Lens Diaries Go Now
Glamour, Beauty, Nude, Models, Photographers

*    |  Register  


 
Go Back   Garage Glamour™ > Garage Glamour™ Main Forums > Tech Talk Forum
 

Tech Talk Forum Photography & Technical Related Only!

Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
A question on digital use due to JT\'s question
Old 12-02-2002, 09:43 AM   #1 (permalink)
Lifetime Amateur

 
jford's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Member GG#: 35246
Location: Indiana, PA
Posts: 2,730
Comments: 7

jford is offline IP: 144.80.193.138
 
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiFurl this Post!
Reply With Quote

JT's question about which image is preferred got me thinking about curves, linearity, and the processing of digital images.

I know from my own background in signal processing that once information is lost, it's lost and you're not going to recover it accurately by changing the gamma curve, etc. SO...

When using a digital imaging system, shouldn't one try to capture and store the original image in a mode which preserves the maximum amount of original information possible?

If so, isn't that the mode that corresponds to the maximum linearity for response?

What I mean is, shouldn't we use highest (real) resolution, color, flat curves, no enhanced contrast, no enhanced saturation, etc., to save the original image, and then adjust curves, etc., on a copy of the original using, e.g, Photoshop?

Thanks -

John

  View Public Profile Send a private message to jford Visit jford's homepage! Find More Posts by jford
 
Re: A question on digital use due to JT\'s question
Old 12-02-2002, 01:56 PM   #2 (permalink)
J T Smith

 
jtsmith's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Member GG#: 35390
Location: Pittsfield
Posts: 883
Comments: 0

jtsmith is offline IP: 12.45.209.137
 
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiFurl this Post!
Reply With Quote

Hi John,

For the most part I am a purist which means I like to create things originally original as much as possible.
So by studying my S1's effects by manipulating it on camera I create what I want right then and there. IT comes with practice. I am not a digital geru but through trial and error I have developed techniques to manipulate the image first and then if need be spend two seconds instead of two hours tweaking photographs. Digital brings a new way of looking at things and ironically now the purists are wanting to make digital look like film when digital has it's own flare and own feel to it in many ways of shooting with it, manipulating it, etc.

Film has it's purist qualities and digital can have it's pure qualities but it can also be easily manipulated.

My examples that I shown previously is no differant then shooting black and white film and choosing a number 1 filter or a number 5 polycontrast filter when printing. I was actually surprised to get a constructive feedback that my work in general not examples previously shown, looked to photoshopped. It struck me funny because I have literally spent bare minumum in PS these days by understanding the look I want originally and within reason have not played with the airbrushing techniques you find with the blur tool and rubber stamp.

I see what you are saying about shooting it right to get as much information on digital but the same can be true in film as there are chemistry and lab techniques in printing to get artistic effects after the initial purist exposures, etc. But who wants to spend extra trial and error time screwing with something that is right when you can initially create the way you want it to begin with by going ahead and cross processing, pushing and pulling film, over exposing, underexposing, etc. Shooting digital to me with the ease of camera manipulations I find on the S1 I can achieve certain looks originally with either minor corrections or levels.

It is time we let the image speak for itself. Ultimately winning or losing with it is defined in the final image no matter how it got there. To claim you are a great photographer by a poor photograph manipulated in PS is definately a differant story.



J T

  View Public Profile Send a private message to jtsmith Visit jtsmith's homepage! Find More Posts by jtsmith
 
Over vs. Under
Old 12-02-2002, 06:06 PM   #3 (permalink)
Lifetime Photographer
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Member GG#: 35195
Posts: 440
Comments: 0

rjwarren is offline IP: 24.160.121.2
 
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiFurl this Post!
Reply With Quote

John

One of the interesting observations about digital vs. film is in your question.

With film, you were always careful not to underexpose -- if you have too much black in the image, the corresponding negative is clear -- no usable information to "bring out". As JT pointed out, with the right combination of filters and exposure time, I could do LOTS of stuff IF the information is in there.

With digital, the OPPOSITE is true. You want to be careful when you overexpose. Overexposure leads to all zero's in an area of an image -- no information at all to work with. If it's underexposed I can use the curve or level tools in Photoshop to bring out some of the information.

And related to this the late film has a longer curve. In other words, film has more gradations between high and low. You can "blow out" an image in digital more easily, and you also have nothing to recover in that area of the frame.

