Home » Adobe Photoshop » Adobe Photoshop techniques & help

"Exposing to the right" is over exposed, what now?

Help

Create a new topic

Submit Reply

Show: Today's Messages :: Show Polls :: Message Navigator :: E-mail to friend

Sun, 04 October 2009 09:25

Porte Rouge (Photoshop begginer)

I set my exposure to slide the histogram to the right, without clipping
( when I have time), to capture the most tonal levels . So, now when I
am editing the photos they are over exposed(not clipped). A sunrise is
a good example. The deep colors are washed out. The obvious fix(to me
anyway) in Lightroom or CS4 is to reduce the exposure. Now my question
is, by reducing exposure in post, am I just ending up in the same place
(histogram to the left) as if I had just ignored the histogram when I
was shooting and set the exposure to properly expose the image using
my light meter? I guess in short I am asking if Lightroom or CS4 loses
tonal values when you reduce exposure in editing.

Porte

Report message to a moderator

Sun, 04 October 2009 09:40

Doug McDonald (Photoshop begginer)

Porte Rouge wrote:
> I set my exposure to slide the histogram to the right, without clipping
> ( when I have time), to capture the most tonal levels . So, now when I
> am editing the photos they are over exposed(not clipped). A sunrise is
> a good example. The deep colors are washed out. The obvious fix(to me
> anyway) in Lightroom or CS4 is to reduce the exposure. Now my question
> is, by reducing exposure in post, am I just ending up in the same place
> (histogram to the left) as if I had just ignored the histogram when I
> was shooting and set the exposure to properly expose the image using
> my light meter? I guess in short I am asking if Lightroom or CS4 loses
> tonal values when you reduce exposure in editing.
>
>
> Porte

There is no simple answer. It depends on whether you shoot raw
or jpeg, and whether you use 8 or 16 bits in Photoshop.

If you shoot raw and go to 16 bits in Photoshop you will indeed
capture more tonal levels and better shadow detail if you correctly
set the histogram in the camera as far right as possible. Significant
improvements in shadow detail are possible compared to "politically
correct" exposure in the camera.

If you use jpeg and 8 bits, maybe, maybe not.

Doug McDonald

Report message to a moderator

Sun, 04 October 2009 09:58

Porte Rouge (Photoshop begginer)

On Oct 4, 9:40 am, Doug McDonald
<mcdon...@scs.uiuc.edu.remove.invalid> wrote:
> Porte Rouge wrote:
> > I set my exposure to slide the histogram to the right, without clipping
> > ( when I have time), to capture the most tonal levels . So, now when I
> > am editing the photos they are over exposed(not clipped). A sunrise is
> > a good example. The deep colors are washed out. The obvious fix(to me
> > anyway) in Lightroom or CS4 is to reduce the exposure. Now my question
> > is, by reducing exposure in post, am I just ending up in the same place
> > (histogram to the left) as if I had just ignored the histogram when I
> > was shooting and set the exposure to properly expose the image using
> > my light meter? I guess in short I am asking if Lightroom or CS4 loses
> > tonal values when you reduce exposure in editing.
>
> > Porte
>
> There is no simple answer. It depends on whether you shoot raw
> or jpeg, and whether you use 8 or 16 bits in Photoshop.
>
> If you shoot raw and go to 16 bits in Photoshop you will indeed
> capture more tonal levels and better shadow detail if you correctly
> set the histogram in the camera as far right as possible. Significant
> improvements in shadow detail are possible compared to "politically
> correct" exposure in the camera.
>
> If you use jpeg and 8 bits, maybe, maybe not.
>
> Doug McDonald

I shoot RAW and edit in 16 bit. That's interesting. I take it that
reducing exposure in 16 bit preserves tonal levels because there are
more levels in 16 bit. Or is there some other pixel black magic going
on?

Porte

Report message to a moderator

Sun, 04 October 2009 10:00

Porte Rouge (Photoshop begginer)

On Oct 4, 9:40 am, Doug McDonald
<mcdon...@scs.uiuc.edu.remove.invalid> wrote:
> Porte Rouge wrote:
> > I set my exposure to slide the histogram to the right, without clipping
> > ( when I have time), to capture the most tonal levels . So, now when I
> > am editing the photos they are over exposed(not clipped). A sunrise is
> > a good example. The deep colors are washed out. The obvious fix(to me
> > anyway) in Lightroom or CS4 is to reduce the exposure. Now my question
> > is, by reducing exposure in post, am I just ending up in the same place
> > (histogram to the left) as if I had just ignored the histogram when I
> > was shooting and set the exposure to properly expose the image using
> > my light meter? I guess in short I am asking if Lightroom or CS4 loses
> > tonal values when you reduce exposure in editing.
>
> > Porte
>
> There is no simple answer. It depends on whether you shoot raw
> or jpeg, and whether you use 8 or 16 bits in Photoshop.
>
> If you shoot raw and go to 16 bits in Photoshop you will indeed
> capture more tonal levels and better shadow detail if you correctly
> set the histogram in the camera as far right as possible. Significant
> improvements in shadow detail are possible compared to "politically
> correct" exposure in the camera.
>
> If you use jpeg and 8 bits, maybe, maybe not.
>
> Doug McDonald

I shoot RAW and edit in 16 bit. That's interesting. I take it that
reducing exposure in 16 bit preserves tonal levels because there are
more levels in 16 bit. Or is there some other pixel black magic going
on?

Porte

Report message to a moderator

Sun, 04 October 2009 10:28

taylor aldler (Photoshop begginer)

On Sun, 4 Oct 2009 06:25:12 -0700 (PDT), Porte Rouge
<porterougeman@gmail.com> wrote:

>I set my exposure to slide the histogram to the right, without clipping
>( when I have time), to capture the most tonal levels . So, now when I
>am editing the photos they are over exposed(not clipped). A sunrise is
>a good example. The deep colors are washed out. The obvious fix(to me
>anyway) ...

.... doesn't seem to be obvious to you. Instead of learning how to expose
each scene properly and not rely on dumbed-down point and shoot
snapshooter's suggestions (like "expose to the right", which only applies
to very few subjects) or depending on your automatic point and shoot modes
of your camera, you'll forever be wasting your time in editing instead of
taking photos the right way to begin with.

This is what you get for taking to heart the lame "one size fits all"
dumbed-down snapshooters suggestions made by all point 'n shooters and
armchair photographers on the net.

Report message to a moderator

Sun, 04 October 2009 10:36

Alan Browne (Photoshop expert)

taylor aldler wrote:
> On Sun, 4 Oct 2009 06:25:12 -0700 (PDT), Porte Rouge
> <porterougeman@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> I set my exposure to slide the histogram to the right, without clipping
>> ( when I have time), to capture the most tonal levels . So, now when I
>> am editing the photos they are over exposed(not clipped). A sunrise is
>> a good example. The deep colors are washed out. The obvious fix(to me
>> anyway) ...
>
> ... doesn't seem to be obvious to you. Instead of learning how to expose
> each scene properly and not rely on dumbed-down point and shoot
> snapshooter's suggestions (like "expose to the right", which only applies
> to very few subjects) or depending on your automatic point and shoot modes
> of your camera, you'll forever be wasting your time in editing instead of
> taking photos the right way to begin with.

Why do you question a proven technique that lifts shadows into noise
free detail? Really, let people do their thing for their purposes ...
better than criticizing without showing your own prowess.

Report message to a moderator

Sun, 04 October 2009 10:38

Luis ORTEGA (Photoshop expert)

Porte Rouge wrote:
> I set my exposure to slide the histogram to the right, without clipping
> ( when I have time), to capture the most tonal levels . So, now when I
> am editing the photos they are over exposed(not clipped). A sunrise is
> a good example. The deep colors are washed out. The obvious fix(to me
> anyway) in Lightroom or CS4 is to reduce the exposure. Now my question
> is, by reducing exposure in post, am I just ending up in the same place
> (histogram to the left) as if I had just ignored the histogram when I
> was shooting and set the exposure to properly expose the image using
> my light meter? I guess in short I am asking if Lightroom or CS4 loses
> tonal values when you reduce exposure in editing.
>
>
> Porte
For me, digital is the opposite of film in exposure emphasis.
In film, you expose for the shadows, while in digital you should expose
for the highlights.
You can't print underexposed shadows on a film negative but you can burn
in overexposed highlights since the negatives tend to hold some
information in that area.
You can't print overexposed highlights in a digital image but you can
tease out information from underexposed shadows in digital processing.
You can't treat your entire image the same way, so you need to apply
techniques similar to dodging and burning in the digital realm using
area adjustments of an image and the various tools/techniques available
in image editors.

