peter_stacey1

August 18, 2010

Doug,

Since you were previously happy with the monitor -> print results, are you still happy with the print results now?

I would suspect that this has to do with color memory of your brain, that you are used to seeing your monitor with different color and you are easily noticing it.

This is something your mind will adjust too; and if you are happy with the print results, it's worth continuing.

If the prints don't look good to you now (eg. they now look too cold because you are adjusting the files more so they look right on screen, resulting in cooler looking prints), then one solution would be to go back to your old approach, as it worked. That wouldn't be my approach because a hardware based profiling tool is going to give you more accurate and precise results than using a software based approach.

Regards,

Peter

July 27, 2010

Blake Schwalbe wrote:

In other words, used this way it seems HDR is another tool aimed at photographic results which reduce the dynamic range in the original scene, while wouldn't an HDR file of the scene you photographed preserve in it a range of density way beyond what could be displayed on screen or anywhere else really in its totality, and that's why they look so strange?

</blockquote>

That's exactly what HDR processing is. The scene has a high dynamic range, but the aim of the technique is to map that into a smaller dynamic range so that you can maintain detail throughout the image and not have blown or blocked areas.

You are right that screens, printers and projectors can't display the wide dynamic range of many natural scenes and normally you have to do one of two basic things. Accept that areas of your image will be without detail or try to control the scene/processing to ensure that there is detail from the shadows to the highlights.

Filters are one way of doing that, shooting at a different time of day may be another and HDR processing is yet another. Each approach has advantages and disadvantages and each will produce a different end result.

The reason that HDR images often look unnatural isn't because the file has a dynamic range beyond what can be displayed. It occurs because in the processing, the tone mapping is applied heavily in the shadows and highlights so that the final image is mapped to a set of colors that looks odd.

Regards,

Peter

July 27, 2010

Blake Schwalbe wrote:

...but it doesn't make much sense for simple photography--I don't think there is any display or printer or any real means to see the complete dynamic range captured all at once.

</blockquote>

No, but the tone mapping process helps to compress the large dynamic range into limits that allow you to maintain detail throughout and is very applicable to general/simple photography.

If the dynamic range of the scene is beyond the capabilities of the camera system, then using HDR can produce good results, though often it is applied very heavy (not a look I personally like).

As an example, below is one of my HDR images (the web size image loses a lot of detail in comparison to the print):

It wouldn't have been possible in the shooting conditions to maintain detail from left to right without using HDR.

The 5 image sequence that was used for the shot is below:

The zero exposure adjustment shot in the centre is blocked up badly in the shadows and just starting to blow out some highlights.

Without bracketing multiple exposures and tone mapping the merged result, there would have been no way to produce the same final result, even with the use of filters or shooting slightly later (it was already extremely dark by the time this sequence was shot).

So I think HDR techniques have their place, just like other techniques to produce an image. But I have to agree with most of the comments, that often the final results look too unnatural for my personal taste.

Regards,

Peter

July 9, 2010

Ty,

If you are working with full size images from dSLR cameras, then don't worry about the linear dimensions. They'll be big enough for a magazine.

I don't want to introduce an additional issue that might just confuse you, rather than giving you better understanding at this stage.

If you change the ppi setting to 300 (you can also set it in ACR during the raw conversion), that will keep you in line with what you've been told and it will be OK.

Rgeards,

Peter

July 9, 2010

Ty wrote:

I like working on one layer, it teaches me a lesson if I make a mistake.

</blockquote>

You like the life of hard knocks it seems. In relation to your follow up questions. As indicated by Andrew work in 16 bit and the adjustments you make will have less risk of affecting the final quality.

In relation to printing, the size of the images you supply really depends on the size of the image on the magazine page and the printing technology that will be used to print the pages.

300 ppi files is a common requirement from magazines, even if they aren't printed that way, so it is a safe way to go if that's what you've been told.

You can set the resolution in Photoshop under Image -> Image Size (or Alt+Ctrl+I, Alt+Cmd+I) and change it to 300 pixel/inch.

