Your title time: Moving In or Out of the Darkness or Light

[JBW]

I went out today determined to get a histogram that was not loaded to the dark side. I achieved my aim in camera. But as soon as I loaded it into my computer the histogram swung way to the left. I have no idea why.



I went back and tried it again with a different workflow and basic settings
.

[purplehaze]

Brian, that is lovely light you have captured there and the image is well exposed for the light that was available to you. The reason your histogram looks "loaded" to the dark side is because the dynamic range of the scene tended more to the dark side than the light. But I think you did good. If I were you, I would pull the really dark bits to black without affecting the petals. The WB is a bit warm for my taste, but the focus is where it should be, and I'm loving that little petal curl in the middle. Well done! You're on your way!

[JBW]

Brian, that is lovely light you have captured there and the image is well exposed for the light that was available to you. The reason your histogram looks "loaded" to the dark side is because the dynamic range of the scene tended more to the dark side than the light. But I think you did good. If I were you, I would pull the really dark bits to black without affecting the petals. The WB is a bit warm for my taste, but the focus is where it should be, and I'm loving that little petal curl in the middle. Well done! You're on your way!

Thanks, I could have taken it a little darker but i wanted to save just a bit of the leaves. But next time I shall see what i can do.

[purplehaze]

I take it then that you darkened the image some in PP. Do you make selective adjustments, or just global ones? Having looked at this image and the one in your other thread, I am inclined to agree with Tony and think that part of the problem lies in your processing. Do you use curves? It might be helpful if you walked us through your post-processing steps.

[Adzman808]

I liked both your flower shots, but this one is better!

Re your question, I WONDER if you're using any sort of dynamic range in camera setting?

The reason I ask, is becuase typically these settings, artifically boost tone curves for shadows, while preserving highlight data.

Which is beneficial for the SOOC jpegs, but not so good for the raw because many of these in camera settings, under expose the image, then apply a tone curve to the jpeg (to boost the shadows), but skip this step when it comes to the raw file

This leaves you with a under exposed raw file, with unnecessary SNR, but at the time of shooting the histogram would of looked good, because the histogram is basically a representation of the resultant jpeg, not the raw

Sorry if this doesn't apply to you and your shots, but I thought it was worth mentioning!

[Shadowman]

Nicely done.

[JBW]

I take it then that you darkened the image some in PP. Do you make selective adjustments, or just global ones? Having looked at this image and the one in your other thread, I am inclined to agree with Tony and think that part of the problem lies in your processing. Do you use curves? It might be helpful if you walked us through your post-processing steps.

Okay here we go.

I up load into sony playmemories home. when I find the one I like I move it into Capture 1 Sony Express 9.

I set my lens
sharpen to 150 or 200
crop, flip and or flop

stage 2
adjust levels, white and black points in RGB
red, green and blue levels.

stage 3
work the curve tool.
usually a 5 point adjustment

stage 4
exposure, contrast, brightness and saturation in varying amounts.

stage 5
colour adjustments

stage 6
readjust as necessary

stage 7
export via tiff 8 point into Gimp

fine tune the crop, scale the shot
readjust white and black points in levels.
depending on the shot strategic NL filter, gaussian blur, neon edge detect, possibly photocopy filter and finish with an unsharpen mask

That is more or less how i proceed.

Hope that gives a clue or two.
B

[JBW]

I liked both your flower shots, but this one is better!

Re your question, I WONDER if you're using any sort of dynamic range in camera setting?

The reason I ask, is becuase typically these settings, artifically boost tone curves for shadows, while preserving highlight data.

Which is beneficial for the SOOC jpegs, but not so good for the raw because many of these in camera settings, under expose the image, then apply a tone curve to the jpeg (to boost the shadows), but skip this step when it comes to the raw file

This leaves you with a under exposed raw file, with unnecessary SNR, but at the time of shooting the histogram would of looked good, because the histogram is basically a representation of the resultant jpeg, not the raw

Sorry if this doesn't apply to you and your shots, but I thought it was worth mentioning!

I double checked just to make sure and the answer is nope. No need to apologise ot could have been the answer.

[JBW]

Nicely done.

I am beginning to get the hang of the creative thingymajig.

[Wavelength]

This is really a fine capture.... you please work on it and show us the result

[JBW]

This is really a fine capture.... you please work on it and show us the result

okay I rarely recisit the same shot twice but I will see what I can do.

[Manfred M]

When I see a histogram like this:



It suggests that something is not quite right.

