DPChallenge: A Digital Photography Contest You are not logged in. (log in or register
 

Threads will be shown in descending order for the remainder of this session. To permanently display posts in this order, adjust your preferences.
DPChallenge Forums >> Current Challenge >> Light on White
Pages:  
Showing posts 1 - 25 of 175, descending (reverse)
AuthorThread
05/22/2011 01:55:19 PM · #1
Originally posted by kenskid:

...

Oh well anyway...to capture screens and evaluate white blowouts on a Light on White challenge is kind of silly anyway. Lots of great entries here.... no need to evaluate with a screen capture histogram !

Yep, if it looks blown out, it probably is...use your best judgment I'd say.
05/22/2011 11:15:57 AM · #2
Ahh...so there is a difference? So my computer would capture a different set of values than yours or would it be the same?

Edit: I just tried and you are right. No matter what the screen looks like, the capture is the same. I'm wondering though...if I go into the control panel and adjust gamma and all that other stuff, would that have an effect?

Oh well anyway...to capture screens and evaluate white blowouts on a Light on White challenge is kind of silly anyway. Lots of great entries here.... no need to evaluate with a screen capture histogram !

Thanks for the monitor education !

Originally posted by Socom:

Actualy screen capture has nothing to do with the monitors your viewing them on, you could turn your monitors off and hit screen capture and it will display it the same. It does have to do with the video card tho on the computer you are doing the screen capture and how it processes the information.


Message edited by author 2011-05-22 11:26:28.
05/22/2011 10:37:47 AM · #3
Actualy screen capture has nothing to do with the monitors your viewing them on, you could turn your monitors off and hit screen capture and it will display it the same. It does have to do with the video card tho on the computer you are doing the screen capture and how it processes the information.
05/22/2011 10:35:24 AM · #4
It should be independent but not the way he is doing it on this thread. He is taking a SCREEN CAPTURE to show histo info. In this case, the computer monitor is the camera.....light screen = more 255 pixels....dark scree = ...oh well...you get the picture....

Originally posted by senor_kasper:

Originally posted by hahn23:

........I'm back on my main computer and better monitor now. I need to correct my assessment from before. There are some 255 pixels.... about 50,000 out of 400,000+.


The white area in the middle is white w/o any detail. But, it works well for the image and does not diminish its excellence in any way.


The histogram should be independent of the monitor, it is supposed to be a distribution of tones as recorded in the picture, not as displayed in the monitor. The discrepancy you found may be related to the software used to read the pixel info in the picture file, or did you use the same software in both computers?
05/22/2011 01:23:32 AM · #5
Originally posted by hahn23:

........I'm back on my main computer and better monitor now. I need to correct my assessment from before. There are some 255 pixels.... about 50,000 out of 400,000+.


The white area in the middle is white w/o any detail. But, it works well for the image and does not diminish its excellence in any way.


The histogram should be independent of the monitor, it is supposed to be a distribution of tones as recorded in the picture, not as displayed in the monitor. The discrepancy you found may be related to the software used to read the pixel info in the picture file, or did you use the same software in both computers?
05/22/2011 12:46:10 AM · #6
Originally posted by BrennanOB:

Originally posted by hahn23:

Excellent image and great example of a high key image. But, there are zero blown out highlights.


I do hope you vote on your main computer.

Yes, of course. I only vote from my MacPro. My other computer is my iPhone. The iPhone has variable screen brightness, based on ambient light.
05/21/2011 11:07:56 PM · #7
Originally posted by hahn23:

Excellent image and great example of a high key image. But, there are zero blown out highlights.


I do hope you vote on your main computer.
05/21/2011 09:23:47 PM · #8
Hmmmm this is interesting. On one computer there are no blown pixels and on another there are 50,000 blown. What does that say about histograms? Seems like it depends on the monitor settings.

If I have my brightness set all the way up and do a screen capture, would it show a different histogram than if I did a screen capture at the lowest brightness setting?

It seems to me that screen capturing photos to do a histogram study is not worth the trouble.

Originally posted by hahn23:

Originally posted by hahn23:

Originally posted by BrennanOB:

But the histogram tells you nothing about the image. You might get blown details and horrible results from the " bad " histogram below, or you might get something like this nude, where all the stuff you need is there, and nothing more, to my mind a perfect exposure, with a far from ideal histogram.

Excellent image and great example of a high key image. But, there are zero blown out highlights. I'm away from my main computer, so I can't get a screen capture to display the histogram. But, the data is:

Luminosity
Mean: 203.62
Std Dev: 9.24
Median: 206
Range: 110 to 212

Nothing even close to 255. It's the tones at or near 255 without detail that define blown out highlights to me.

I'm back on my main computer and better monitor now. I need to correct my assessment from before. There are some 255 pixels.... about 50,000 out of 400,000+.


The white area in the middle is white w/o any detail. But, it works well for the image and does not diminish its excellence in any way.
05/21/2011 06:17:15 PM · #9
This photo is perfect in every way. The photog understands light better than most on this site. No need to look over histograms on this one.