It doesn't really matter whether that figure is set or not (the linear dimension of pixels is more important), but it's a regular request.

If you edit in 16-bit and you are going to save the file off as a jpeg, one thing you will need to do just before saving is to convert the image to 8-bit (otherwise you won't be able to save as a jpeg).

Regards,

Peter

July 9, 2010

Your not doing any harm to your image in that, if the edits look good to you, then it's a good edit.

If the edits are fine and the final image looks good to you, then that's all that matters and editing directly on the image layer is fine, if that's what works for you.

Editing isn't destroying your data because it isn't touiching the original raw data (so you can always go back to an original state at any time later on) and all editing is doing when you are making adjustments in Photoshop, is changing the RGB values of individual pixels, not actually destroying them.

For non-destructive editing, you can use as many layers as you need (with an increase in file size associated with that). It is normal to use a different layer for different types of edits.

As an example, you might add a layer for cloning, another layer (eg. adjustment layer) for curves adjustments, another one for creative sharpening etc. and each is non-destructive to the original image in the background layer, so it can be easily adjusted or changed later on.

In relation to printing, the edits you make won't destroy the print as long as the edits are what you are trying to achieve with the image. What is more critical is whether you have good color management in your workflow (ie. profiled monitor and printer, editing in 16-bit and a wide gamut colorspace, good clean environment around your computer screen, good environment for viewing prints, etc.).

But in relation to the pure editing, whether you are using a destructive or a non-destructive workflow, the final image you deliver to your clients won't be ruined by that choice.

As indicated in my original response, even if you use a non-destructive workflow while editing, once you save that file off as a jpeg for the client, any edits are then part of the file and the result is the same as choosing a destructive workflow.

Non-destructive just gives you more freedom in your editing choices, but makes little difference to the final result (unless you need to go back and change something you did earlier. Then you need to go back to the limits of the undo states, back to saved history states or back to the original image and start again).

Regards,

Peter

July 9, 2010

Ty, from your description it seems like you are talking about the difference between non-destrcutive and destructive editing.

These are terms to describe how you make your image adjustments, but destructive editing doesn't literally mean that your pixels are destroyed, it's just that when you edit them, you can't return them to the pre-edited state at a later date, without undoing all the subsequent steps (even if those steps were good).

The difference in approach lies in the use of layers and/or smart objects.

If you take your file through ACR into Photoshop for example, you have 2 choices when it comes to applying your clone brush.

You can apply it directly on the image layer, or you can add a layer on top and then clone into that layer.

In the first case, it's destructive editing because the changes to the pixels are made in the image layer.

In the second case it's non-destructive, because the cloning occurs on a new layer and you can undo the changes (or mask them, etc.) at any time to bring back the original pixels.

At some point, such as when you save off the jpeg, the changes will be applied and the pixels changed, but up until that final step, you have the freedom to undo any changes if you use a non-destrucitve workflow.

Hope that answers your question.

Regards,

Peter

July 9, 2010

Ben S wrote:

I don't know if this is the case for Nikon, Sony, or Pentax.

</blockquote>

Yep that's normal behaviour for all digital cameras.

July 6, 2010

Stephen F wrote:

If you then open both pictures in CS3 you will see two distinctly different pictures. I did this experiment a number of times last year and the resuls were always the same. And there is no button I can press to cancel out those changes. There is a way to return the white ballance back to the As Shot setting but there is no way to undue to the color saturation, sharpness, and contrast settings don in the camera.

</blockquote>

Stephen, are you sure you weren't shooting jpeg, thinking you were shooting raw?

Two relevant quotes, one from Canon and one from Adobe:

Canon (http://www.usa.canon.com/content/picturestyle/file/index.html):

Original RAW image data is never changed by use of Picture Styles or other controls in the camera or Canon software.

</blockquote>

Adobe (http://www.adobe.com/designcenter/dialogbox/why_shoot_raw.html):

With raw, the only on-camera settings that have an effect on the captured pixels are the ISO speed, shutter speed, and aperture. Everything else is under your control when you convert the raw file.