Report message to a moderator

Sun, 04 October 2009 11:17

Doug McDonald (Photoshop begginer)

taylor aldler wrote:
> On Sun, 4 Oct 2009 06:25:12 -0700 (PDT), Porte Rouge
> <porterougeman@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> I set my exposure to slide the histogram to the right, without clipping
>> ( when I have time), to capture the most tonal levels . So, now when I
>> am editing the photos they are over exposed(not clipped). A sunrise is
>> a good example. The deep colors are washed out. The obvious fix(to me
>> anyway) ...
>
> ... doesn't seem to be obvious to you. Instead of learning how to expose
> each scene properly and not rely on dumbed-down point and shoot
> snapshooter's suggestions (like "expose to the right", which only applies
> to very few subjects) or depending on your automatic point and shoot modes
> of your camera, you'll forever be wasting your time in editing instead of
> taking photos the right way to begin with.
>
> This is what you get for taking to heart the lame "one size fits all"
> dumbed-down snapshooters suggestions made by all point 'n shooters and
> armchair photographers on the net.
>

This sounds like the P&S troll.

"Exposing for jpeg" which is what he proposes is NOT
the absolute best way to use a more capable camera like a dSLR.

That is, indeed, to expose for the highlights, putting them
just under the clipping value, and save as raw. Fix later
in the raw->jpeg conversion.

Doug

Report message to a moderator

Sun, 04 October 2009 11:39

Robert Spanjaard (Photoshop begginer)

On Sun, 04 Oct 2009 10:17:25 -0500, Doug McDonald wrote:

>> ... doesn't seem to be obvious to you. Instead of learning how to
>> expose each scene properly and not rely on dumbed-down point and shoot
>> snapshooter's suggestions (like "expose to the right", which only
>> applies to very few subjects) or depending on your automatic point and
>> shoot modes of your camera, you'll forever be wasting your time in
>> editing instead of taking photos the right way to begin with.
>>
>> This is what you get for taking to heart the lame "one size fits all"
>> dumbed-down snapshooters suggestions made by all point 'n shooters and
>> armchair photographers on the net.
>
> This sounds like the P&S troll.
>
> "Exposing for jpeg" which is what he proposes is NOT the absolute best
> way to use a more capable camera like a dSLR.
>
> That is, indeed, to expose for the highlights, putting them just under
> the clipping value, and save as raw. Fix later in the raw->jpeg
> conversion.

Your method is not the absolute best way either. There is no absolute
best way.

--
Regards, Robert http://www.arumes.com

Report message to a moderator

Sun, 04 October 2009 12:19

Alan Browne (Photoshop expert)

Luis Ortega wrote:
> Porte Rouge wrote:
>> I set my exposure to slide the histogram to the right, without clipping
>> ( when I have time), to capture the most tonal levels . So, now when I
>> am editing the photos they are over exposed(not clipped). A sunrise is
>> a good example. The deep colors are washed out. The obvious fix(to me
>> anyway) in Lightroom or CS4 is to reduce the exposure. Now my question
>> is, by reducing exposure in post, am I just ending up in the same place
>> (histogram to the left) as if I had just ignored the histogram when I
>> was shooting and set the exposure to properly expose the image using
>> my light meter? I guess in short I am asking if Lightroom or CS4 loses
>> tonal values when you reduce exposure in editing.
>>
>>
>> Porte
> For me, digital is the opposite of film in exposure emphasis.
> In film, you expose for the shadows, while in digital you should expose
> for the highlights.

In negative film you expose for the shadows.

In positive (reversal, slide) film you expose for highlight placement.

In this sense digital behaves much like slide film except for a little
more shadow detail.

Report message to a moderator

Sun, 04 October 2009 12:24

Alan Browne (Photoshop expert)

Doug McDonald wrote:
> taylor aldler wrote:
>> On Sun, 4 Oct 2009 06:25:12 -0700 (PDT), Porte Rouge
>> <porterougeman@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> I set my exposure to slide the histogram to the right, without clipping
>>> ( when I have time), to capture the most tonal levels . So, now when I
>>> am editing the photos they are over exposed(not clipped). A sunrise is
>>> a good example. The deep colors are washed out. The obvious fix(to me
>>> anyway) ...
>>
>> ... doesn't seem to be obvious to you. Instead of learning how to expose
>> each scene properly and not rely on dumbed-down point and shoot
>> snapshooter's suggestions (like "expose to the right", which only applies
>> to very few subjects) or depending on your automatic point and shoot
>> modes
>> of your camera, you'll forever be wasting your time in editing instead of
>> taking photos the right way to begin with.
>>
>> This is what you get for taking to heart the lame "one size fits all"
>> dumbed-down snapshooters suggestions made by all point 'n shooters and
>> armchair photographers on the net.
>>
>
>
> This sounds like the P&S troll.
>
> "Exposing for jpeg" which is what he proposes is NOT
> the absolute best way to use a more capable camera like a dSLR.
>
> That is, indeed, to expose for the highlights, putting them
> just under the clipping value, and save as raw. Fix later
> in the raw->jpeg conversion.

Actually do what you say on import of raw into the editor (say photoshop
ACR) and maintain it as 16 bit/colour for all edits before saving in any
other format, including JPG's.

Report message to a moderator

Sun, 04 October 2009 12:34

Alan Browne (Photoshop expert)

Doug McDonald wrote:
> taylor aldler wrote:
>> On Sun, 4 Oct 2009 06:25:12 -0700 (PDT), Porte Rouge
>> <porterougeman@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> I set my exposure to slide the histogram to the right, without clipping
>>> ( when I have time), to capture the most tonal levels . So, now when I
>>> am editing the photos they are over exposed(not clipped). A sunrise is
>>> a good example. The deep colors are washed out. The obvious fix(to me
>>> anyway) ...
>>
>> ... doesn't seem to be obvious to you. Instead of learning how to expose
>> each scene properly and not rely on dumbed-down point and shoot
>> snapshooter's suggestions (like "expose to the right", which only applies
>> to very few subjects) or depending on your automatic point and shoot
>> modes
>> of your camera, you'll forever be wasting your time in editing instead of
>> taking photos the right way to begin with.
>>
>> This is what you get for taking to heart the lame "one size fits all"
>> dumbed-down snapshooters suggestions made by all point 'n shooters and
>> armchair photographers on the net.
>>
>
>
> This sounds like the P&S troll.
>
> "Exposing for jpeg" which is what he proposes is NOT
> the absolute best way to use a more capable camera like a dSLR.
>
> That is, indeed, to expose for the highlights, putting them
> just under the clipping value, and save as raw. Fix later
> in the raw->jpeg conversion.

And by the way, allowing some highlights to clip (direct lighting, some
specular reflections) is quite alright, otherwise you'll push the middle
down into the shadows and increase noise.

This is where good spot metering skills come in.

Report message to a moderator

Sun, 04 October 2009 12:47

Porte Rouge (Photoshop begginer)

On Oct 4, 11:39 am, Robert Spanjaard <spamt...@arumes.com> wrote:
> On Sun, 04 Oct 2009 10:17:25 -0500, Doug McDonald wrote:
> >> ... doesn't seem to be obvious to you. Instead of learning how to
> >> expose each scene properly and not rely on dumbed-down point and shoot
> >> snapshooter's suggestions (like "expose to the right", which only
> >> applies to very few subjects) or depending on your automatic point and
> >> shoot modes of your camera, you'll forever be wasting your time in
> >> editing instead of taking photos the right way to begin with.
>
> >> This is what you get for taking to heart the lame "one size fits all"
> >> dumbed-down snapshooters suggestions made by all point 'n shooters and
> >> armchair photographers on the net.
>
> > This sounds like the P&S troll.
>
> > "Exposing for jpeg" which is what he proposes is NOT the absolute best
> > way to use a more capable camera like a dSLR.
>
> > That is, indeed, to expose for the highlights, putting them just under
> > the clipping value, and save as raw. Fix later in the raw->jpeg
> > conversion.
>
> Your method is not the absolute best way either. There is no absolute
> best way.
>
> --
> Regards, Robert �http://www.arumes.com

Do you have more to say about which way you set exposure and when?
I am genuinely interested in how you decide to set exposure. At this
point I actually use both, "expose to the right" and light meter, for
the "fine art" shots. I can't see a difference, I was just curious in
a CD versus vinyl sort of way.

Porte

Report message to a moderator

Sun, 04 October 2009 12:48

john[16] (Photoshop begginer)

On Sun, 04 Oct 2009 10:17:25 -0500, Doug McDonald
<mcdonald@scs.uiuc.edu.remove.invalid> wrote:

>taylor aldler wrote:
>> On Sun, 4 Oct 2009 06:25:12 -0700 (PDT), Porte Rouge
>> <porterougeman@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> I set my exposure to slide the histogram to the right, without clipping
>>> ( when I have time), to capture the most tonal levels . So, now when I
>>> am editing the photos they are over exposed(not clipped). A sunrise is
>>> a good example. The deep colors are washed out. The obvious fix(to me
>>> anyway) ...
>>
>> ... doesn't seem to be obvious to you. Instead of learning how to expose
>> each scene properly and not rely on dumbed-down point and shoot
>> snapshooter's suggestions (like "expose to the right", which only applies
>> to very few subjects) or depending on your automatic point and shoot modes
>> of your camera, you'll forever be wasting your time in editing instead of
>> taking photos the right way to begin with.
>>
>> This is what you get for taking to heart the lame "one size fits all"
>> dumbed-down snapshooters suggestions made by all point 'n shooters and
>> armchair photographers on the net.
>>
>
>
>This sounds like the P&S troll.