Rule of thumb in digital -- meter the hot spots so that you make an informed decision about the exposure.

Regards
Bob

  View Public Profile Send a private message to rjwarren Visit rjwarren's homepage! Find More Posts by rjwarren
 
Re: A question on digital use due to JT\'s question
Old 12-02-2002, 06:34 PM   #4 (permalink)
RBP
Guest
 
Member GG#:
Posts: n/a
Comments:

IP: 32.97.239.16
 
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiFurl this Post!
Reply With Quote

Well, not exactly.

Obviously if you tried to review completely unprocessed raw data captured in a system with a Bayer mask, it will look like crap. The raw data MUST be processed in some amount to be an image. There are tweaks every camera manufacturer puts into their camera's processing optimized for that camera. Compare in-camera sharpening with Photoshop and see the difference. There is also processing to account for non-linear (or non-logarithmic, depending on the function) response profiles of any particular semiconductor. Film also has non-perfect characteristic curves, and film manufacturers are always tweaking them.

Also, "more" data is not always better. In the realities of life, there are storage, processing time,
download time, even image loading and rendering time. I keep 2GB of physical memory on my machines, and editing 11x17 images with a dozen layers at 400dpi for a calendar recently taxed it to the point that my workflow was slowed down. Shooting RAW files slows down my workflow, just like shooting with the Hassy or 4x5 limits me in some ways, but gives me more "data" and I do it when it is needed. Remember, makeup is a way to record less "data" by hiding blemishes in otherwise unblemished skin.

When the extra data is necessary and outweighs the negatives, it makes sense then to do it. Other times, it doesn't. That is only a call that the individual photographer can make. There is no "always right" answer. One of my favorite images in my portfolio was shot with the Hassy on Polaroid - not traditional film. Who'd of thunk it?

You can also reach a point of diminishing returns. When sanding a coffee table, you work down to 200 fine grit paper last. To go further to 400 to 600 garnet paper will give you such minor better results that it can't be appreciated without a microscope. So is it worth it?

Also, sometimes my desire is to manipulate an image in a certain fashion in the computer, and I intentionally expose or alter the taking of the picture so certain data is intentionally lost - such as highlight or shadow detail... or sometimes fine resolution (remember soft focus filters?... I mean the glass ones you put on the lens). Losing that data is necessary because my post production manip will produce desired results on part of the image and undesired results on another. It is easier to loose it with the exposure, rather than try to work with the lasso and remove it the computer later.


The Headless Model
 
 
Hey, J.T
Old 12-02-2002, 09:26 PM   #5 (permalink)
Free Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Member GG#: 35402
Location: Little Rock
Posts: 192
Comments: 0

Gunfitr is offline IP: 152.163.189.166
 
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiFurl this Post!
Reply With Quote

I for one like your "signature" one stop overexposed, creamy skinned, black and white headshots.

I saw your post with the four photos and liked the second and third myself.

But as for your explanation of how you get there....could you be a little less cryptic and a little more explanatory for those of us who like that look?

In other words, could you lead me by the hand as to what you are doing.

I signed up for the Lingerie and Lace seminar in St. Louis, one reason being I wanted to ask you about your capture and processing.

I shoot a D1x.

I will leave the "argument" to the scholars..... I am busy trying to learn new ways to take interesting photos.
  View Public Profile Send a private message to Gunfitr Find More Posts by Gunfitr
 
You can drill me there
Old 12-03-2002, 12:09 AM   #6 (permalink)
J T Smith

 
jtsmith's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Member GG#: 35390
Location: Pittsfield
Posts: 883
Comments: 0

jtsmith is offline IP: 12.45.209.137
 
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiFurl this Post!
Reply With Quote

It's best described hands on....since you will be attending the silk n lace workshop that I will be instructing and will be there, I will be glad to go over that technique with you.

See ya soon.



J T

  View Public Profile Send a private message to jtsmith Visit jtsmith's homepage! Find More Posts by jtsmith
 
Re: A question on digital use due to JT\'s question
Old 12-03-2002, 01:28 PM   #7 (permalink)
Lifetime Amateur

 
jford's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Member GG#: 35246
Location: Indiana, PA
Posts: 2,730
Comments: 7

jford is offline IP: 144.80.193.138
 
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiFurl this Post!
Reply With Quote

In my first posting, I think I "wrote before I thought."

