| Author | Thread |
|
|
09/06/2005 06:06:55 PM · #26 |
[stern mentor]I'm looking for photos here in response to the exercise. 3-day weekend's over. No more excuses![/stern mentor]
(lol) |
|
|
|
09/06/2005 07:30:14 PM · #27 |
I am away from my home computer for awhile, :) visiting family, so using others screens and not getting booted off for trying to colorborate the monitors is almost a no no... This monitor I am using now is dark, its old and the brightness along with the contrast is kicked way up and the color is funky.... When I open the pictures on another computer screen with my hard drive it looks the same as if I was using my own computer. Technical issues to why I am on this one for now so I am dealing with the adjustments. :)
Here are my night and day shots sorry they are late been traveling on a greyhound. :)
 
I did change one thing on the night different in editing than in the day. I had tried to keep all the editing the same but I could tell how much of a difference it made.
Now that I see them side by side a little more, I wonder what happened to one. One is more blurry than the other. I wnder if saving to a disk changes them or if its my eyes..???
Message edited by author 2005-09-06 19:36:53.
|
|
|
|
09/06/2005 07:51:38 PM · #28 |
| Uh, are you sure you started from the same source file each time? Those look like they came from completely different photographs, and it's not just the color. Sharpness and angle both changed. |
|
|
|
09/06/2005 08:26:16 PM · #29 |
You may be right, I will have to check when I get technical issues straightened out and back to my files on my pc..
|
|
|
|
09/07/2005 10:22:47 AM · #30 |
Don't give up on us yet :)
No time right now but I'll try the exercise tonight! I can't wait to see what difference it makes... |
|
|
|
09/07/2005 06:36:55 PM · #31 |
 
day night
When I checked my monitor calibration the white and black points were fine but I needed to adjust the gamma.
That's done now so I hope it makes a difference.
The major difference I noticed between these edits was that the white wasn't a true white on the night time edit. There is a definite color tint to it. (at least on my monitor) lol
I also noticed that the night edit seems a bit darker over all.
Nothing like waiting until the last minute, huh Teach?
My internet has been pretty moody lately, but I'll try to keep up with the rest of the group.
-Laura |
|
|
|
09/07/2005 07:13:07 PM · #32 |
Right, I edited these a few days apart and so didnt go through exactly the same process with each..if thats important
It may be interesting to see how a few days, a different time of day, a few beers, good mood / bad mood, effects the finished edit
 
Still using the two monitors, the main one was calibrated using Adobe Gamma and the 2nd was left "as was"
The main monitor is now noticably darker than the other but a bit "punchier"
Off to the RSC in Stratford Upon Avon for a few days, check back at the weekend
Steve |
|
|
|
09/07/2005 11:46:23 PM · #33 |
  
Original..........in the dark...........in the light
I've used the adobe monitor calibration for now, and I'm also happy with a new CRT monitor I recently got. Can see the near blacks and true blacks now, which will make a difference for me, I hope. Planning on getting a hardware calibrator at some point down the road.
I think I take the cake for last minute as it is quarter to midnight my time :P
I ended up editing the two pictures differently because of the ambiant (or lack of) light. I noticed Color and hue changes much better when it was dark. Maybe that's a good thing since it will be winter soon :D
I also edited them back to back. Might have changed if I'd done them at different times.
edit: oops. Photo notes: picture taken in South Carolina over the long weekend in Charleston in the old historic area.
Message edited by author 2005-09-07 23:51:08. |
|
|
|
09/08/2005 03:25:59 AM · #34 |
  