Originally posted by BrennanOB:

But the histogram tells you nothing about the image. You might get blown details and horrible results from the " bad " histogram below, or you might get something like this nude, where all the stuff you need is there, and nothing more, to my mind a perfect exposure, with a far from ideal histogram.
05/21/2011 05:24:36 PM · #10
Originally posted by hahn23:

Originally posted by BrennanOB:

But the histogram tells you nothing about the image. You might get blown details and horrible results from the " bad " histogram below, or you might get something like this nude, where all the stuff you need is there, and nothing more, to my mind a perfect exposure, with a far from ideal histogram.

Excellent image and great example of a high key image. But, there are zero blown out highlights. I'm away from my main computer, so I can't get a screen capture to display the histogram. But, the data is:

Luminosity
Mean: 203.62
Std Dev: 9.24
Median: 206
Range: 110 to 212

Nothing even close to 255. It's the tones at or near 255 without detail that define blown out highlights to me.

I'm back on my main computer and better monitor now. I need to correct my assessment from before. There are some 255 pixels.... about 50,000 out of 400,000+.


The white area in the middle is white w/o any detail. But, it works well for the image and does not diminish its excellence in any way.
05/21/2011 05:07:38 PM · #11
Sorrh...didn't mean to kill tbe joy. Ill start a rant thread tonight. The kenskid / hahn23 beatdown. See ya there....or not!
05/21/2011 04:49:43 PM · #12
Originally posted by Ja-9:

Originally posted by DCNUTTER:

Originally posted by Fiora:

I gotta say Kenny and Richard. It does get a bit tiresome to see you two duke it out in thread after thread after thread, sometimes over small things, sometimes over big things
Perhaps a forum in the Rant section that you can post all your disagreements on would be nice. Everyone else can then safely ignore that thread, rather than encountering these arguments throughout various challenge threads.

I say that in the very nicest way possible.


+1


+2


+3
05/21/2011 04:38:45 PM · #13
Originally posted by DCNUTTER:

Originally posted by Fiora:

I gotta say Kenny and Richard. It does get a bit tiresome to see you two duke it out in thread after thread after thread, sometimes over small things, sometimes over big things
Perhaps a forum in the Rant section that you can post all your disagreements on would be nice. Everyone else can then safely ignore that thread, rather than encountering these arguments throughout various challenge threads.

I say that in the very nicest way possible.


+1


+2
05/21/2011 04:12:56 PM · #14
Originally posted by Fiora:

I gotta say Kenny and Richard. It does get a bit tiresome to see you two duke it out in thread after thread after thread, sometimes over small things, sometimes over big things
Perhaps a forum in the Rant section that you can post all your disagreements on would be nice. Everyone else can then safely ignore that thread, rather than encountering these arguments throughout various challenge threads.

I say that in the very nicest way possible.


+1
05/21/2011 03:52:54 PM · #15
I gotta say Kenny and Richard. It does get a bit tiresome to see you two duke it out in thread after thread after thread, sometimes over small things, sometimes over big things
Perhaps a forum in the Rant section that you can post all your disagreements on would be nice. Everyone else can then safely ignore that thread, rather than encountering these arguments throughout various challenge threads.

I say that in the very nicest way possible.
05/21/2011 03:41:48 PM · #16
I am sorry kenskid ifyou feel bad about my scoring. There are some excellent ones who got very high scores. I hope you are one of them.

I don't think I am driven by your 'blown out' standards. Keep it up!

I also think that you should pay serious attention to hahn23's comments. If you like to be in step with the popular trend, he has way more Blue Ribbons than you would dream of.

Good luck.

Originally posted by kenskid:

LOL.....don't you think you should get a better feel of what people like and don't like on this site before you take the side of someone in a thread? You have cast 425 votes and have given a 3.21 average per vote. Soooo.....do you hate everything?

Originally posted by singhmv:

Great job hahn23! Your pictures say more than a thousand comments!! LOL.

Sometimes, it is hard to hear constructive criticism. After all, everyone has "cost of acquisition" ownership pride in their images.

Not sure if I'm the one you are calling "BOZO", kenny. But, I did make a comment on a challenge image with a histogram that looks like this:
Deleted

There were other high key images in the challenge with good management of the number of blown out pixels:

It is possible to have white pixels less than blown out which contain detail.
[/quote]

Message edited by author 2011-05-21 15:52:10.
05/21/2011 03:09:26 PM · #17
Its fun to watch comments about blow outs when one of the commenters actually tells people that comment on his photos to "calibrate your MONITOR" and "turn down the BRIGHTNESS" when voting on his photos. Makes his posts even more rediculous.
05/21/2011 03:01:46 PM · #18
Originally posted by vawendy:

Yup. Good example, BrennanOB. I don't know why people get so hung up on blown highlights. Sometimes you do it for a particular feel. Sometimes it works, sometimes it doesn't. Just because it has blown highlights doesn't make it a bad picture.

