.

As any photographer knows from experience (and often frustration), the length of exposure makes a huge difference in almost any picture.

So often the result is brighter or more washed out colors, than what appears to the eye. Or darker, with less color than you really could see. Or both, in different parts of the pictures. In fact, bright and dark areas in the same picture create difficulties and choices that have to be made about which area is going to be closer to "reali

--------

{Photography.16.2}: Which Hazel? {hazel2} Sat, 26 Jul 2003 10:01:42 CDT (8 lines)

Also, with the consumer model digital cameras, the tonal range is not
all that great, compared to film. So you can have the most "proper"
exposure possible, and still blow out all the highlights or lose
detail in the shadows. Varies from camera to camera.

This is actually my greatest frustration with digital, the inability
to really record the light with accuracy, particularly with regard to
highlights. The DSLR's are better with it.

--------

{Photography.16.3}: Peter Fraterdeus {pfraterdeus} Sat, 26 Jul 2003 11:52:06 CDT (14 lines)

<<This is actually my greatest frustration with digital, the
inability to really record the light with accuracy, particularly with
regard to highlights. The DSLR's are better with it.>>

Indeed. Of course, one can also make bracketed exposures, and (with
appropriate tools) merge the best of two or more shots.

I quite agree that tonal range in digital leaves something to be
desired. However, in my last three weeks of shooting with the Canon
10D, I find that this CMOS sensor is far superior at the high end.
Nonetheless, I expect that careful metering will help with the
blown-out skies...

Cheers

--------

{Photography.16.4}: Amanda Peck {amanda615} Sat, 26 Jul 2003 18:50:28 CDT (5 lines)

Did I read somewhere that there's more information than you think in
the digital information either at the top or the bottom (bottom, I
think), so that if you underexpose by a stop or even two, you have a
good chance of getting a good range of exposure after it's been
through the computer??

--------

{Photography.16.5}: Which Hazel? {hazel2} Sun, 27 Jul 2003 00:27:22 CDT (10 lines)

Yes, I tend to do that - underexpose to get details in the
highlights. (For some reason my camera blows out highlights but isn't
so bad with shadows.) But it's still hard sometimes for Photoshop to
create a pic with a full range of tones with these images. Usually the
darks end up posterized with these severe efforts to bring detail out
of them.

I know trick about combining bracketed exposures in Photoshop, but
they have to be perfectly aligned and many of my shots are hand held.
But that's definitely an option.

--------

{Photography.16.6}: Peter Fraterdeus {pfraterdeus} Sun, 27 Jul 2003 22:25:25 CDT (11 lines)

Hazel, what camera are you using?
I found that the more recent CMOS sensors have a better dynamic range... At least my
new Canon is far better at highlight detail than the Oly E-10 I just gave up.

As far as combining photos, I don't usually worry all that much about perfect
alignment, since you can adjust as necessary in Photoshop.

Amanda, this is also true of film! It's almost always possible to get a decent print
from a mildly underexposed shot, but overexposed tends to become impenetrable...

P

--------

{Photography.16.7}: Which Hazel? {hazel2} Sun, 27 Jul 2003 23:07:06 CDT (13 lines)

Peter, I have a Coolpix 995. A couple of years old now, and I'm
definitely ready for an upgrade. I've actually been thinking about
DSLR - looking at both the 10D and the Fuji S2. Dynamic range and
resolution are on the top of the list of my requirements.

Nikon has a very bad rep for blowing out the highlights, and clipping
the details in bright colors. Even the D100 seems to do this, from the
pics I've seen.

"It's all about the light" is so true, and it's frustrating when your
camera won't deal with the light. Sometimes I can underexpose several
stops and the highlights are still blown out. White flowers are nearly
impossible, even in subdued light!

--------

{Photography.16.8}: Judy Johnson {judy} Mon, 28 Jul 2003 14:04:17 CDT (1 line)

What does "posterized" mean?

--------

{Photography.16.9}: {hazel2} Mon, 28 Jul 2003 23:34:46 CDT (0 lines)
{erased by hazel2 Mon, 28 Jul 2003 23:35:04 CDT}

--------

{Photography.16.10}: Which Hazel? {hazel2} Mon, 28 Jul 2003 23:36:12 CDT (5 lines)

It's when there are only a few colors or light/dark values, and there
are definite boundaries between them that you can see, like in a
"poster". All the darks are in the black basket, all the lights are in
the white basket, and there's a few midrange baskets in between.
There's not a smooth gradation.

--------

{Photography.16.11}: Judy Johnson {judy} Wed, 30 Jul 2003 12:08:52 CDT (1 line)

Thanks.

--------

{Photography.16.12}: Amanda Peck {amanda615} Thu, 31 Jul 2003 22:05:27 CDT (10 lines)

"Banding" is another word you'll hear.

Since the more colors you have in a photo, the more pixels you are
using up, posterizing--there's a filter for it in every editing
program I've used--can sometimes help bring file sizes down.  Colors
in the extreme posterized range get very very strange indeed.