It is.

>"Exposing for jpeg" which is what he proposes is NOT
>the absolute best way to use a more capable camera like a dSLR.
>
>That is, indeed, to expose for the highlights, putting them
>just under the clipping value, and save as raw. Fix later
>in the raw->jpeg conversion.
>
>Doug

Report message to a moderator

Sun, 04 October 2009 13:01

john[16] (Photoshop begginer)

On Sun, 4 Oct 2009 06:25:12 -0700 (PDT), Porte Rouge
<porterougeman@gmail.com> wrote:

>I set my exposure to slide the histogram to the right, without clipping
>( when I have time), to capture the most tonal levels . So, now when I
>am editing the photos they are over exposed(not clipped). A sunrise is
>a good example. The deep colors are washed out. The obvious fix(to me
>anyway) in Lightroom or CS4 is to reduce the exposure. Now my question
>is, by reducing exposure in post, am I just ending up in the same place
>(histogram to the left) as if I had just ignored the histogram when I
>was shooting and set the exposure to properly expose the image using
>my light meter? I guess in short I am asking if Lightroom or CS4 loses
>tonal values when you reduce exposure in editing.

You overexpose short of clipping, the apply a likewise (if preferred)
reverse adjustment in post. This is to maximize the signal-to-noise
and tonal gradations in the exposure.

The tonal aspect is analogous to setting a digital multimeter to the
proper scale before taking a reading, in order to maximize the
significant digits.

Report message to a moderator

Sun, 04 October 2009 13:10

adykes (Photoshop expert)

In article <1gkhc5hsgi6fasjanur2a0ojc5v03thhrp@4ax.com>,
John A. <john@nowhere.invalid> wrote:
>On Sun, 4 Oct 2009 06:25:12 -0700 (PDT), Porte Rouge
><porterougeman@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>I set my exposure to slide the histogram to the right, without clipping
>>( when I have time), to capture the most tonal levels . So, now when I
>>am editing the photos they are over exposed(not clipped). A sunrise is
>>a good example. The deep colors are washed out. The obvious fix(to me
>>anyway) in Lightroom or CS4 is to reduce the exposure. Now my question
>>is, by reducing exposure in post, am I just ending up in the same place
>>(histogram to the left) as if I had just ignored the histogram when I
>>was shooting and set the exposure to properly expose the image using
>>my light meter? I guess in short I am asking if Lightroom or CS4 loses
>>tonal values when you reduce exposure in editing.
>
>You overexpose short of clipping, the apply a likewise (if preferred)
>reverse adjustment in post. This is to maximize the signal-to-noise
>and tonal gradations in the exposure.
>
>The tonal aspect is analogous to setting a digital multimeter to the
>proper scale before taking a reading, in order to maximize the
>significant digits.

This blog article talks about making the best of exposing to the
right.

http://www.luminous-landscape.com/tutorials/right-hista.shtm l
--
Al Dykes
News is something someone wants to suppress, everything else is advertising.
- Lord Northcliffe, publisher of the Daily Mail

Report message to a moderator

Sun, 04 October 2009 13:25

Paul Furman (Photoshop expert)

Al Dykes wrote:
> In article <1gkhc5hsgi6fasjanur2a0ojc5v03thhrp@4ax.com>,
> John A. <john@nowhere.invalid> wrote:
>> On Sun, 4 Oct 2009 06:25:12 -0700 (PDT), Porte Rouge
>> <porterougeman@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> I set my exposure to slide the histogram to the right, without clipping
>>> ( when I have time), to capture the most tonal levels . So, now when I
>>> am editing the photos they are over exposed(not clipped). A sunrise is
>>> a good example. The deep colors are washed out. The obvious fix(to me
>>> anyway) in Lightroom or CS4 is to reduce the exposure. Now my question
>>> is, by reducing exposure in post, am I just ending up in the same place
>>> (histogram to the left) as if I had just ignored the histogram when I
>>> was shooting and set the exposure to properly expose the image using
>>> my light meter? I guess in short I am asking if Lightroom or CS4 loses
>>> tonal values when you reduce exposure in editing.
>> You overexpose short of clipping, the apply a likewise (if preferred)
>> reverse adjustment in post. This is to maximize the signal-to-noise
>> and tonal gradations in the exposure.
>>
>> The tonal aspect is analogous to setting a digital multimeter to the
>> proper scale before taking a reading, in order to maximize the
>> significant digits.
>
>
> This blog article talks about making the best of exposing to the
> right.
>
> http://www.luminous-landscape.com/tutorials/right-hista.shtm l

And the previous article linked from there explains how the significant
digits benefit works:
http://www.luminous-landscape.com/tutorials/expose-right.sht ml

--
Paul Furman
www.edgehill.net
www.baynatives.com

all google groups messages filtered due to spam

Report message to a moderator

Sun, 04 October 2009 13:48

Doug McDonald (Photoshop begginer)

Porte Rouge wrote:

>
> Do you have more to say about which way you set exposure and when?
> I am genuinely interested in how you decide to set exposure. At this
> point I actually use both, "expose to the right" and light meter, for
> the "fine art" shots. I can't see a difference, I was just curious in
> a CD versus vinyl sort of way.
>

It is experience, about when it matters to get the highlights just exactly
"right", which does as someone mentioned including correctly clipping the
ultra bright things like specular reflections and lamps.

I am mainly concerned with clouds in landscapes. Clipping
those can lead to really bad results at times.

When the going gets tough in such cases (landscapes) the Photoshop
Highlight/shadow tool is the critical one. But it takes practice.

Doug McDonald

Report message to a moderator

Sun, 04 October 2009 13:52

Doug McDonald (Photoshop begginer)

Porte Rouge wrote:

> Do you have more to say about which way you set exposure and when?

One more thing about histograms in the camera: at least in Canons,
they are made from the in-camera jpeg! This means that to make them
useful, you have to set the camera to make jpegs using "faithful"
mode, and contrast set to -3 or -4. Even so, it is only approximate.
You also need to use the "flashing overload" indicator on the
camera review screen. If you set contrast to 0 or more (remember, this is Canon)
and trust the histogram, you will still lose dynamic range.

Experience.

Doug McDonald

Report message to a moderator

Sun, 04 October 2009 19:49

Porte Rouge (Photoshop begginer)

On Oct 4, 1:52 pm, Doug McDonald
<mcdon...@scs.uiuc.edu.remove.invalid> wrote:
> Porte Rouge wrote:
> > Do you have more to say about which way you set exposure and when?
>
> One more thing about histograms in the camera: at least in Canons,
> they are made from the in-camera jpeg!

Do you know if this is true of the Nikon D200?

This means that to make them
> useful, you have to set the camera to make jpegs using "faithful"
> mode,

I'm sorry, what is "faithful" mode?

and contrast set to -3 or -4. Even so, it is only approximate.
> You also need to use the "flashing overload" indicator on the
> camera review screen. If you set contrast to 0 or more (remember, this is Canon)
> and trust the histogram, you will still lose dynamic range.
>
> Experience.
>
> Doug McDonald

I use the flashing overload indicator, too. It sounds like I need
to do some test shots and see if clipped in the camera LCD is clipped
in ACR or Lightroom.

Report message to a moderator

Sun, 04 October 2009 19:57

Porte Rouge (Photoshop begginer)

On Oct 4, 12:34 pm, Alan Browne <alan.bro...@FreelunchVideotron.ca>
wrote:
> Doug McDonald wrote:
> > taylor aldler wrote:
> >> On Sun, 4 Oct 2009 06:25:12 -0700 (PDT), Porte Rouge
> >> <porterouge...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >>> I set my exposure to slide the histogram to the right, without clipping
> >>> ( when I have time), to capture the most tonal levels . So, now when I
> >>> am editing the photos they are over exposed(not clipped). A sunrise is
> >>> a good example. The deep colors are washed out. The obvious fix(to me
> >>> anyway) ...
>
> >> ... doesn't seem to be obvious to you. Instead of learning how to expose
> >> each scene properly and not rely on dumbed-down point and shoot
> >> snapshooter's suggestions (like "expose to the right", which only applies
> >> to very few subjects) or depending on your automatic point and shoot
> >> modes
> >> of your camera, you'll forever be wasting your time in editing instead of
> >> taking photos the right way to begin with.
>
> >> This is what you get for taking to heart the lame "one size fits all"
> >> dumbed-down snapshooters suggestions made by all point 'n shooters and
> >> armchair photographers on the net.
>
> > This sounds like the P&S troll.
>
> > "Exposing for jpeg" which is what he proposes is NOT
> > the absolute best way to use a more capable camera like a dSLR.
>
> > That is, indeed, to expose for the highlights, putting them
> > just under the clipping value, and save as raw. Fix later
> > in the raw->jpeg conversion.
>
> And by the way, allowing some highlights to clip (direct lighting, some
> specular reflections) is quite alright, otherwise you'll push the middle
> down into the shadows and increase noise.