</blockquote>

The second quote from the late Bruce Fraser isn't so current now, but is still generally true.

The quote from Canon very much applies to your 5D files.

That's why I think you must be seeing something that you think is one thing, but it's not. The in camera adjustments and picture styles relate to jpeg shooting, not the raw files.

Regards,

Peter

July 6, 2010

Stephen F wrote:

Well then the camera is applying the picture settings to the raw file and as a result you cannot see the raw data with CS3. The raw data is probably in the file but simply not available to the user. So the answer to Frank F question. is still the same.

</blockquote>

Stephen, I think you might be seeing something that you are interpreting as ACR applying in camera settings from the exif data to the raw conversion, however that isn't the case.

ACR will read in the white balance setting when it converts the raw data, but the file handling of other settings isn't necessarily known by Adobe, so ACR doesn't generally attempt to read those (especially back in CS3). With CS5, ACR will now read lens information in the exif and can apply lens corrections automatically if appropriate profiles are available, but these can always be turned off and other settings are still generally not used by ACR.

Because raw formats from each manufacturer and each camera model are different and proprietary; and Adobe doesn't necessarily have access to the raw encoding format, ACR will read the white balance tag in the file and then convert the raw data according to the defaults you or Adobe have set (eg. exp 0, brightness 50, contrast 25, etc.).

No other in camera settings are generally applied during the raw conversion by ACR. Additionally, aside from processing during the analog to digital conversion (which may include noise reduction, etc.) other in camera settings are not applied to the RAW data in camera. In camera settings are written into the exif data and can be applied, mostly by the camera manufacturers raw conversion software, but you are always free to adjust the settings without affecting the original raw data.

So in relation to Frank F's question, it really depends. Some settings such as long exposure noise reduction are applied to the RAW data in camera (this requires 2 frames to be shot) and the white balance setting is read by ACR. During processing of the raw data, the camera processor might apply some adjustments to the raw data (eg. noise reduction), but mostly, raw data is undemosaiced information about the sensor response, together with the exif data.

Regards,

Peter

June 29, 2010

The easiest way would be to add a layer in soft light blend mode and just paint on the layer with white.

Adjust opacity to suit.

For this situation, this will balance the light much quicker than other methods.

Regards,

Peter

June 12, 2010

Ed, there is no right answer to this. Both systems are good for their bodies and the lenses.

However, if you want many hours of enjoyment, just run a quick Google search for canon v nikon.

It is as much talked about in photography circles as religion and politics are discussed in general society and it's as polarising as both of them.

You could also ask the PC v Mac question too.

I'm a PC by the way, but YMMV.

Regards,

Peter

June 4, 2010

Looking at the D3x brochure specifically, there are a range of shots from studio, on location, still life, outdoors and nature and wildlife:

http://www.thedigitalnewsroom.com/uploads/Appareils/Nikon/D3x/english/25442_D3X_brochure.pdf

The shots are all professional and refined and that comes from Nikon putting the camera in the hands of some of the best in the business and letting them do what they do.

Take a look at the websites of the photographers and you'll see that there is no trickery in the images. It's a combination of good equipment in the hands of professionals:

http://www.frank-wartenberg.com/

http://www.aokiphoto.com/

http://www.timandrew.co.uk/

http://www.johnshawphoto.com/

Regards,

Peter

May 3, 2010

Brian Valentine, who is a fairly prolific macro shooter (mostly of bugs), has some information on his setup here:

http://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthread.php?t=807056

and his Flickr stream shows the results he achieves with it:

http://www.flickr.com/photos/lordv/

April 18, 2010

Wolf Weber wrote:

Anyone have a moment of time & money saving inspiration..?

</blockquote>

You can always download the Adobe DNG converter Wolf. That is free and will then allow you to open your camera files into CS3.

An alternative would be to look at Lightroom, to get access to the latest improvements in rendering (since LR and ACR use the same processing engine) and then use CS3 for the editing features that Lightroom doesn' t currently offer (eg. perspective corrections, soft-proofing, certain pixel level edits, etc.).