Original / With light / without light
So I do see a clear difference between the two but I have to admit that I was a bit tired by the time I got to the "in the dark" processing and speeded it up a bit... I shouldn't procrastinate!
It does make sense that processing is affected by the light that surrounds and contrasts with your monitor. It might be the same reason why sometimes white or black borders seem to throw a slightly different light on a photo?
I wonder what is the optimal lighting situation for processing. This photo was taken a while back and I rarely have the time to process such backlogged photos and when I do, it is late at night, by a halogen lamp... Bad move?
|
|
|
|
09/11/2005 02:48:12 PM · #35 |
Originally posted by sheapod:
day night |
Yep, I agree with your observations. Also the night image is a bit more contrasty (sharpened) than the day one. So the lesson here is that ambient light changes what you see on your monitor ... which changes the decisions you make when you edit. Calibrating your monitor, and calibrating it for the current ambient light before you edit, will improve your editing. |
|
|
|
09/11/2005 02:52:23 PM · #36 |
Originally posted by Tallbloke:
|
Okay, in this case we have two variables working. The first is two different monitors calibrated differently, and the second is (probably) different ambient light. There is a clear difference between the two edits. The first has a bit higher contrast which appeals to me. And through that, the shadows convey more depth which I also like. |
|
|
|
09/11/2005 03:00:32 PM · #37 |
I like that you showed us the original, thanks. Again, there are clear differences between the photos which result from the editing decisions you made, which in turn result from the calibration of the monitor and the ambient light.
To me, the one you edited in the light looks best and most appealing. The one you edited inthe dark has a slight color cast. The one you edited inthe light seems to have a truer white. This one also feels cooler whereas the one you edited inthe dark is a bit warmer. When you took the photo, was it cool in the early morning, or warm in the late morning. Which better represents reality? Which is more like you remember the scene? |
|
|
|
09/11/2005 03:14:03 PM · #38 |
You raise an interesting question ... Is there an optimal time or setting to edit? And the answer is ... well I'll get back to that.
There is another variable you can't control and that is the calibration and ambient of other DPC'ers who will be voting on your photo. Who knows if their monitors are calibrated? Who knows what kind of light falls on their monitors? So when YOU vote, out of respect for the photos you're voting on and the photographers who took them, calibrate your monitor before you begin voting. That way, you'll have the best chance of seeing the photo as the photographer intended.
Now back to the optimal time ... I have heard that painters prize indirect light from north-facing windows as the best light to paint with. Since you are painting with software and light, I suspect that diffused indirect light may be best. Given the room where your computer and monitor are, whatever time of day gives you that light might be best, provided you calibrate your monitor for it. I work in a room with west facing windows over looking a lake. For me, mid-morning seems to work out best, editing at night second best and afternoons are the worst. I would avoid direct sunlight or bright reflections falling on your monitor or bright room lights (e.g. track lights) falling on your monitor is you can. |
|
|
|
09/11/2005 03:16:33 PM · #39 |
Originally posted by tolovemoon:
|
Tracy, I am not ignoring you but I think Zed nailed it. It appears you have two different originals. Clearly they're different but I can't tell if it's the monitor calibration or the originals that create the difference. |
|
|
|
09/11/2005 03:29:23 PM · #40 |
Okay, time to move on. From now on, I will assume you are working with a monitor that is calibrated, in the first place, and also calibrated for the ambient light you experience, each time you edit a photo or review others' photos. I promise to do the same.
Once we get the photo from our camera into our computer, we can begin to evaluate the exposure of our photos and plan a strategy to repair exposure damage. We learned about evaluating exposure in Part I and you will remember that we cannot repair lost data. But we can improve almost any photo with Levels, Curves, Brightness/Contrast, and in PS 7+ with Shadow/Highlight.
In our next exercise, I'm going to begin with Levels because they are pretty simple and they can make a dramatic improvement. So stay tuned for our next exercise.
A few of you know I will be traveling in China/Tibet during October. So I hope to conclude the Levels work before then. While I'm gone, Zed Pobre, will take over as mentor and will focus on RAW images and adjusting RAW image exposure. Then we'll pick up in late October where we left off.
Message edited by author 2005-09-11 15:30:21. |
|
|
|
09/11/2005 05:13:02 PM · #41 |
Levels 101 must start with Histograms 101. Observe the black section of the following histogram available in Photoshop:
This standard Photoshop chart shows the number of pixels (verticle Y Axis) at each of 256 brightness levels (Horizontal X Axis). There are not very many true black pixels (brightness level 0 at the left side of the diagram) and there aren't very many true white pixels (brightness level 255 at the right side of the chart). In a classically well exposed photo, there should be some true whites, and there should be some true blacks.
If there was a huge peak at the left edge, there would be many true black pixels in the photo and it is symptomatic of lost blacks. If there were a huge peak at the right edge, there would be many true whites in the photo and it is symptomatic of blown highlights. We're not going to be able to fix this with levels because of lost data.
There are a few approaches to correcting exposure with Levels but all have the same goals: 1) Spread the histogram so you have true whites, and true blacks; and 2) Balance the histogram so neutrals are near the center of the histogram. After that, let what you see be your guide.
There are some exceptions. For example, high Key photographs will have non-standard histograms leanning very far to the right with maybe some hints of true black, but not many. But for now, lets concentrate on main stream.
Also notice that in newer Photoshop versions we can see the histogram for each channel. We'll come back to that at some point, but for now, just observe it's there.
In my next post, I will take you through a simple Levels exposure-correcting edit of a photo I took for the Perspectives II challenge but decided not to use. And I'll give you an exercise. Enjoy the ride.
Message edited by author 2005-09-11 17:13:35. |
|
|
|
09/11/2005 05:56:31 PM · #42 |
Levels 101
Lets start with my out-take from the Perspective II Challenge and its histogram:
 