That is a good point. I hadn't thought of that.

> This is where good spot metering skills come in.

Report message to a moderator

Sun, 04 October 2009 20:19

john[16] (Photoshop begginer)

On Sun, 4 Oct 2009 16:49:29 -0700 (PDT), Porte Rouge
<porterougeman@gmail.com> wrote:

>On Oct 4, 1:52 pm, Doug McDonald
><mcdon...@scs.uiuc.edu.remove.invalid> wrote:
>> Porte Rouge wrote:
>> > Do you have more to say about which way you set exposure and when?
>>
>> One more thing about histograms in the camera: at least in Canons,
>> they are made from the in-camera jpeg!
>
>Do you know if this is true of the Nikon D200?
>
>
> This means that to make them
>> useful, you have to set the camera to make jpegs using "faithful"
>> mode,
>
>I'm sorry, what is "faithful" mode?

You may want to look at this page on uniWB (Unitary White Balance):
http://www.guillermoluijk.com/tutorial/uniwb/index_en.htm

> and contrast set to -3 or -4. Even so, it is only approximate.
>> You also need to use the "flashing overload" indicator on the
>> camera review screen. If you set contrast to 0 or more (remember, this is Canon)
>> and trust the histogram, you will still lose dynamic range.
>>
>> Experience.
>>
>> Doug McDonald
>
> I use the flashing overload indicator, too. It sounds like I need
>to do some test shots and see if clipped in the camera LCD is clipped
>in ACR or Lightroom.

Report message to a moderator

Sun, 04 October 2009 20:25

Porte Rouge (Photoshop begginer)

On Oct 4, 1:10 pm, ady...@panix.com (Al Dykes) wrote:
> In article <1gkhc5hsgi6fasjanur2a0ojc5v03th...@4ax.com>,
> John A. <j...@nowhere.invalid> wrote:
>
>
>
> >On Sun, 4 Oct 2009 06:25:12 -0700 (PDT), Porte Rouge
> ><porterouge...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >>I set my exposure to slide the histogram to the right, without clipping
> >>( when I have time), to capture the most tonal levels . So, now when I
> >>am editing the photos they are over exposed(not clipped). A sunrise is
> >>a good example. The deep colors are washed out. The obvious fix(to me
> >>anyway) in Lightroom or CS4 is to reduce the exposure. Now my question
> >>is, by reducing exposure in post, am I just ending up in the same place
> >>(histogram to the left) as if I had just ignored the histogram when I
> >>was shooting and set the exposure to properly expose the image using
> >>my light meter? I guess in short I am asking if Lightroom or CS4 loses
> >>tonal values when you reduce exposure in editing.
>
> >You overexpose short of clipping, the apply a likewise (if preferred)
> >reverse adjustment in post. This is to maximize the signal-to-noise
> >and tonal gradations in the exposure.
>
> >The tonal aspect is analogous to setting a digital multimeter to the
> >proper scale before taking a reading, in order to maximize the
> >significant digits.
>
> This blog article talks about making the best of exposing to the
> right.
>
> http://www.luminous-landscape.com/tutorials/right-hista.shtm l
> --
> Al Dykes
> News is something someone wants to suppress, everything else is advertising.
> - Lord Northcliffe, publisher of the Daily Mail

Wow, good stuff. I had to run out and get my camera and check the
settings. I don't understand what he says about the white balance. I
have it set on auto and have ignored it when shooting RAW. Should I
adjust it for each lighting condition when I shoot and this will give
me a truer histogram?

Porte

Report message to a moderator

Sun, 04 October 2009 23:06

taylor aldler (Photoshop begginer)

On Sun, 4 Oct 2009 09:47:45 -0700 (PDT), Porte Rouge
<porterougeman@gmail.com> wrote:

>On Oct 4, 11:39 am, Robert Spanjaard <spamt...@arumes.com> wrote:
>> On Sun, 04 Oct 2009 10:17:25 -0500, Doug McDonald wrote:
>> >> ... doesn't seem to be obvious to you. Instead of learning how to
>> >> expose each scene properly and not rely on dumbed-down point and shoot
>> >> snapshooter's suggestions (like "expose to the right", which only
>> >> applies to very few subjects) or depending on your automatic point and
>> >> shoot modes of your camera, you'll forever be wasting your time in
>> >> editing instead of taking photos the right way to begin with.
>>
>> >> This is what you get for taking to heart the lame "one size fits all"
>> >> dumbed-down snapshooters suggestions made by all point 'n shooters and
>> >> armchair photographers on the net.
>>
>> > This sounds like the P&S troll.
>>
>> > "Exposing for jpeg" which is what he proposes is NOT the absolute best
>> > way to use a more capable camera like a dSLR.
>>
>> > That is, indeed, to expose for the highlights, putting them just under
>> > the clipping value, and save as raw. Fix later in the raw->jpeg
>> > conversion.
>>
>> Your method is not the absolute best way either. There is no absolute
>> best way.
>>
>> --
>> Regards, Robert �http://www.arumes.com
>
> Do you have more to say about which way you set exposure and when?
>I am genuinely interested in how you decide to set exposure. At this
>point I actually use both, "expose to the right" and light meter, for
>the "fine art" shots. I can't see a difference, I was just curious in
>a CD versus vinyl sort of way.
>
>Porte

There IS NO ONE RIGHT WAY. Not even a cut 'n dried dozen right ways. Each
and every photograph requires a unique way to expose it properly. No
automated metering system in the world will ever get it right for you.
Unless you are like most people, a point 'n shooter, wanting some tech-head
in a computer lab trying to decide your exposures for you the rest of your
life. The metering recommendation designed and programmed by someone who's
never taken one photo in their life. Or even worse, if you depend on the
advice of all those armchair photographers that infest the net and
newsgroups. Those desperately pretending to be photographers, laughing to
themselves when they find out they managed to convince someone to do as
they told you to do, never having held even one camera in their own
lifetime. And you all fall for it like the fools that you are.

This is why I find a live-view display (EVF or LCD) so valuable today. I
can instantly see that I have to lower the exposure of a sunrise or sunset
by as much as 2.5-3.0 EV stops to properly capture the intense colors and
dramatic cloud contrasts. I can instantly see why I have to overexpose the
scene on the water by up to 1.5 EV steps or more and let all those
highlights on the water go out completely. I can instantly see that in
order to capture the moon's features while it's rising above that mountain
peak that I'll have to underexpose by 4 or more stops, ambient light
depending.

If you are depending on your metering system, depending on some lame-assed
one-size-fits-all amateur's recommendation of "always expose to the right",
and all the other inane nonsense of theirs, it will only keep you glued to
your editor trying to desperately repair what you failed to do right in the
first place. Never getting it quite right in editing, ever, no matter what
you do. RAW file or not. I shoot with RAW files and I NEVER use that lame
beginner snapshooter's recommendation of "expose to the right".

Photography (digital especially) may be greatly depending on science, but
it is all art. 100% art. There's no one right color of oil-paints, no one
right medium, no one right brush, no one right way to create a
brush-stroke. ...

Get your heads out of your collective tech-head's asses.