While there are those who love constructing or synthesizing images, it's probably fair to say that most of us are more interested in capturing a particular image as directly as possible. If the shot is previsualized to have a specific appearance, then it should be taken with whatever effects/tools/adjustments are necessary to achieve that appearance.

My question was more of a knee-jerk realization that applying gamma corrections, etc., in the camera would, in effect, distort the original information and make recovering that original information more difficult, perhaps impossible. However, I didn't stop to realize that - if the photograper is as skilled as, e.g., JT - the resultant image IS the desired image, and the "original information" is unnecessary.

Sorry.
  View Public Profile Send a private message to jford Visit jford's homepage! Find More Posts by jford
 
Thanks
Old 12-03-2002, 01:37 PM   #8 (permalink)
Lifetime Amateur

 
jford's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Member GG#: 35246
Location: Indiana, PA
Posts: 2,730
Comments: 7

jford is offline IP: 144.80.193.138
 
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiFurl this Post!
Reply With Quote

Obvious - once someone points it out. But I never thought of it that way - until you pointed it out. Thanks.

Along those lines, suppose you took two digital images - one exposed for the highlights (only one pixel is 0), and one exposed more for the shadows (many pixels "blown out"). Couldn't you digitally add those two images to obtain one image with a longer dynamic range?

Nice picture, btw. Would love to see the original print.
  View Public Profile Send a private message to jford Visit jford's homepage! Find More Posts by jford
 
Thanks
Old 12-03-2002, 01:56 PM   #9 (permalink)
Lifetime Amateur

 
jford's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Member GG#: 35246
Location: Indiana, PA
Posts: 2,730
Comments: 7

jford is offline IP: 144.80.193.138
 
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiFurl this Post!
Reply With Quote

"When the extra data is necessary and outweighs the negatives, it makes sense then to do it. Other times, it doesn't. That is only a call that the individual photographer can make. "

Exactly what I forgot.
  View Public Profile Send a private message to jford Visit jford's homepage! Find More Posts by jford
 
Re: A question on digital use due to JT\'s question
Old 12-03-2002, 04:25 PM   #10 (permalink)
J T Smith

 
jtsmith's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Member GG#: 35390
Location: Pittsfield
Posts: 883
Comments: 0

jtsmith is offline IP: 12.45.209.137
 
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiFurl this Post!
Reply With Quote

No reason to be sorry and in fact you were correct for the most part in recording digital images properly to get the most information. That is true if you wanted to work from that. For some reason I can not get sometimes what I like by sometimes being true and pure with my S1. Nailing shots and then try and achieve certain looks in PS is harder for me with the techniques I use. Maybe if I knew more techniques in PS to achieve the same results but then the purist in me says that is cheating. LOL

Frankly I don't care how an image got there, because an image will speak for itself no matter how it got there. It is when photographers apply techniques and boast great photography skills vs great PS or lab skills or really change the appearance of a model.

You know? Ansel Adams was a much better Dark Room Artist then I think he ever was a photographer. I will get killed for that but what I mean is he knew how to photograph and then he knew how to take it to the lab to the finish product. He set everything up with the intentions of taking it to the lab.

Again, don't be sorry for your original comments. That holds true and my comments was not to mislead yours but rather a simple statement of how I achieve what I am achieving these days. Good or bad from my colleagues critiques, I somewhat like what I am doing otherwise I would not keep doing it.



J T
  View Public Profile Send a private message to jtsmith Visit jtsmith's homepage! Find More Posts by jtsmith
 
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is On
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Film Vs Digital mray Tech Talk Forum 41 11-02-2011 11:28 AM
Question about the Canon EOS Digital Rebel Earl_B Tech Talk Forum 18 12-22-2005 12:23 AM
LCD question with digital cameras SGage Tech Talk Forum 7 02-07-2005 07:30 PM
Quick prints from digital - resolution question Andy_Pearlman Tech Talk Forum 8 01-13-2005 05:45 PM
Question on Digital Earl53 Tech Talk Forum 4 11-20-2002 12:06 AM

Sponsors


New To Site? Need Help? Photographer & Model Links
All times are GMT -5. The time now is 01:54 PM.

© 1999-2017 Garage Glamour™




Search Engine Friendly URLs by vBSEO 3.2.0

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94