[Stagecoach]

When I see a histogram like this:



It suggests that something is not quite right.

Interesting Manfred, if I open Brian's original image in ACR I see this.

Opened as SRGB



Opened as Adobe



and in ViewNX2



So are we simply seeing slightly different histograms as would be expected with different methods used?

[JBW]

When I see a histogram like this:



It suggests that something is not quite right.

Grumpy we are working on he same theory. The Histogram looks funny which means something is not right.

But many people think this is a good shot. Does this mean that for this type of shot this type of histogram is good?

[JBW]

Interesting Manfred, if I open Brian's original image in ACR I see this.

Opened as SRGB



Opened as Adobe



So are we simply seeing slightly different histograms as would be expected with different methods used?

i'm looking forward to reading the answers to your question.

[Stagecoach]

i'm looking forward to reading the answers to your question.

Brian,

You say " The Histogram looks funny which means something is not right "

Can you define exactly what you consider looks funny?

To me the histogram that shows when I open your image in ACR and also ViewNX2 (just added above) looks exactly as I would expect for that image. OK so the red channel has very minor clipping, no big deal.

[JBW]

Brian,

You say " The Histogram looks funny which means something is not right "

Can you define exactly what you consider looks funny?

To me the histogram that shows when I open your image in ACR and also ViewNX2 (just added above) looks exactly as I would expect for that image. OK so the red channel has very minor clipping, no big deal.

And now we get to the crux of the discussion. There is one view that says histograms should look this way. Another side says this is proper. Now you chimed in with 'this looks right for this type of shooting.

The last histogram you did shows close to what I see in camera. High on the left because of the contrast but with colours reaching to both sides.If I understand you correctly when i shoot like this this is what is right to see?

[Stagecoach]

Brian,

And now we get to the crux of the discussion. There is one view that says histograms should look this way.

There is NO RIGHT WAY for a histogram to look other than not to be loaded (including clipping at either end) to one side or the other when you don't want it to be.

Another side says this is proper.

This statement makes no sense if you do not 'define' proper. What are you referring to as 'proper'.

Now you chimed in with 'this looks right for this type of shooting.

No, I refer to this histogram being a correct representation of that finished and posted image.

The last histogram you did shows close to what I see in camera.

All the histograms I posted are almost identical, minor differences simply due to different software and colour spaces. A histogram is never likely to be exactly identical using different methods to measure/show it.

High on the left because of the contrast

High on the left due to the predominance of dark tones which you want and works well for this image.

If I understand you correctly when i shoot like this this is what is right to see?

Exactly, ignoring the very very minor red clipping to the right which can also often be caused by final sharpening, downsizing, converting and posting.

As for Manfred's image with it's representative histogram showing it being short from the right hand side note the difference in looks of his posted image, not sure what is happening with that.

Grahame

[purplehaze]

Speaking to the issue of your seeing the histogram change on import into the computer, Brian, I wanted to make a couple of points:

a) as I understand it, and I trust someone will correct me if I'm wrong, the histogram on the back of the camera represents the jpg that the camera creates for playback purposes, whereas the histogram you see on import into Capture One represents the raw file. That's one potential source of a difference right there.

b) any difference between those two histograms is liable to be enhanced if you have chosen any in-camera processing settings other than neutral.

c) the in-camera conversion is Sony's, the raw conversion is Capture One's. I gather that Capture One works closely with Sony, and is no doubt privy to a certain amount of proprietary information, but it appears to me that their interpretation of Sony's raw files is their own.

d) Capture One has tailored its raw conversion to each of Sony's cameras, so you need to be sure that you have chosen the ICC profile for your camera model under Base Characteristics. If you have selected some other ICC profile, it seems to me that might result in your seeing a different histogram on the computer

Sincerely hope I am not misleading you on any of this, but if so, perhaps we will both be schooled.

[Manfred M]

Grahame - The reason I posted that particular snapshot is that it is that it is what I picked up in the browser, rather than something that went through additional processing via a screen capture, so the colours and colour distribution is as good as I can see it. I find that the vibrance and intensity get lost through the screen capture process, so I suspect that the histogram is a less accurate representation.

That being said, I can't vouch for the accuracy of the histogram either, but I expect it will be more accurate. The only exception is those occasions where there is a link to the host site that allows one to download the original image.

The sRGB representation makes some sense, but the AdobeRGB does not as the web-based displays do not handle the latter colour space. While I like this shot very much, I find that it looks rather muddy, so the histogram seems to confirm the limited colour range we are seeing.