"Exposing to the right" is over exposed, what now?
in [Photoshop]
|
From: Floyd L. Davidson on 11 Oct 2009 04:34 "DRS" <drs(a)removethis.ihug.com.au> wrote: >"Floyd L. Davidson" <floyd(a)apaflo.com> wrote in message >news:87d44vn1t3.fld(a)apaflo.com >> sigh... <sigh(a)noaddress.com> wrote: > >[...] > >> Obviously there *is* a huge volume of information >> available in a histogram; and very little of it has >> anything at all to do with setting exposure. E.g., the >> *contrast* information does *not* help set exposure. > >Nobody ever said it did. Well, not more than 100 or so times in this thread. >That straw man with you are obsessed has been >exploded several times. *What* *has* *been* *exposed* *is* *that* *you* *can't* *cut* *the* *mustard*. All those claims of knowning everything about histograms, and when asked to give an analysis of two examples you could not produce. >The only thing setting contrast to minimum does (in >this context) is expand the histogram so that it more accurately depicts the >dynamic range in the Raw image so that the photographer can make a more >informed decision about what if anything to *subsequently* do to the >exposure. You say "Nobody ever said it did", and then once again claim it does. What nobody has ever claimed is that *anything* thing works until *subsequently* to an exposure! Your remarks are illogical weasel words. >Everybody can see it except you and that is the only claim that >has been made for it (except by you). Everybody realizes that the process is to make an exposure and then subsequently make exposure adjustments based on what the histogram shows before making another exposure. The problem is that setting the camera for low contrast isn't very useful, and might even make some (high key image) histograms more difficult to read. The *valid* way to make a histogram more useful is to make it more accurate. That can be done by changing the White Balance adustment of the camera. (A fact you would recognize if you actually understood what histograms are.) -- Floyd L. Davidson <http://www.apaflo.com/floyd_davidson> Ukpeagvik (Barrow, Alaska) floyd(a)apaflo.com
From: Wilba on 11 Oct 2009 04:48 DRS wrote: > Floyd L. Davidson wrote: >> >> Obviously there *is* a huge volume of information >> available in a histogram; and very little of it has >> anything at all to do with setting exposure. E.g., the >> *contrast* information does *not* help set exposure. > > Nobody ever said it did. That straw man with you are obsessed has been > exploded several times. The only thing setting contrast to minimum does > (in this context) is expand the histogram so that it more accurately > depicts the dynamic range in the Raw image so that the photographer can > make a more informed decision about what if anything to *subsequently* do > to the exposure. Everybody can see it except you and that is the only > claim that has been made for it (except by you). Floyd is arguing with the demons in his head (and losing). Is there anything else left to discuss amongst the rest of us?
From: Floyd L. Davidson on 11 Oct 2009 05:19 "Wilba" <usenet(a)CUTTHISimago.com.au> wrote: >DRS wrote: >> Floyd L. Davidson wrote: >>> >>> Obviously there *is* a huge volume of information >>> available in a histogram; and very little of it has >>> anything at all to do with setting exposure. E.g., the >>> *contrast* information does *not* help set exposure. >> >> Nobody ever said it did. That straw man with you are obsessed has been >> exploded several times. The only thing setting contrast to minimum does >> (in this context) is expand the histogram so that it more accurately >> depicts the dynamic range in the Raw image so that the photographer can >> make a more informed decision about what if anything to *subsequently* do >> to the exposure. Everybody can see it except you and that is the only >> claim that has been made for it (except by you). > >Floyd is arguing with the demons in his head (and losing). > >Is there anything else left to discuss amongst the rest of us? Another article from Wibla with *nothing* but gratuitous insults. But what purpose is there in hurling insults at someone just because you are unable to understand the topic well enough to digest technical discussion about it? You've demonstrated that you can't even measure the difference between the so called headroom of RAW data over JPEG, yet you want to argue the fine points of histogram accuracy???? That is an absurd contradiction. Neither you nor DRS were even able to analyze a couple of fairly simple histograms; so just were *do* you get off with these insults? -- Floyd L. Davidson <http://www.apaflo.com/floyd_davidson> Ukpeagvik (Barrow, Alaska) floyd(a)apaflo.com
From: Chris Malcolm on 11 Oct 2009 05:59 In rec.photo.digital.slr-systems Paul Furman <paul-@-edgehill.net> wrote: > What about saturation? Reducing saturation seems to give more detail to > the edges also. That could be a side effect of chromatic aberration. Do you notice it when there's no chromatic aberration? -- Chris Malcolm
From: Porte Rouge on 11 Oct 2009 13:06
On Oct 10, 3:30 am, fl...(a)apaflo.com (Floyd L. Davidson) wrote: > sigh... <s...(a)noaddress.com> wrote: > >On Thu, 08 Oct 2009 18:36:37 -0800, fl...(a)apaflo.com (Floyd L. Davidson) > >wrote: > Setting White Balance will have a dramatic effect of the > accuracy of both. Could you tell me how you go about setting the white balance on your camera? I read this page: http://www.guillermoluijk.com/tutorial/uniwb/index_en.htm The first method is over my head and I have a Nikon that doesn't use saturated pixels for the calculation of white balance. My white balance can be set to Auto(+ or - 3), by lighting(tungsten, fluorescent, flash), outside light (direct sun, shade, cloudy), select a temperature, and presets(measure a gray card or use WB from another photo). Which would you recommend? Porte |