Sometimes a tiny bit of 255 255 255 is NOT "blown"

04/28/2007 07:00:47 PM · #1

It is just WHITE!

There ... I said it DAMMIT ...

Message edited by author 2007-04-28 19:02:41.

DjFenzl

04/28/2007 07:03:56 PM · #2

of course not. A picture can be 90% or more white and still be properly exposed. It's when things are pure white that aren't supposed to be pure white and you lose wanted detail that you have a problem.

04/28/2007 07:10:18 PM · #3

... like ... would you call this pic "BLOWN"? ... I think not ... the frills are just as white as I saw them with my eyes. Am I supposed to grey them down with levels ?

Message edited by author 2007-04-28 19:11:19.

rox_rox

Canon EF-S 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6 USM

04/28/2007 07:32:54 PM · #4

By the time I finish this post, someone else will have said this; but what the hell...

It is what it is. Judging by the shallow DOF and added border I assume you meant this to be artistic and not photojournalism. Therefore, you are making choices about how you wish others to perceive the image. "Blown" highlights or the perception of blown highlights still come to the same end. They leave the eye searching for something that isn't there, and in this case they detract from the quality of an otherwise lovely image.

Now, I can't tell you how to process it differently, but I did play around with it and a few subtle changes really made it pop for me. I think it's a shame that you are getting so bent out of shape about some comments by people who really took the time to look at your image and give you thoughtful feedback.

Peace:)
Roxanne

Message edited by author 2007-04-28 19:33:19.

04/28/2007 07:35:36 PM · #5

no no ... not bent out of shape ... I just don't understand why someone would call this blown ... it looks as it did to my eyes when I looked at it before I raised the camera and I don't know what I should have done to make it better ... white is white and should I muck with it?

I worked really hard to keep as much dynamic range as possible present in this image.

I would be interested to see the tweaks that you did that made it POP and be less white on the tips ...

Message edited by author 2007-04-28 19:36:56.

Tamron SP AF 28-75mm f/2.8 XR Di for Canon

04/28/2007 07:37:30 PM · #6

Open the image in Photoshop, open your levels, hold down the Alt key and click on the far right slider. That will show you where you've lost detail.

karmat

Apple iPhone 7

Canon EF 70-200mm f/4.0L USM

04/28/2007 07:39:58 PM · #7

On my laptop, it looks "okay," a touch bright in the fringes. My laptop isn't the best viewer, though.

Message edited by author 2007-04-28 19:40:25.

04/28/2007 07:42:16 PM · #8

Originally posted by mk:

Open the image in Photoshop, open your levels, hold down the Alt key and click on the far right slider. That will show you where you've lost detail.

It seems to me that this just shows you what is really white and it seems to be very VERY detailed and small areas in this image ...

Sorry but ... it just seems to me that if there is ANY pure white in an image ... no matter how small or detailed ... ppl say it is BLOWN.

Message edited by author 2007-04-28 19:46:46.

Tamron SP AF 28-75mm f/2.8 XR Di for Canon

04/28/2007 07:49:39 PM · #9

Originally posted by Greetmir:

It seems to me that this just shows you what is really white and it seems to be very VERY detailed and small areas in this image ...

What it means is that there was no detail recorded in any of those areas.

Take a look at DJWoodward's recent ribbon winner. Plenty of white but if you look at his histogram, only a few specs that are lacking detail.

rox_rox

Canon EF-S 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6 USM

04/28/2007 07:56:06 PM · #10

Please keep in mind that I'm a Photoshop butcher with a terrible monitor.

I listed the steps, but I know there are easier ways to do what I did.

The thing is that all color is just reflected light. To the eye, there is no such thing as true white. Anything that would be true white will take on a slight tinge of surrounding colors. I believe it's truly impossible for a photograph to absolutely capture what the eye sees. Therefore, it's the artist's job to present the image in a way that is psychologically appealing to the viewer. Keep in mind this is just my opinion and someone else may see it differently.

Cheers,
Roxanne

David Ey

Nikon D80

Nikon AF Micro-Nikkor 60mm f2.8D

04/28/2007 08:00:04 PM · #11

Originally posted by Greetmir:

Originally posted by mk:
Open the image in Photoshop, open your levels, hold down the Alt key and click on the far right slider. That will show you where you've lost detail.

It seems to me that this just shows you what is really white and it seems to be very VERY detailed and small areas in this image ...

Sorry but ... it just seems to me that if there is ANY pure white in an image ... no matter how small or detailed ... ppl say it is BLOWN.

Well, you were asking, I believe, about your photo and you got good replies. You have lost some detail between and around the petals 'cause there is too much brightness, not too much white. Sorry, but I agree. It is a bit blown highlites.

Canon EF 24-105mm f/4.0L IS

04/28/2007 08:11:31 PM · #12

Okee Dokee ... after magnifying the 640X I have to agree just slightly but ... wow ... I think that is being very fussy ...

I think my vignette of noise and blur plus a TAD too much USM may have made the edges of the petals look more blown ... but you have made it so I will be fussier in the future with editing ...

Thanks everyone for your input ... without it we cannot ever learn how sharp our critic's eyes are ...

me

Message edited by author 2007-04-28 20:13:59.

Artifacts

Canon EOS-5D Mark II

04/28/2007 08:40:56 PM · #13

Originally posted by greatandsmall:

255, 255, 255 is just white and nothing more or less. "Blown" highlights or overexposures are swaths of white where the viewer knows there is lost and perhaps interesting detail.

Your picture treatment is slightly overexposed as brought out by Roxanne's rework above.

Overexposures are a common defect in DPC submissions. Most common and distracting of all are overexposed sections of sky in landscapes.

Canon EF 24-105mm f/4.0L IS

04/28/2007 08:43:43 PM · #14

... I did not and don't see any rework ... only a suggestion that there WAS one ...

Message edited by author 2007-04-28 20:45:14.

Artifacts

Canon EOS-5D Mark II

04/28/2007 08:53:44 PM · #15

Originally posted by Greetmir:

... I did not and don't see any rework ... only a suggestion that there WAS one ...

Oh... I think I understand now. It probably is a monitor calibration issue. You might need to tweak your monitor settings or recalibrate it. Though Roxanne's changes might seem subtle they are real and noticeable.

Message edited by author 2007-04-28 21:03:00.

04/28/2007 08:59:25 PM · #16

oh ... I missed the second post by roxanne ... doh ...

OK ... I see the difference now and I like it a lot.

Thank you all and especially Roxanne by example for opening my eyes to being more fussy about detail ...

me

Message edited by author 2007-04-28 21:05:42.

rox_rox