Report message to a moderator

Mon, 05 October 2009 11:35

Porte Rouge (Photoshop begginer)

On Oct 4, 11:06 pm, taylor aldler <tald...@nospam.org> wrote:
> On Sun, 4 Oct 2009 09:47:45 -0700 (PDT), Porte Rouge
>
>
>
> <porterouge...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >On Oct 4, 11:39 am, Robert Spanjaard <spamt...@arumes.com> wrote:
> >> On Sun, 04 Oct 2009 10:17:25 -0500, Doug McDonald wrote:
> >> >> ... doesn't seem to be obvious to you. Instead of learning how to
> >> >> expose each scene properly and not rely on dumbed-down point and shoot
> >> >> snapshooter's suggestions (like "expose to the right", which only
> >> >> applies to very few subjects) or depending on your automatic point and
> >> >> shoot modes of your camera, you'll forever be wasting your time in
> >> >> editing instead of taking photos the right way to begin with.
>
> >> >> This is what you get for taking to heart the lame "one size fits all"
> >> >> dumbed-down snapshooters suggestions made by all point 'n shooters and
> >> >> armchair photographers on the net.
>
> >> > This sounds like the P&S troll.
>
> >> > "Exposing for jpeg" which is what he proposes is NOT the absolute best
> >> > way to use a more capable camera like a dSLR.
>
> >> > That is, indeed, to expose for the highlights, putting them just under
> >> > the clipping value, and save as raw. Fix later in the raw->jpeg
> >> > conversion.
>
> >> Your method is not the absolute best way either. There is no absolute
> >> best way.
>
> >> --
> >> Regards, Robert �http://www.arumes.com
>
> > Do you have more to say about which way you set exposure and when?
> >I am genuinely interested in how you decide to set exposure. At this
> >point I actually use both, "expose to the right" and light meter, for
> >the "fine art" shots. I can't see a difference, I was just curious in
> >a CD versus vinyl sort of way.
>
> >Porte
>
> There IS NO ONE RIGHT WAY. Not even a cut 'n dried dozen right ways. Each
> and every photograph requires a unique way to expose it properly. No
> automated metering system in the world will ever get it right for you.
> Unless you are like most people, a point 'n shooter, wanting some tech-head
> in a computer lab trying to decide your exposures for you the rest of your
> life. The metering recommendation designed and programmed by someone who's
> never taken one photo in their life. Or even worse, if you depend on the
> advice of all those armchair photographers that infest the net and
> newsgroups. Those desperately pretending to be photographers, laughing to
> themselves when they find out they managed to convince someone to do as
> they told you to do, never having held even one camera in their own
> lifetime. And you all fall for it like the fools that you are.
>
> This is why I find a live-view display (EVF or LCD) so valuable today. I
> can instantly see that I have to lower the exposure of a sunrise or sunset
> by as much as 2.5-3.0 EV stops to properly capture the intense colors and
> dramatic cloud contrasts. I can instantly see why I have to overexpose the
> scene on the water by up to 1.5 EV steps or more and let all those
> highlights on the water go out completely. I can instantly see that in
> order to capture the moon's features while it's rising above that mountain
> peak that I'll have to underexpose by 4 or more stops, ambient light
> depending.
>
> If you are depending on your metering system, depending on some lame-assed
> one-size-fits-all amateur's recommendation of "always expose to the right",
> and all the other inane nonsense of theirs, it will only keep you glued to
> your editor trying to desperately repair what you failed to do right in the
> first place. Never getting it quite right in editing, ever, no matter what
> you do. RAW file or not. I shoot with RAW files and I NEVER use that lame
> beginner snapshooter's recommendation of "expose to the right".
>
> Photography (digital especially) may be greatly depending on science, but
> it is all art. 100% art. There's no one right color of oil-paints, no one
> right medium, no one right brush, no one right way to create a
> brush-stroke. ...
>
> Get your heads out of your collective tech-head's asses.

Is the live view a JPEG generated by the camera?

Report message to a moderator

Mon, 05 October 2009 17:44

Charles (Advanced Photoshop user)

>> Porte
> For me, digital is the opposite of film in exposure emphasis.
> In film, you expose for the shadows, while in digital you should expose
> for the highlights.
> You can't print underexposed shadows on a film negative but you can burn
> in overexposed highlights since the negatives tend to hold some
> information in that area.
> You can't print overexposed highlights in a digital image but you can
> tease out information from underexposed shadows in digital processing.
> You can't treat your entire image the same way, so you need to apply
> techniques similar to dodging and burning in the digital realm using area
> adjustments of an image and the various tools/techniques available in
> image editors.

Exactly! The clipping that occurs in digital photography is rather harsh
.... all scene details more luminous than the clipping (saturation of the
sensor) point are gone, gone, gone. You can't tease them out with any
amount of post-processing, regardless of how heroic or exotic. I fail to
understand why such a basic concept is so hard to understand.

Film does not "clip" in the same manner and some folks just don't seem to
get it. There are curves with soft knees and then there are curves with
very sharp knees. They are very different (in terms of useful output) when
the input data approaches and exceeds them. A soft knee means that there is
compression of the data and that means that a correction that employs
decompression can restore the data, at least to some extent.

So, expose to the right if you can afford lost high-lites ... and I do mean
to emphasize LOST. Like a hair-cut, clipped is gone.

Report message to a moderator

Mon, 05 October 2009 18:10

Doug McDonald (Photoshop begginer)

Charles wrote:

>
> So, expose to the right if you can afford lost high-lites ... and I do mean
> to emphasize LOST. Like a hair-cut, clipped is gone.
>
>

The point is to expose to the right if you can't afford to lose
low light detail, just be careful to avoid sensor overload
where you don't want it.

It works just fine, unless you are an idiot
P&S troll that just wants to depend on P&S to do his
job.

Doug McDonald

Report message to a moderator

Mon, 05 October 2009 19:23

floyd (Advanced Photoshop user)

"Charles" <charlesschuler@comcast.net> wrote:
>>> Porte
>> For me, digital is the opposite of film in exposure emphasis.
>> In film, you expose for the shadows, while in digital you should expose
>> for the highlights.

Actually, since film is a negative, the two are in fact
actually the same. Expose for the brightest range of the
*recording* *mechanism*.

That just happens to be the dark areas of a scene with
film (where the negative is clear) and the bright areas
of a scene with an electronic sensor (the highest
voltage output).

>> You can't print underexposed shadows on a film negative but you can burn
>> in overexposed highlights since the negatives tend to hold some
>> information in that area.
>>
>> You can't print overexposed highlights in a digital image but you can
>> tease out information from underexposed shadows in digital processing.
>> You can't treat your entire image the same way, so you need to apply
>> techniques similar to dodging and burning in the digital realm using area
>> adjustments of an image and the various tools/techniques available in
>> image editors.
>
>Exactly! The clipping that occurs in digital photography is rather harsh
>... all scene details more luminous than the clipping (saturation of the
>sensor) point are gone, gone, gone. You can't tease them out with any
>amount of post-processing, regardless of how heroic or exotic. I fail to
>understand why such a basic concept is so hard to understand.

Digital clipping is almost never "saturation of the
sensor". Unless you are shooting at the base ISO
clipping is saturation of the Analog-Digital-Converter
(ADC) by sensor output that is greater than the maximum
ADC input.

>Film does not "clip" in the same manner and some folks just don't seem to
>get it. There are curves with soft knees and then there are curves with
>very sharp knees. They are very different (in terms of useful output) when
>the input data approaches and exceeds them. A soft knee means that there is
>compression of the data and that means that a correction that employs
>decompression can restore the data, at least to some extent.

That is easy enough to do with digital too, though
obviously "expose to the right" does not do it. And it
should be noted that technically such a compression
curve adds a "noise" to the image! People get all
excited about digital "noise", but rarely understand
what it is, or that such things as the supposed
"latitude" of film constitutes a significant addition of
noise to an image. (Technically it is a "distortion".)

>So, expose to the right if you can afford lost high-lites ... and I do mean
>to emphasize LOST. Like a hair-cut, clipped is gone.

False.

If you apply the philosophy of "expose to the right"
there will be no loss of highlights, unless of course
you *want* to blow some of them away. And that is
commonly the exact desire for such things a light
sources, reflections, etc.

--
Floyd L. Davidson <http://www.apaflo.com/floyd_davidson>
Ukpeagvik (Barrow, Alaska) floyd@apaflo.com

Report message to a moderator

Mon, 05 October 2009 21:12

Paul Furman (Photoshop expert)

Porte Rouge wrote:
> Al Dykes wrote:
>> John A. wrote:
>>> Porte Rouge wrote:
>>
>>>> I set my exposure to slide the histogram to the right, without clipping
>>>> ( when I have time), to capture the most tonal levels . So, now when I
>>>> am editing the photos they are over exposed(not clipped). A sunrise is
>>>> a good example. The deep colors are washed out. The obvious fix(to me
>>>> anyway) in Lightroom or CS4 is to reduce the exposure. Now my question
>>>> is, by reducing exposure in post, am I just ending up in the same place
>>>> (histogram to the left) as if I had just ignored the histogram when I
>>>> was shooting and set the exposure to properly expose the image using
>>>> my light meter? I guess in short I am asking if Lightroom or CS4 loses
>>>> tonal values when you reduce exposure in editing.
>>>
>>> You overexpose short of clipping, the apply a likewise (if preferred)
>>> reverse adjustment in post. This is to maximize the signal-to-noise
>>> and tonal gradations in the exposure.
>>> The tonal aspect is analogous to setting a digital multimeter to the
>>> proper scale before taking a reading, in order to maximize the
>>> significant digits.
>>
>> This blog article talks about making the best of exposing to the
>> right.
>>
>> http://www.luminous-landscape.com/tutorials/right-hista.shtm l
>
> Wow, good stuff. I had to run out and get my camera and check the
> settings. I don't understand what he says about the white balance. I
> have it set on auto and have ignored it when shooting RAW. Should I
> adjust it for each lighting condition when I shoot and this will give
> me a truer histogram?