It's also one way to eliminate evidence of camera shake or out-of-
focus-ness.  Well, sometimes it works, sometimes it just makes things
worse, but it's worth trying.

--------

{Photography.16.13}: Jonathan Theobald {jonathan68} Fri, 01 Aug 2003 13:09:49 CDT (5 lines)

I shall squirrel that away as it sounds like useful info. But I'm not
quite clear - is the filtering option the same thing as posterising?

 Or is it simply a matter of investigating what can be done with
filters?

--------

{Photography.16.14}: Which Hazel? {hazel2} Fri, 01 Aug 2003 18:54:51 CDT (11 lines)

I don't know about Paint Shop, but in Photoshop you posterize an
image as an adjustment, not as a filter. It's the same kind of
adjustment as changing light/dark with Levels, or changing color with
Color Balance.

You can change the number of posterization steps. Three will give you
black, white and gray, (or corresponding light, dark and mid value
colors) and so forth. You can preview it and just keep changing the
number  of steps until you like the result, before you apply the
adjustment. You can also put the adjustment on its own layer so it's
not a permanent change to your image.

--------

{Photography.16.15}: Amanda Peck {amanda615} Tue, 05 Aug 2003 22:50:05 CDT (7 lines)

I'm not sure of the difference between filters and adjustments.
Except that you may BUY filters, adjustments come with the program.

Actually I think it's more than that, but.....

PSP works about like photoshop in the case of posterization.  It's
part of the adjust colors menu.

--------

{Photography.16.16}: Which Hazel? {hazel2} Wed, 06 Aug 2003 00:55:34 CDT (3 lines)

With Photoshop, filters come with the program, they're just part of
the special effects Filter menu. You can also buy 3rd party ones that
are plug-ins.

--------

{Photography.16.17}: Amanda Peck {amanda615} Thu, 07 Aug 2003 21:23:33 CDT (3 lines)

PSP has things "sharpen" in the effects menu.  As well as "hot wax"
(filed under "artistic effects") and the 3d party plugins down at the
bottom of the same list.

--------

{Photography.16.18}: Kai Hagen {kai} Mon, 27 Oct 2003 15:54:43 CST (HTML)

Over the last year, I've been trying to take some photos from the same spot and perspective...over time - weeks, even months apart. It can be fascinating to see the changes as seasons progress.

But yesterday and today, I took the following three photos within a 24 hour period, all standing in the same place, looking in the same direction, taking it as it happened to be when I waled up.

Not the most ideal spot, but it is just a few yards from our house, and happened to be one of the four or five spots I started trying this with in early spring. Next year, I'm going to pick four or five different spots, and put some more thought into the subject and "frame."

Attachment: creekview031026web6.jpg (36K)

--------

{Photography.16.19}: Kai Hagen {kai} Mon, 27 Oct 2003 15:55:45 CST (0 lines)


Attachment: creekview031026.2web6.jpg (38K)

--------

{Photography.16.20}: Kai Hagen {kai} Mon, 27 Oct 2003 15:57:36 CST (HTML)


Attachment: creekview031027web6.jpg (42K)

--------

{Photography.16.21}: Ed Hawco {ed1} Mon, 27 Oct 2003 16:01:33 CST (7 lines)

Fascinating. It's an interesting exercise in how the eye and the
camera sometimes see differently. Personally, I like the top one best,
and the bottom one second best. Yet, I suspect if I were standing
there, I'd prefer the middle one because of the spots of light.
Unfortunately, spots like that don't often translate well into
photographs. But flat light, like in the top one, often works very
well in scenes like this.

--------

{Photography.16.22}: Cleophus {cleophus} Mon, 27 Oct 2003 16:12:09 CST (4 lines)

Someone else in this forum had a cool webpage, showing pics of a
bldg. (in Montreal?) that they had photographed from the same angle
at different times of the year, in different weather.  A really cool
study on the way quantity/quality/direction of light affects an image.

--------

{Photography.16.23}: Bernard Huinink {burnme} Mon, 27 Oct 2003 17:09:43 CST (2 lines)

Those trees must have lost a lot of leaves in 24 hrs.  The bottom
picture shows so much more water which was hidden in the top photo.

--------

{Photography.16.24}: Suzanne Griffith {sggriffith} Mon, 27 Oct 2003 17:15:13 CST (4 lines)

That was Ed who did the Montreal study, Cleophus.

Kai, what time of day did you take those, respectively? It's very
interesting.

--------

{Photography.16.25}: Mike Harvey {mikeharvey} Mon, 27 Oct 2003 17:18:24 CST (HTML)

Kai - a very cool study

--------

Page Forum
Topic HomeTopicsForum HomeForumsHomeSearchSettingsHelpExit
Guest-accessible forum This forum allows unregistered guests access to read. You must register to post in this forum.

You are in Guest mode. If you want to post, you'll need to register (we promise it's painless).
Registered users should log in now. (Forgot your password?)

The New Café  Home | Your Hotlist and Directory | Independent Partner Forums |
FAQ | User Guidelines | Privacy Policy