Expressing a feeling

[JBW]

I can give it a try. i did out in extra red pop but perhaps not enough.

Okay, i went back and tried the Gimp part one more time. Let me know what you think please and thank you

First gimp with the histogram

Now the redone shot

[JBW]

I think that is a beautiful powerful image. I am a little puzzled though because when I first looked at it some time ago I thought it was very gloomy. I don't know whether it has changed or whether my perception or viewing conditions have changed.

perceptions and feelings are always changing. perhaps that is why we go back to look again?

[xpatUSA]

The image put me in mind of those old oil paintings hanging in buildings of yesteryear.

I found the image improved (in that regard) when those bright spots, whatever they are, were quelled with 'Impulse Noise Reduction' in RawTherapee - is there a GIMP equivalent?

Pardon my edit:



Please click once only on the above to see the spots well - clicking again to expand the image to 100% seems to blur them a bit on my computer

[ScoutR]

perceptions and feelings are always changing. perhaps that is why we go back to look again?

Mine have not changed. I like your original.

[Manfred M]

Not quite enough. Seems to me that you are seeing a shot that most people aren't. I did some additional work in Gimp but when I posted the histogram was close to the one from Sony express that I have included.

You justifiably take pride in your skills and equipment. But it seems to me that you are not seeing what I and others are? Perhaps the problem is on your end?

No Brian - unless you have a properly calibrated screen, you don't know if it is gloomy or bright as you have no absolute reference to judge the image from if you are working by eye. Most screens are set too bright out of the box, and because your histograms are usually biased to the left (underexposed), I suspect this is the case with your screen.

In the absence of a calibrated screen, you really do have to work to the histogram and to numbers, as working by eye isn't going to work for you.

As I have a calibrated (and profiled) screen and I work in a neutral coloured, subdued light work area, I know I don't have an issue.

[lunaticitizen]

Based on the histogram, I would've preferred the image to be a little more exposed. Then again, if Brian prefers the image to be as it is now, then that's all that matters.

[JBW]

No Brian - unless you have a properly calibrated screen, you don't know if it is gloomy or bright as you have no absolute reference to judge the image from if you are working by eye. Most screens are set too bright out of the box, and because your histograms are usually biased to the left (underexposed), I suspect this is the case with your screen.

In the absence of a calibrated screen, you really do have to work to the histogram and to numbers, as working by eye isn't going to work for you.

As I have a calibrated (and profiled) screen and I work in a neutral coloured, subdued light work area, I know I don't have an issue.

Then can you explain why the shot of my shot you posted doesn't look like the shot I posted? it is both darker and duller than the original.

[JBW]

Enough said...

Grumpy, take a look at this hot you have posted and compare it to the original. it is duller, dirtier and not at all the same shot I posted. If your system was reproducing my shot accurately shouldn't they be the same.

[Manfred M]

Grumpy, take a look at this hot you have posted and compare it to the original. it is duller, dirtier and not at all the same shot I posted. If your system was reproducing my shot accurately shouldn't they be the same.

That's because it is a screen capture. They are always much duller than the original. Unfortunately, the way the software works, however, it shows the histogram of your original in the Firefox browser, and that's is what I am trying to show.

[JBW]

That's because it is a screen capture. They are always much duller than the original. Unfortunately, the way the software works, however, it shows the histogram of your original in the Firefox browser, and that's is what I am trying to show.

okay then there are still two difficulties one is that your histogram doesn't look like mine and I don't use firefox. How about you try an histogram on my new and improved version that comes with the gimp histogram. if your system is reproducing my shot accurately the histograms should be close?

[Dave Humphries]

How about you try an histogram on my new and improved version that comes with the gimp histogram. if your system is reproducing my shot accurately the histograms should be close?

The mean and median figures on the "new improved" version are approx. double the original.

I like the new version visually, it also has a better crop.

[JBW]

The mean and median figures on the "new improved" version are approx. double the original.

I like the new version visually, it also has a better crop.

of course it does I took your advice on the crop. But it doesn't have the feeling. Maybe in time i will have the skills needed to have both.

[bnnrcn]

Hi Brian ,the flower looks better in this version but because you brightened the BG too, the image lost its mood. If I had to choose between the two I would prefer your original

Okay, i went back and tried the Gimp part one more time. Let me know what you think please and thank you

First gimp with the histogram

Now the redone shot

[JBW]

me too

[Manfred M]

okay then there are still two difficulties one is that your histogram doesn't look like mine and I don't use firefox. How about you try an histogram on my new and improved version that comes with the gimp histogram. if your system is reproducing my shot accurately the histograms should be close?

The histograms are likely never to look identical as yours is based on the original that you are working on whereas mine are based on whatever comes across the internet, which can include compression and other data manipulation that occurs after you upload the image. The exact shape of the histogram matters less than some of the specifics it shows you and the two endpoints are really important. Changing the software tool may show subtle differences in how the histogram is presented, but the differences we are discussing are anything but subtle.