WB can effect the histogram a lot if you make wild adjustments but auto
is usually close enough to not matter much I'd guess.

--
Paul Furman
www.edgehill.net
www.baynatives.com

all google groups messages filtered due to spam

Report message to a moderator

Mon, 05 October 2009 21:58

floyd (Advanced Photoshop user)

Paul Furman <paul-@-edgehill.net> wrote:
>Porte Rouge wrote:
>> Al Dykes wrote:
>>> John A. wrote:
>>>
>>> This blog article talks about making the best of exposing to the
>>> right.
>>>
>>> http://www.luminous-landscape.com/tutorials/right-hista.shtm l
>> Wow, good stuff. I had to run out and get my camera
>> and check the
>> settings. I don't understand what he says about the white balance. I
>> have it set on auto and have ignored it when shooting RAW. Should I
>> adjust it for each lighting condition when I shoot and this will give
>> me a truer histogram?
>
>WB can effect the histogram a lot if you make wild adjustments but auto
>is usually close enough to not matter much I'd guess.

Sort of depends on how close is "enough". But auto
isn't any different than a wild guess as far as the
histogram goes!

The basic problem is that the sensor has twice as many
green sensors as red or blue sensors, and thus a
"correct" histogram should take that into account, but
doesn't. If WB actually is adjusted to make the
histogram more correct, the JPEG image produced (and
displayed by the camera) will be quite greenish, and not
exactly appealing. (Which means you don't want to show
it to anyone, and have to wait until after the RAW data
is post processed to let anybody see it.)

What is gained, however, is probably not of great
advantage. All you really need to know is that the
right edge of the histogram (and the point at which a
highlight display starts to blink) is probably about 1/2
to 3/4 of an fstop below maximum exposure. Take your
pick... set exposure to where the brightest highlight
just barely blinks, and you lose just under 1 fstop of
dynamic range, but gain exactly that much "latitude" for
over exposed highlights. Or set the exposure about 1/2
to 3/4 an fstop past where the brightest highlight
blinks to get maximum dynamic range (and no latitude).

But regardless of that, the cited URL above from
luminous-landscape is *not* full of good stuff. They
miss the point entirely, and provide nothing that is
actually useful! All that changing in-camera contrast
does is compress/uncompress the histograms idea of
middle gray. It does not change where the highlights
fall, and thus does not change what you would set for
the exposure. (Does anyone ever look at the shape of an
in-camera histogram and make adjustments as a result?
It's a meaningless excercise, which will not change the
camera raw data. The shape of a post processing
histogram is very useful, but not an in-camera
histogram.)

--
Floyd L. Davidson <http://www.apaflo.com/floyd_davidson>
Ukpeagvik (Barrow, Alaska) floyd@apaflo.com

Report message to a moderator

Mon, 05 October 2009 22:18

Doug McDonald (Photoshop begginer)

Floyd L. Davidson wrote:

> But regardless of that, the cited URL above from
> luminous-landscape is *not* full of good stuff. They
> miss the point entirely, and provide nothing that is
> actually useful! All that changing in-camera contrast
> does is compress/uncompress the histograms idea of
> middle gray. It does not change where the highlights
> fall, and thus does not change what you would set for
> the exposure. (Does anyone ever look at the shape of an
> in-camera histogram and make adjustments as a result?
> It's a meaningless excercise, which will not change the
> camera raw data. The shape of a post processing
> histogram is very useful, but not an in-camera
> histogram.)
>

What you say is wrong for the Canon 30D. The histogram does
not change the raw data stored by the camera. But the camera setting DOES
change the camera displayed histogram. IF you set the camera "comtrast"
setting high, the highlights in the histogram get pushed way up
and are indeed useless for setting exposure. Ii you set it low,
at -3 or -4, the histogram displayed by the camera agrees quite nicely
with how close you are getting to clipping. At -4 the blinking clip display,
the histogram, and the raw file all agree well about how close you are
to clipping.

And yes, I do look at the in-camera histogram. It works.

Doug McDonald

Report message to a moderator

Mon, 05 October 2009 23:08

floyd (Advanced Photoshop user)

Doug McDonald <mcdonald@NoSpAmscs.uiuc.edu> wrote:
>Floyd L. Davidson wrote:
>
>> But regardless of that, the cited URL above from
>> luminous-landscape is *not* full of good stuff. They
>> miss the point entirely, and provide nothing that is
>> actually useful! All that changing in-camera contrast
>> does is compress/uncompress the histograms idea of
>> middle gray. It does not change where the highlights
>> fall, and thus does not change what you would set for
>> the exposure. (Does anyone ever look at the shape of an
>> in-camera histogram and make adjustments as a result?
>> It's a meaningless excercise, which will not change the
>> camera raw data. The shape of a post processing
>> histogram is very useful, but not an in-camera
>> histogram.)
>>
>
>What you say is wrong for the Canon 30D. The histogram does
>not change the raw data stored by the camera. But the camera setting DOES
>change the camera displayed histogram. IF you set the camera "comtrast"
>setting high, the highlights in the histogram get pushed way up
>and are indeed useless for setting exposure. Ii you set it low,
>at -3 or -4, the histogram displayed by the camera agrees quite nicely
>with how close you are getting to clipping.

The brightest part will still show at *exactly* the same
place. If you set exposure so that the brightest part
of the histogram is just barely less than the right edge
of the graph, it will be the same regardless of how
in-camera contrast is set. What contrast will change is
how much of the area of the graph is spread out over the
entire graph (low contrast) as opposed to being peaked
in some portion of the graph (high contrast).

Changing the contrast does *not* change the value of the
brightest part of the image, which is what you use to set
exposure by the "expose to the right" method.

>At -4 the blinking clip display,
>the histogram, and the raw file all agree well about how close you are
>to clipping.

If you want to see a good demonstration of how it works,
set your camera to maximum contrast, use manual
exposure, and take a picture of an indoor light fixture.
It will be dramatic if the area around the light fixture
is relatively white and there is little light from any
source other than the fixture. Zoom in or be at a
distance where the light fixture is a significant part
of the image area, but most of it is the area around the
light and thus darker.

Look at the histogram, and experiment with exposure.
The idea is to find the exact exposure where the
histogram bumps the right side of the chart. More
exposure will cause a spike to climb up the right side,
less exposure will cause gap to form between the graph
and the right side. Perhaps the ideal exposure for this
experiment is where there is just a small spike, because it
will be easiest to compare the height of the spike to see
if exposure changes.

Once you have that, adjust the in-camera contrast
setting from maximum to minimum, and check the histogram
for each exposure. What you'll find is that the little
spike at the right side doesn't change. What does
change is the spread of the less bright areas of the
image. If you shoot a bare bulb and have a dark
background the entire bulk of the graph will be over on
the left side. It will be wider with lower contrast and
narrower for high contrast. The amount of area will
depend on how closely you zoom in on the light fixture
(the ratio of light source to background), and the
spread that it has along the right side of the histogram
will depend on the difference in brightness of the light
and the background.

Adjust the physical attributes to get a useful
histogram. Then change the contrast setting to see what
it actually does affect.

>And yes, I do look at the in-camera histogram. It works.

But what do you look for? Not the distribution of the
area under the graph! That's what the contrast setting
will change. It does not change the highest value of
the displayed graph though (which exposure does change).

--
Floyd L. Davidson <http://www.apaflo.com/floyd_davidson>
Ukpeagvik (Barrow, Alaska) floyd@apaflo.com

Report message to a moderator

Mon, 05 October 2009 23:11

Tech Play (Photoshop begginer)

On Mon, 05 Oct 2009 21:18:08 -0500, Doug McDonald
<mcdonald@NoSpAmscs.uiuc.edu> wrote:

>Floyd L. Davidson wrote:
>
>> But regardless of that, the cited URL above from
>> luminous-landscape is *not* full of good stuff. They
>> miss the point entirely, and provide nothing that is
>> actually useful! All that changing in-camera contrast
>> does is compress/uncompress the histograms idea of
>> middle gray. It does not change where the highlights
>> fall, and thus does not change what you would set for
>> the exposure. (Does anyone ever look at the shape of an
>> in-camera histogram and make adjustments as a result?
>> It's a meaningless excercise, which will not change the
>> camera raw data. The shape of a post processing
>> histogram is very useful, but not an in-camera
>> histogram.)
>>
>
>What you say is wrong for the Canon 30D. The histogram does
>not change the raw data stored by the camera. But the camera setting DOES
>change the camera displayed histogram. IF you set the camera "comtrast"
>setting high, the highlights in the histogram get pushed way up
>and are indeed useless for setting exposure. Ii you set it low,
>at -3 or -4, the histogram displayed by the camera agrees quite nicely
>with how close you are getting to clipping. At -4 the blinking clip display,
>the histogram, and the raw file all agree well about how close you are
>to clipping.
>
>And yes, I do look at the in-camera histogram. It works.
>
>Doug McDonald

If you had a CHDK capable camera, you could use any of the various
live-view RGB color histograms to find out which of any color channels need
to have their contrast reduced too. I found that an overall -2 on contrast
on the "custom color" settings along with a -2 setting on the R channel of
Canon cameras gives a more accurate rendition, provides maximum dynamic
range, and doesn't clip the R channel first on highlights. I could reduce B
and G by a -2 also for even more dynamic range, but then I'd lose out the
nice balance. And, quite frankly, it already has more dynamic range than
any film I used to use, so it's not all that important. Few if any
interesting and well composed shots will benefit from more dynamic range. A
large dynamic range is the crutch of snapshooters that don't know how to
properly expose a subject in the first place and will then always try to
depend on post-processing to fix all their beginner's errors.