Based on the feedback I've been getting on my online images, I've found an advantage to the eye-pleasing contrast of an image to have some (a small % of pixels in the 0 and 255 extremes). But, an excessive amount of all white pixels is hard to look at. I'm talking about a lot of pixels that result from photographing the sun, for example. Just hurts my eyes, rather than provides a joy to view.
05/21/2011 02:58:44 PM · #19
LOL.....don't you think you should get a better feel of what people like and don't like on this site before you take the side of someone in a thread? You have cast 425 votes and have given a 3.21 average per vote. Soooo.....do you hate everything?

Originally posted by singhmv:

Great job hahn23! Your pictures say more than a thousand comments!! LOL.

Sometimes, it is hard to hear constructive criticism. After all, everyone has "cost of acquisition" ownership pride in their images.

Not sure if I'm the one you are calling "BOZO", kenny. But, I did make a comment on a challenge image with a histogram that looks like this:
Deleted

There were other high key images in the challenge with good management of the number of blown out pixels:

It is possible to have white pixels less than blown out which contain detail.
[/quote]

Message edited by author 2011-05-21 15:01:57.
05/21/2011 02:38:04 PM · #20
Originally posted by BrennanOB:

But the histogram tells you nothing about the image. You might get blown details and horrible results from the " bad " histogram below, or you might get something like this nude, where all the stuff you need is there, and nothing more, to my mind a perfect exposure, with a far from ideal histogram.

Excellent image and great example of a high key image. But, there are zero blown out highlights. I'm away from my main computer, so I can't get a screen capture to display the histogram. But, the data is:

Luminosity
Mean: 203.62
Std Dev: 9.24
Median: 206
Range: 110 to 212

Nothing even close to 255. It's the tones at or near 255 without detail that define blown out highlights to me.
05/21/2011 02:20:03 PM · #21
Yup. Good example, BrennanOB. I don't know why people get so hung up on blown highlights. Sometimes you do it for a particular feel. Sometimes it works, sometimes it doesn't. Just because it has blown highlights doesn't make it a bad picture.
05/21/2011 02:11:35 PM · #22
But the histogram tells you nothing about the image. You might get blown details and horrible results from the " bad " histogram below, or you might get something like this nude, where all the stuff you need is there, and nothing more, to my mind a perfect exposure, with a far from ideal histogram.
05/21/2011 02:03:21 PM · #23
Originally posted by BrennanOB:

There is a difference between the ideal capture histogram and the ideal presentation histogram. Or at least there ought to be.

In capture you want the latitude to get detail out of everything, so the histogram should not touch the edges. This ensures that essential detail in the subject is not lost.

However in presentation all the tones ought to be present. Using the zone system that is eleven tones with pure black and pure white at the edges. This uses all available tones for maximum width of range. In a histogram those pure blacks and whites would be spikes at the ends of the histogram. Avoiding these tones is to avoid the maximum impact that you can present. You need to present those tones to the viewer, but they must not be present in the area where detail is important to your subject.

To apply the digital capture ideal histogram as the hallmark of the perfectly exposed image would mean that many of the great film images of the past are failures. It is applying a technical limitation as an aestetic rule.

Very well said. I agree with this. Just a footnote to say that in the case of the Minimal Editing ruleset, the "ideal capture histogram" IS the "ideal presentation histogram"... one and the same because of the editing prohibitions of the ruleset. That's why it's a test of skill challenge.
05/21/2011 01:40:26 PM · #24
There is a difference between the ideal capture histogram and the ideal presentation histogram. Or at least there ought to be.

In capture you want the latitude to get detail out of everything, so the histogram should not touch the edges. This ensures that essential detail in the subject is not lost.

However in presentation all the tones ought to be present. Using the zone system that is eleven tones with pure black and pure white at the edges. This uses all available tones for maximum width of range. In a histogram those pure blacks and whites would be spikes at the ends of the histogram. Avoiding these tones is to avoid the maximum impact that you can present. You need to present those tones to the viewer, but they must not be present in the area where detail is important to your subject.

To apply the digital capture ideal histogram as the hallmark of the perfectly exposed image would mean that many of the great film images of the past are failures. It is applying a technical limitation as an aestetic rule.

05/21/2011 12:56:58 PM · #25
Youre not that stupid hahn. You know that histo opens my image up to possible ID. Its one thing to bicker....its another to expose an entry. You are reported.

Originally posted by hahn23:

I made no mention of whose image the histogram belonged to...because I don't know. ALL the images in my voting window are completely anonymous as to author. And, even if I suspected the identity of the author, it wouldn't alter my vote. I vote based on the caliber of the image and appropriateness for the challenge. It doesn't matter to me who the image's author is, even if I thought I might know.
Pages:  
Current Server Time: 03/28/2024 10:36:30 AM

Please log in or register to post to the forums.


Home - Challenges - Community - League - Photos - Cameras - Lenses - Learn - Prints! - Help - Terms of Use - Privacy - Top ^
DPChallenge, and website content and design, Copyright © 2001-2024 Challenging Technologies, LLC.
All digital photo copyrights belong to the photographers and may not be used without permission.
Current Server Time: 03/28/2024 10:36:30 AM EDT.