Realisticly, it is over exposed (right shifted histogram). There are blown highlights (peak at the right). Composition isn't so good. BUT ...its exposure can be improved.
The first thing to do is crop it the way we want it to end up. No sense adjusting the exposure of parts of the photo we won't see. Here's the cropped photo, its histogram, and the initial Levels state:
  
We're going to mess around with the things circled in red above. Note that the histogram for the cropped photo is different from the original. It's a bit more "peaky" and possibly shifted slightly to the left. Why? Because we have cropped out the blown sky which contributed to the blown highlights. Also notice the Levels histogram matched the Photoshop histogram exactly. So here is where we begin to think about adjustments.
Above, as you hold down the Alt key, click and drag the left slider until you begin to see parts of the image appear. By doing this, you are spreading the histogram to the left. For me, they begin to appear at about input level 54 so that's where I'll stop. Hey, the photo is better already. In this image, we don't need to because we have plenty of whites (more than we want actually) but in another image, you might want to do the same thing to the right slider.
Above, it still feels a little bright so I will reduce the gamma (middle slider) until it pleases me. In my case, I stop at about .85. The photo is still better, I think. If I were really picky, I might choose a specific channel from the drop down list and adjust each channel individually. But for our purpose here, we are done.
Above, the levels dialog box offers an alternative to achieve the same results that may be more intuitive. Click on the black point eye-dropper (circled in red) and now click on a true black in the photo (one is also circled in red). Voila ... results similar to sliding the left slider. You could click on the white point slider as well, but in this case we won't need to.
Above, it is also possible to click on the "Auto" button. This is the same as Auto Levels adjustment, BUT, it gives you the opportunity to tweak level settings if you don't like the auto levels results. In this case, I was happy with the white point, but wanted a little less gamma.
In the end, I am still not happy with the photo because it's exposure was fundamentally flawed from the beginning. I should have reshot it with EV Comp to avoid the blown highlights or bought myself some exposure insurance by bracketing EV Comp. But at least the edited version is better ... at least to my eye. And I should have recomposed it to correct some compositional flaws. In the end, not my best work by far.
Exercise 3
Now it's your turn. Choose a photo with a "humpy in the middle histogram." Post your SOOTC original here. Crop it to please yourself. Edit it using ONLY Levels. Post your edited photo with the white point, gamma and black point values you used to reach your final photo. If you edit channel by channel, tell us the values for each channel. Also record what your learned and any observations you want to share with the group.
Deadline: End of Day Friday
Message edited by author 2005-09-11 18:09:02. |
|
|
|
09/11/2005 06:50:43 PM · #43 |
I am starting training for a job tomorrow (6 days /week), so I will try to keep up here.
STOOC image
Edited with Levels 0 / 0.87 / 252
Levels is my first stop when I edit an image. It makes the greatest difference in the quality of an image, to bring out highlights, to brighten, to provide contrast. Often, this is all I need (plus USM) to put the finishing touches on a photo.