DNG converter can be downloaded here:

<a href="http://www.adobe.com/products/dng/">http://www.adobe.com/products/dng/</a> (links on right for Win and Mac).

The current public beta of Lightroom 3 can also be freely downloaded (will work until June), from Adobe labs:

<a href="http://labs.adobe.com/">http://labs.adobe.com/</a>

Regards,

Peter

March 25, 2010

More megapickles is always better, but film / sensor area always trounces megapickles.

</blockquote>

So, the essence of that is, more megapixels is not always better? I'd agree.

Given an equal megapickle count, the 135-format (“full frame”) will make a print of comparable quality at nearly twice the size of the APS-C (“crop sensor”) format.

</blockquote>

Interesting statement and like Edward, I'd like to know what the basis of that statement is. If true, it would be both informative in relation to the subject of the thread and educational.

It is different to my own experience.

March 17, 2010

Andrew Rodney said:

I don’t see the point.

</blockquote>

Ditto on that.

It's one thing to come in and present a point of view in a rational way, but another altogether to put that point across as a debunk and bad advice.

It's also one thing to put a point across and then present evidence, but another thing altogether to go to more extreme views when rational counter points are made and counter evidence is provided.

If the thread was started in a more positive way, there possibly wouldn't have been such a strong reaction because ultimately, someone in the future might also want to try ETTR and they shouldn't be discouraged by extreme views that don't fit others experiences or that shift to make evidence fit the idea, rather than adjusting so that the idea fits the evidence.

March 17, 2010

Here is another shot that is a more traditional use of ETTR than the previous one:

If you look at the histogram of the shot, you can see that the dynamic range in the image is not that large. During capture, this was pushed up and then processed back down.

It's another one where the detail in the print is good throughout and the print looks much better than it does on the screen.

March 17, 2010

William Palminteri wrote:

Great photo, BTW.

</blockquote>

Thanks, and it's one where using ETTR helped.

Most of the information is in the last 3 stops of the image. By bringing that up at capture and then processing it to the way I remembered the scene, the shadows in the prints I have are smooth and the image is just what I wanted (the printed version has a slightly tighter composition as I cropped away the right hand side a bit).

Without using ETTR, a lot of detail that the print holds wouldn't be there because it wouldn't have been pleasing to me to bring it out (my tolerance for the noise in large areas of the image would have led me to throw the shot away if not exposed using ETTR).

March 17, 2010

William Palminteri wrote:

I concentrate more on the aesthetic, but getting an unretouched photo of a photographically hostile (low light, etc.) environment means that I have to get technically involved, because the machinery isn't at all happy in those situations.

</blockquote>

I usually find at low light, ETTR has only limited use because there are too many artifical lights around so the exposure will already have important areas of data in the highlights that you don't want to lose, unless there are specular highlights like the following: <img src="http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4007/4440998549_e401d27e9e_o.jpg" alt="" width="700" height="469" />

It's just one technique that applies when the dynamic range of the scene is within the capabilities of the sensor and there is nothing to be scared of with it. Anyone who wants to use it should spend the time to learn it and how to apply it because in many situations it's useful.

Ultimately it can sit right along aesthetic aspects of photography and anyone can happily pursue both aspects together, good aesthetics with good technique.

Regards,

Peter

March 17, 2010

Michael Young wrote:

To put it another way, the whole problem of racing is to use up the entire traction circle. Doing so puts you at constant risk of exceeding those limits. It's completely shallow to point out that exceeding traction isn't part of racing.

</blockquote>

And to take that analogy further. Just because there is a risk of losing traction when a driver tries to sit on the edge of the cars capability, doesn't stop racing drivers from trying to go to that exact point every time they race (at least the good ones), otherwise they aren't using the car to it's full capability and they aren't going to be as good as another driver that is able to sit closer to the edge more consistently.

And if a driver does lose control of the car, but keeps practicing and trying to get things under control, they eventually gain enough experience that they are able to comfortably push themselves without constantly losing it.