If the edge of the histogram is right against the left side, you are clipping blacks (loss of shadow detail) if you are up against the right hand side, you are clipping highlights. The distribution between the two endpoints will give you the distribution of values of luminance / colour channel, depending on which view you are taking in the histogram. The wider the spread of "meaningful" data, the more "pop" you will have in your image, and the more compressed it is, the duller your image.

The reason I use Firefox is that it has the best colour management of any of the major browsers.

As for my system reproducing the shot accurately, I can guarantee that it does (assuming you and I are looking at it in a browser, not in Gimp or Capture One). I've set up my equipment so it does this. As I've suggested before, unless you come back and can tell me you have a calibrated display, the conversation will stop right there because I have no idea as to what you are seeing.

Final thought - I've suggested that your computer screen might be set too bright. There is another possibility and that is that you might be trying to go for a dark and brooding look. If your lighting was dark and brooding, then creating that look is relatively easy, but if you are trying to take a well lit shot and turn it into something dark and brooding in post, that is a lot harder to do and takes a lot more than biasing towards the blacks. Yes, you will get a darker image, but you will lose a lot of the detail in the scene and end up with a much duller image (less "pop"). The simplest way to do this is to get the lighting right in camera. Doing it in post takes a lot more skill and knowledge to get it to look right.

Your latest edits do look better, but you are showing the lighting as shot, which appears to be reasonably bright.

[James G]

Brian, I think this is a classic example of how our own preferences for an image can clash.

Today, looking at the image, and considering the title, along with my own mood, which is somewhat gloomy, it ticks all the boxes.

Tomorrow, when i'm more upbeat... ? Maybe a bit gloomy. Point is it works for you... (and me today )

[xpatUSA]

That's because it is a screen capture. They are always much duller than the original.

Are you sure, Manfred?

The screen capture at right below seems about the same on my system (Win 7, Dell CORE i5, FastStone Viewer):



Does your statement refer perhaps to just systems like yours, but not everyone's?

Just for completeness, your screen capture at left does look duller on my system.



Looking at the histograms and with all due respect, if that happened to me I would be inclined to investigate further. We spend so much time and effort getting histograms just as we would like them that if something did that to one of my finely-crafted images, I would be rather irritated

[Manfred M]

Brian, I think this is a classic example of how our own preferences for an image can clash.

Today, looking at the image, and considering the title, along with my own mood, which is somewhat gloomy, it ticks all the boxes.

Tomorrow, when i'm more upbeat... ? Maybe a bit gloomy. Point is it works for you... (and me today )

James - I'm very much the same way. Sometimes I like clean and crisp, sometimes moody, but the image capture and to a lesser extent, the PP work need to be well done. That always starts with a well composed, properly lit image. If you don't do that you have a lot of work to do in PP to get the image looking right. Getting it right at capture is virtually always a lot easier than trying to "make it / fake it" in post.

[James G]

Sorry Manfred, I wasn't challenging the PP advice. I totally agree that getting a capture right is and always should be the first goal with an image.
I was really commenting on the 'feel' of the image and the synchronicity with my own mood. Despite the PP issues it sparked something for me

[JBW]

The histograms are likely never to look identical as yours is based on the original that you are working on whereas mine are based on whatever comes across the internet, which can include compression and other data manipulation that occurs after you upload the image. The exact shape of the histogram matters less than some of the specifics it shows you and the two endpoints are really important. Changing the software tool may show subtle differences in how the histogram is presented, but the differences we are discussing are anything but subtle.

If the edge of the histogram is right against the left side, you are clipping blacks (loss of shadow detail) if you are up against the right hand side, you are clipping highlights. The distribution between the two endpoints will give you the distribution of values of luminance / colour channel, depending on which view you are taking in the histogram. The wider the spread of "meaningful" data, the more "pop" you will have in your image, and the more compressed it is, the duller your image.

The reason I use Firefox is that it has the best colour management of any of the major browsers.

As for my system reproducing the shot accurately, I can guarantee that it does (assuming you and I are looking at it in a browser, not in Gimp or Capture One). I've set up my equipment so it does this. As I've suggested before, unless you come back and can tell me you have a calibrated display, the conversation will stop right there because I have no idea as to what you are seeing.

Final thought - I've suggested that your computer screen might be set too bright. There is another possibility and that is that you might be trying to go for a dark and brooding look. If your lighting was dark and brooding, then creating that look is relatively easy, but if you are trying to take a well lit shot and turn it into something dark and brooding in post, that is a lot harder to do and takes a lot more than biasing towards the blacks. Yes, you will get a darker image, but you will lose a lot of the detail in the scene and end up with a much duller image (less "pop"). The simplest way to do this is to get the lighting right in camera. Doing it in post takes a lot more skill and knowledge to get it to look right.

Your latest edits do look better, but you are showing the lighting as shot, which appears to be reasonably bright.

Well then here it must end. Living over here means that my electricity is not stable, I can't get the hardware needed to do hard core calibration, my monitors are not high quality, my work space will never be 'neutral' and that's my life.

But thanks for the help. i've done what I can.