|
|
|
|
09/11/2005 06:54:47 PM · #44 |
Originally posted by papagei:
STOOC image
Edited with Levels 0 / 0.87 / 252
|
Nice work, Ingrid. Well done! It helps to have a well exposed image to start with, as you have here.
Message edited by author 2005-09-11 18:55:27. |
|
|
|
09/12/2005 04:20:34 PM · #45 |
OK, had a rake round the back catalogue and found this shot left to gather virtual dust at the back of the hard drive
 and it's histogram 
Pretty unremarkable
Big crop and fiddled with levels. I wanted to keep the blcks of the moth black but with some detail and brighten the background to make the subject stand out. I moved the middle slider to the left but that meant I had to twiddle with teh blacks nd whites to keep the picture looking ok. Dont know if this is the preferred method but, hey ho, I think i created a shot from Hee Haw.
 and it's new histogram 
Steve
edit: just thought I'd clarify that that last sentence was supposed to be an amusing play on words. :-)
Message edited by author 2005-09-12 16:23:23. |
|
|
|
09/14/2005 07:56:25 PM · #46 |
Steve, clearly the crop improved the photo. The levels editing revealed some detail on the insect's back without damaging the exposure in the rest of the frame. Good job with that! What would you do if you cropped it even more severly to just include the insect and the end of the grass it's clinging to, and then edited with only levels?
Message edited by author 2005-09-14 19:56:53. |
|
|
|
09/15/2005 04:25:45 PM · #47 |
I hadn't really thought about it before, but cropping was always one of my last steps. It makes perfect sense for it to be the first though and it will be from now on. I've used levels for a while now, but never in the way you described -- holding the alt key and using the sliders.
Here are my two shots.
SOOTC
Levels 14 .83 217
I cropped a bit off the bottom to get rid of some of the grass on the left hand side.
-Laura |
|
|
|
09/15/2005 04:45:39 PM · #48 |
Originally posted by sheapod:
SOOTC
Levels 14 .83 217
|
I encourage you all to look at the two photos side-by-side. It's not so easy to see in the thumbnails so you'll need to expand them. In my view, the crop helped, and the Levels work really improved the depth of the photo. The original was a bit flat, the "Leveled" photo has better colors and contrast. Nice job! |
|
|
|
09/15/2005 09:22:26 PM · #49 |
SOOTC
Levels
RGB: 0 1.55 200
Red: 54 1.00 161
Green: 62 0.91 154
Blue: 81 1.00 139
I'm not terribly happy with the edit because I want to tweak it more with selective color and curves and probably a few other things. Also, this is a quick and dirty levels edit, and the picture not terribly well exposed, as you can see from the original
Cheers
Kiyoko |
|
|
|
09/15/2005 11:14:19 PM · #50 |
Original
Master Output levels 233, 61
Input level 41, 0.88, 209
(383,: 459) R:137, G:98, B:70
My third edited I used auto because that is what I usually use when I upload my photos and edit them. I can tell a big difference in color, light, details, and such. I think I may have to practice a bit to get better at editing or what I see. I think that I trust auto a little better for now since I am faced with using 3 different screens, my pc for editing, and one laptop to another screen for online purposes.. When I return home to my home, with my trusted monitor I know then I will have a better chance with my eyes telling the difference.
(576, 6) R: 224, G:255, B: 255
|
|