Report message to a moderator

Mon, 05 October 2009 23:42

Eric Stevens (Photoshop begginer)

On Mon, 05 Oct 2009 17:58:51 -0800, floyd@apaflo.com (Floyd L.
Davidson) wrote:

>Paul Furman <paul-@-edgehill.net> wrote:
>>Porte Rouge wrote:
>>> Al Dykes wrote:
>>>> John A. wrote:
>>>>
>>>> This blog article talks about making the best of exposing to the
>>>> right.
>>>>
>>>> http://www.luminous-landscape.com/tutorials/right-hista.shtm l
>>> Wow, good stuff. I had to run out and get my camera
>>> and check the
>>> settings. I don't understand what he says about the white balance. I
>>> have it set on auto and have ignored it when shooting RAW. Should I
>>> adjust it for each lighting condition when I shoot and this will give
>>> me a truer histogram?
>>
>>WB can effect the histogram a lot if you make wild adjustments but auto
>>is usually close enough to not matter much I'd guess.
>
>Sort of depends on how close is "enough". But auto
>isn't any different than a wild guess as far as the
>histogram goes!
>
>The basic problem is that the sensor has twice as many
>green sensors as red or blue sensors, and thus a
>"correct" histogram should take that into account, but
>doesn't. If WB actually is adjusted to make the
>histogram more correct, the JPEG image produced (and
>displayed by the camera) will be quite greenish, and not
>exactly appealing. (Which means you don't want to show
>it to anyone, and have to wait until after the RAW data
>is post processed to let anybody see it.)
>
>What is gained, however, is probably not of great
>advantage. All you really need to know is that the
>right edge of the histogram (and the point at which a
>highlight display starts to blink) is probably about 1/2
>to 3/4 of an fstop below maximum exposure. Take your
>pick... set exposure to where the brightest highlight
>just barely blinks, and you lose just under 1 fstop of
>dynamic range, but gain exactly that much "latitude" for
>over exposed highlights. Or set the exposure about 1/2
>to 3/4 an fstop past where the brightest highlight
>blinks to get maximum dynamic range (and no latitude).
>
>But regardless of that, the cited URL above from
>luminous-landscape is *not* full of good stuff. They
>miss the point entirely, and provide nothing that is
>actually useful! All that changing in-camera contrast
>does is compress/uncompress the histograms idea of
>middle gray. It does not change where the highlights
>fall, and thus does not change what you would set for
>the exposure. (Does anyone ever look at the shape of an
>in-camera histogram and make adjustments as a result?

I do, and I expect many others would also.

I take it from this question you do not do this and take your
exposures as you find them.

>It's a meaningless excercise, which will not change the
>camera raw data. The shape of a post processing
>histogram is very useful, but not an in-camera
>histogram.)

With respect, you are wrong. The in-camera histogram will help you
adjust your exposure if the first one is not right.

Eric Stevens

Report message to a moderator

Tue, 06 October 2009 03:51

DPeterMaus (Photoshop begginer)

On 10/5/09 16:44 , Charles wrote:
>>> Porte
>> For me, digital is the opposite of film in exposure emphasis.
>> In film, you expose for the shadows, while in digital you should expose
>> for the highlights.
>> You can't print underexposed shadows on a film negative but you can burn
>> in overexposed highlights since the negatives tend to hold some
>> information in that area.
>> You can't print overexposed highlights in a digital image but you can
>> tease out information from underexposed shadows in digital processing.
>> You can't treat your entire image the same way, so you need to apply
>> techniques similar to dodging and burning in the digital realm using area
>> adjustments of an image and the various tools/techniques available in
>> image editors.
>
> Exactly! The clipping that occurs in digital photography is rather harsh
> ... all scene details more luminous than the clipping (saturation of the
> sensor) point are gone, gone, gone. You can't tease them out with any
> amount of post-processing, regardless of how heroic or exotic. I fail to
> understand why such a basic concept is so hard to understand.
>

You've answered your own questions, here.

> Film does not "clip" in the same manner and some folks just don't seem to
> get it. There are curves with soft knees and then there are curves with
> very sharp knees. They are very different (in terms of useful output) when
> the input data approaches and exceeds them. A soft knee means that there is
> compression of the data and that means that a correction that employs
> decompression can restore the data, at least to some extent.
>
> So, expose to the right if you can afford lost high-lites ... and I do mean
> to emphasize LOST. Like a hair-cut, clipped is gone.
>

Not all highlights contain details. These can be lost. That
reflection in a Packard's bumper on a bright, sunny day is just a
bright spot. Expose to retain that detail and you'll be looking at
the kind of night shot done by Hollywood in the days of "Yancy
Derringer."

Accept that those specular reflections contains no detail, and
you can easily expose more 'to the right' without any loss of image
detail, while recovering more low light detail with lower noise.

Dynamic range compression with film was a limitation that
shooters learned to work around, embrace, or simply accept. And like
tape hiss in analog audio, it covered a multitude of sins.

The linear nature of digital is no different. It's a limitation
that requires practical evasions. You either learn to work with it,
or not. And the output reflects your choice.

Report message to a moderator

Tue, 06 October 2009 04:52

floyd (Advanced Photoshop user)

Eric Stevens <eric.stevens@sum.co.nz> wrote:
>On Mon, 05 Oct 2009 17:58:51 -0800, floyd@apaflo.com (Floyd L.
>Davidson) wrote:
>>But regardless of that, the cited URL above from
>>luminous-landscape is *not* full of good stuff. They
>>miss the point entirely, and provide nothing that is
>>actually useful! All that changing in-camera contrast
>>does is compress/uncompress the histograms idea of
>>middle gray. It does not change where the highlights
>>fall, and thus does not change what you would set for
>>the exposure. (Does anyone ever look at the shape of an
>>in-camera histogram and make adjustments as a result?
>
>I do, and I expect many others would also.
>
>I take it from this question you do not do this and take your
>exposures as you find them.

As I noted, the *shape* of the curve has absolutely
nothing to do with setting exposure.

If you check the shape, what you learn is the tonal
distribution within the recorded dynamic range, not the
range itself. The histogram shape, and thus the
in-camera contrast setting, is useless and has no effect
at all on the camera raw data that is later manipulated
with post processing.

>>It's a meaningless excercise, which will not change the
>>camera raw data. The shape of a post processing
>>histogram is very useful, but not an in-camera
>>histogram.)
>
>With respect, you are wrong. The in-camera histogram will help you
>adjust your exposure if the first one is not right.

You need to learn to read a little better Steven.

The histogram will help you adjust your exposure, and
that is *exactly* what I have said. What I've also said
is that changing the in-camera contrast setting does not
change the histogram in any way that will affect
exposure. It does *not* change how close the graph approaches
the right side. All it does is change the distribution
of the graph outward from the left side.

--
Floyd L. Davidson <http://www.apaflo.com/floyd_davidson>
Ukpeagvik (Barrow, Alaska) floyd@apaflo.com

Report message to a moderator

Tue, 06 October 2009 10:24

Paul Furman (Photoshop expert)

Floyd L. Davidson wrote:
> Doug McDonald <mcdonald@NoSpAmscs.uiuc.edu> wrote:
>> Floyd L. Davidson wrote:
>>
>>> But regardless of that, the cited URL above from
>>> luminous-landscape is *not* full of good stuff. They
>>> miss the point entirely, and provide nothing that is
>>> actually useful! All that changing in-camera contrast
>>> does is compress/uncompress the histograms idea of
>>> middle gray. It does not change where the highlights
>>> fall, and thus does not change what you would set for
>>> the exposure. (Does anyone ever look at the shape of an
>>> in-camera histogram and make adjustments as a result?
>>> It's a meaningless excercise, which will not change the
>>> camera raw data. The shape of a post processing
>>> histogram is very useful, but not an in-camera
>>> histogram.)
>>>
>> What you say is wrong for the Canon 30D. The histogram does
>> not change the raw data stored by the camera. But the camera setting DOES
>> change the camera displayed histogram. IF you set the camera "comtrast"
>> setting high, the highlights in the histogram get pushed way up
>> and are indeed useless for setting exposure. Ii you set it low,
>> at -3 or -4, the histogram displayed by the camera agrees quite nicely
>> with how close you are getting to clipping.
>
> The brightest part will still show at *exactly* the same
> place.