I don't really think that suits photography to the same extent, because we can never really know what is an actual optimum exposure, so the point to which each person is prepared to sit is going to be different for different people.

We can only chose what we are comfortable with when we choose our exposure settings.

For some, that seems to be just advocating acceptance of the camera metering. For others, lifting the S/N ratio by increasing the exposure is also acceptable, but these things don't have to be poles apart and there's no need to degrade the choice of one person just because you aren't personally comfortable with the choice others make.

That's the whole point of this long discussion. If the OP isn't comfortable with ETTR, no problems. But perhaps others are, both now and in the future, so there's nothing positive to be gained from starting a thread that says ETTR provides no practical sense, because lots of us have experience that indicates otherwise.

March 17, 2010

William Palminteri said:

My point is that it is very easy to overuse these techniques.

</blockquote>

I wouldn't argue against that. It can be used incorrectly and as Andrew pointed out, that doesn't only apply to ETTR.

I don't think anyone who uses the technique would argue that it is something to apply all the time. There have been a number of posts that have said the opposite and which have also tried to point out the situations where it is useful.

But just the same as ETTR can be wrongly used, relying solely on the camera to pick the best exposure all the time can also be wrong in that it doesn't always lead to the best image.

Photography is a mixture of both creative and technical aspects and you don't have to strive to be good in one to the detrement of the other. Striving to produce pleasing images that are also technically strong can also be a good thing.

In this regard, technically strong can mean different things for different images and if ETTR helps to achieve that, then that is a good thing, not something to disregard because someone doesn't know how to use it or when to use it. There's no need to bury our heads in the sand over this stuff.

It's always a continual learning process at an individual level and if one person doesn't find a particular technique useful, there's no need to start a thread that debunks what other people find has applications for them.

March 17, 2010

William Palminteri wrote:

Those clouds might be what drew you to the vision in the first place, and now they're gone, unrecoverable in a morass of 255s.

</blockquote>

But Bill, that's not what ETTR is. If you are clipping data to an unrecoverable point, that's not ETTR, that's overexposure.

This is still about a basic misunderstanding of ETTR as a technique.

William Palmiteri wrote:

Lose 'em to the forces of "technical perfection", and you've lost the magic.

</blockquote>

That's anything but technical perfection. It's the exact opposite.

If you lose important information, it's technically incompetent and certainly not the application of ETTR.

This is a point that has been made several times in the thread, but frequently (and perhaps conventiently) ignored.

ETTR is not about over exposure (in fact, some other commentors such as Iliah Borg have said it leads to under exposure and if you Google LibRAW you should find his article reasonably quickly). But that is also a misunderstanding of what ETTR is about.

It isn't anything other than a way to capture optimum RAW data and even things like serendipitous color rainbows are still in there.

In relation to the whole argument of serendipitous findings, the fact that they are serendipitous means that you may also find them by applying ETTR and it's just as likely to do so. It's not an argument that stands up to much thought about other scenarios.

March 17, 2010

Surely Ben, we can just get this back on track and forget the personal stuff.

Ideally, the morally disguting comment made earlier in the thread should be withdrawn and an apology offered. It truly was awful and doesn't belong on the forum.

If the personal stuff is taken out, then perhaps it can get back to a discussion of the merits of the technique and not a discussion of the merits of the individuals.

There is always something to learn in any thread, even ones as tiring as this one and it would be a pity for it to be closed on the basis of personal attacks.

March 17, 2010

Andrew Rodney wrote:

Something many of us did with transparency film for years and years (and did so for a living to boot).

</blockquote>

And with only 4-5 stops of lattitude as well. Much less than modern digital SLRs at low ISO values, yet somehow we all got by.

I'm glad that I've shifted almost exclusively to digital (sometimes I still have to shoot with my old F3 because it can operate without power, which is a restriction I occasionally face) because techniques like ETTR couldn't be applied back then. Having them available gives me more options to produce good images, not less, which seems to be the basic idea behind the start of the thread.

Sign In

Profiles

Forums

Blogs

Events

Downloads

Gallery

Store

Posts posted by peter_stacey1