Maybe for contrast (though I doubt it) but WB makes a big difference. I
just tested at 25K & 100K, the highlights are completely different. I'm
looking at split RGB histograms btw.

> If you set exposure so that the brightest part
> of the histogram is just barely less than the right edge
> of the graph, it will be the same regardless of how
> in-camera contrast is set. What contrast will change is
> how much of the area of the graph is spread out over the
> entire graph (low contrast) as opposed to being peaked
> in some portion of the graph (high contrast).
>
> Changing the contrast does *not* change the value of the
> brightest part of the image, which is what you use to set
> exposure by the "expose to the right" method.
>
>> At -4 the blinking clip display,
>> the histogram, and the raw file all agree well about how close you are
>> to clipping.
>
> If you want to see a good demonstration of how it works,
> set your camera to maximum contrast, use manual
> exposure, and take a picture of an indoor light fixture.
> It will be dramatic if the area around the light fixture
> is relatively white and there is little light from any
> source other than the fixture. Zoom in or be at a
> distance where the light fixture is a significant part
> of the image area, but most of it is the area around the
> light and thus darker.
>
> Look at the histogram, and experiment with exposure.
> The idea is to find the exact exposure where the
> histogram bumps the right side of the chart. More
> exposure will cause a spike to climb up the right side,
> less exposure will cause gap to form between the graph
> and the right side. Perhaps the ideal exposure for this
> experiment is where there is just a small spike, because it
> will be easiest to compare the height of the spike to see
> if exposure changes.
>
> Once you have that, adjust the in-camera contrast
> setting from maximum to minimum, and check the histogram
> for each exposure. What you'll find is that the little
> spike at the right side doesn't change. What does
> change is the spread of the less bright areas of the
> image. If you shoot a bare bulb and have a dark
> background the entire bulk of the graph will be over on
> the left side. It will be wider with lower contrast and
> narrower for high contrast. The amount of area will
> depend on how closely you zoom in on the light fixture
> (the ratio of light source to background), and the
> spread that it has along the right side of the histogram
> will depend on the difference in brightness of the light
> and the background.
>
> Adjust the physical attributes to get a useful
> histogram. Then change the contrast setting to see what
> it actually does affect.
>
>> And yes, I do look at the in-camera histogram. It works.
>
> But what do you look for? Not the distribution of the
> area under the graph! That's what the contrast setting
> will change. It does not change the highest value of
> the displayed graph though (which exposure does change).
>

--
Paul Furman
www.edgehill.net
www.baynatives.com

all google groups messages filtered due to spam

Report message to a moderator

Tue, 06 October 2009 10:49

Doug McDonald (Photoshop begginer)

Floyd L. Davidson wrote:
>
> As I noted, the *shape* of the curve has absolutely
> nothing to do with setting exposure.
>
> If you check the shape, what you learn is the tonal
> distribution within the recorded dynamic range, not the
> range itself.

For the Canon 30D, that is incorrect. True, you do learn the shape.

But at contrast levels (as described in the camera setup)
of -3 or 0-, you **DO** learn at least the high end of the
contrast range. Do you understand this? That is, at -3 or -4,
there is enough detain in the in-camera histogram to tell,
quite accurately, how close you are to overload of the raw file.
At -2 or higher, the compression of the (internal) jpeg from which
the histogram is made makes telling that problematic.

> The histogram shape, and thus the
> in-camera contrast setting, is useless and has no effect
> at all on the camera raw data that is later manipulated
> with post processing.

At settings more than -3, that is true always, and yes,
it has no effect on the raw file.

>
>>> It's a meaningless excercise, which will not change the
>>> camera raw data. The shape of a post processing
>>> histogram is very useful, but not an in-camera
>>> histogram.)
>> With respect, you are wrong. The in-camera histogram will help you
>> adjust your exposure if the first one is not right.
>
> You need to learn to read a little better Steven.
>
> The histogram will help you adjust your exposure, and
> that is *exactly* what I have said. What I've also said
> is that changing the in-camera contrast setting does not
> change the histogram in any way that will affect
> exposure. It does *not* change how close the graph approaches
> the right side. All it does is change the distribution
> of the graph outward from the left side.

THAT LAST PARAGRAPH IS INCORRECT FOR THE CANON 30D!

Changing the in-camera contrast setting DOES change how close
the graph approaches the right side. REALLY!! I've tried it many times.
Changing the in-camera contrast setting seems to expand or contract
the histogram about some point in the middle. I'm not saying its
the exact center, I have not tried telling. I could do this,
but have not.

Have YOU examined the histogram on a Canon 30D?

If you have not, I suggest that you preface your remarks
with "on the cameras I have actually personally tested i.e.
[list of cameras] ...".

Doug McDonald

>

Report message to a moderator

Tue, 06 October 2009 16:39

Eric Stevens (Photoshop begginer)

On Tue, 06 Oct 2009 00:52:09 -0800, floyd@apaflo.com (Floyd L.
Davidson) wrote:

>Eric Stevens <eric.stevens@sum.co.nz> wrote:
>>On Mon, 05 Oct 2009 17:58:51 -0800, floyd@apaflo.com (Floyd L.
>>Davidson) wrote:
>>>But regardless of that, the cited URL above from
>>>luminous-landscape is *not* full of good stuff. They
>>>miss the point entirely, and provide nothing that is
>>>actually useful! All that changing in-camera contrast
>>>does is compress/uncompress the histograms idea of
>>>middle gray. It does not change where the highlights
>>>fall, and thus does not change what you would set for
>>>the exposure. (Does anyone ever look at the shape of an
>>>in-camera histogram and make adjustments as a result?
>>
>>I do, and I expect many others would also.
>>
>>I take it from this question you do not do this and take your
>>exposures as you find them.
>
>As I noted, the *shape* of the curve has absolutely
>nothing to do with setting exposure.
>
>If you check the shape, what you learn is the tonal
>distribution within the recorded dynamic range, not the
>range itself. The histogram shape, and thus the
>in-camera contrast setting, is useless and has no effect
>at all on the camera raw data that is later manipulated
>with post processing.
>
>>>It's a meaningless excercise, which will not change the
>>>camera raw data. The shape of a post processing
>>>histogram is very useful, but not an in-camera
>>>histogram.)
>>
>>With respect, you are wrong. The in-camera histogram will help you
>>adjust your exposure if the first one is not right.
>
>You need to learn to read a little better Steven.
>
>The histogram will help you adjust your exposure, and
>that is *exactly* what I have said. What I've also said
>is that changing the in-camera contrast setting does not
>change the histogram in any way that will affect
>exposure. It does *not* change how close the graph approaches
>the right side. All it does is change the distribution
>of the graph outward from the left side.

But not in the RAW data, surely? Are you talking shooting JPEGs - or
what kind of camera is it?

Eric Stevens

Report message to a moderator

Tue, 06 October 2009 18:27

Charles (Advanced Photoshop user)

> Digital clipping is almost never "saturation of the
> sensor". Unless you are shooting at the base ISO
> clipping is saturation of the Analog-Digital-Converter
> (ADC) by sensor output that is greater than the maximum
> ADC input.

And what difference would that make? There is no sharper knee than one
imposed by basic mathematics. 2^8 = 256, is a simple example. With 8 bits,
the maximum value is 255, base 10, with NO exceptions possible. You
actually help to make the case that over-exposed digital shots guarantee
lost information in the bright portions of the scene.

I continue to believe that exposing to the right is perpetuated by folks
with limited experience and knowledge. They are perhaps into the dark parts
of scenes and don't understand dynamic range. Many of us are more greedy
and want details at both ends of the luminosity range.

Hey, blow those high-lites out! If that is the intended message of a given
scene, go for it. I don't care for over-exposed shots ... they are just not
my thing. I have seen some high-key shots that were attractive and
effective and do appreciate the skill and art of the photographers who can
pull that off.

Specular high-lites might deserve to be blown out. Not the point of my
response. I'll just say it one more time and then go away ... if it is
clipped (by a sharp knee response curve ... due to sensor saturation or A/D
saturation or any saturation link in the chain) it is GONE!

Report message to a moderator

Pages (4): [1 2 3 4 › »]

Create a new topic

Submit Reply

Previous Topic:	Color Matching (monitor to printer (& maybe scanner))
Next Topic:	liquid rescale for photoshop?

Goto Forum: