Tulip

[Round Tuit]

I have taken several pictures of flowers against a black background lately. I decided to try a light background for this unusually coloured tulip. I like the result.

Comments and criticisms are always welcomed.



Andre

[xpatUSA]

I have taken several pictures of flowers against a black background lately. I decided to try a light background for this unusually coloured tulip. I like the result.

Comments and criticisms are always welcomed.



Andre

Good idea with the white background. Reminds me of botanic drawings in old books. Very nice lighting and capture of the tulip.

The white was a bit bright to my eyes on my monitor which is set quite bright itself - probably more than usually recommended here.

No criticism intended per se but I found this more comfortable on my monitor (may have gone a bit too far). The original lightness was L*=95:

[Wavelength]

Excellent presentation; really lovely

[DanK]

Very nice lighting and composition.

I agree with Ted: the white was a bit too bright on my calibrated monitor. I found it nicer once I dropped the max to 235-245

[Mike Buckley]

I like everything about it including the background on my calibrated monitor. I especially like that the background displays a range of tones; if it was just one tone the image would appear unattractively antiseptic to my eye. I especially like that you display the texture in the petals while retaining their soft look.

[Mike Buckley]

At the risk of taking the thread into a technical discussion that gets carried away...

I found it nicer once I dropped the max to 235-245

My software indicates that the background is already in a range of 240 - 250. I doubt that I would notice any difference without comparisons that are made of two images displayed side-by-side or toggling back and forth when the difference between luminosity values is only the quantity of 5.

I've always wondered if all software on the same computer system would report that information the same. I've also wondered if those values are affected by how the monitor is profiled and calibrated or by whether the monitor is profiled and calibrated.

[george013]

.....
I've always wondered if all software on the same computer system would report that information the same. I've also wondered if those values are affected by how the monitor is profiled and calibrated or by whether the monitor is profiled and calibrated.

They stay the same. Unless there's something as changing the color space.

George

[Manfred M]

I've always wondered if all software on the same computer system would report that information the same.

The system does not see what your computer screen does, so it simply outputs the data with no feedback as to the actual configuration of the screen(s) you are using.

I've also wondered if those values are affected by how the monitor is profiled and calibrated or by whether the monitor is profiled and calibrated.

Here the answer is a bit more complex and one significant element; the viewing conditions are not being considered.

Calibration sets two very important computer screen attributes; the absolute brightness of the output (measured in candelas per square meter (sometimes referred to as "nits"). The usual recommended range for screen output is 80 - 120 nits, with most people setting their screens to 100 - 120 nits. Contrast is the other component that is set during the calibration operation.

What is missing in the discussion is the viewing environment. If you are looking at a computer screen in a brightly lit room, what you see will look darker and less contrasty than if you were looking at the screen in the room at night with all the lights turned off.

Generally we should be looking at our screens in a darkened room where the level of illumination does not exceed 70 Lux.


If you have a handheld lightmeter, you should be able to measure the illumination level and there are all kinds of iOS and Android apps out there that claim to fulfill this function. When I do a reading with my Sekonic L758 at my workstation , I get a reading of around 60 Lux whereas the app on my iPad suggests a very dim 15 Lux when I read from the same place, hence my hesitance to trust the apps accuracy. Just to put things in perspective, from a design standpoint, illumination in an working office environment is about 500 lux.

[Mike Buckley]

The system does not see what your computer screen does, so it simply outputs the data with no feedback as to the actual configuration of the screen(s) you are using.

Even so, that doesn't answer the question of whether all software reports the data the same. That answer can only come with testing.

[george013]

Even so, that doesn't answer the question of whether all software reports the data the same. That answer can only come with testing.

The software gives the data from the file. Sorry, but in a raster file all pixels can be exclusive addressed by the x,y address. As far as I can think off, only a change of color space can change that.
The result, what you see, depends on the monitor settings/calibration.

George

[Mike Buckley]

The software gives the data from the file.

I'm not going to belabor the point any more other than to mention that it's possible that the data is not necessarily reported the same, as the reporting process can vary from software to software. I've seen varied reporting of the same data in other situations so nobody is going to convince me that it can't happen in the situation we're discussing.

Back to discussing André's very nice photo!

[DanK]

Hi Mike,

Here's how Photoshop reported the luminance on my computer:



Dropping the output maximum to 240 or so made a subtle but noticeable difference on my monitor.

I wouldn't be surprised if different software displayed this differently, but I don't understand why the output device would matter.

Dan

[Manfred M]

Even so, that doesn't answer the question of whether all software reports the data the same. That answer can only come with testing.

+1 to what George has written. The same software will interpret the same file identically. What you end up seeing on the screen will be dependent on your screen and how it is set up and to some extent on the video card in use. That is the advantage of digital technology; 100% repeatability. Different software can interpret the same input differently, but if we are dealing with photo editing software, using a specific colour space, etc. the difference should be output with a close value. A (0,0,0) had better show up as black and a (255, 255,255) value should be white.

If you change some of the inputs to your computer screen; George mentions one example of how that might be done, then your outputs would look different.

[Mike Buckley]

That is the advantage of digital technology; 100% repeatability.

Oh, if only that was true.

This is my last post on the subject, as I already feel bad enough that the thread has been diverted.

[bnnrcn]

Very nice presentation of a beautiful tulip

[Shadowman]

Nice captur. The green cast on the lower petals makes me believe there is a green surface below the flower, the green reflection might look normal in nature but not so much in a still life.

[Mike Buckley]

I don't think that's a green reflection, John; I think those green tones are in the flower.

[Shadowman]

I don't think that's a green reflection, John; I think those green tones are in the flower.

Mike,

To me the green would look much better in the background or to also have some green tint/hues in the background so that the colors of the main subject wouldn't dominate so much.

[Mike Buckley]

I agree, John, that other backgrounds would be a better choice than the current background. However, once André decided to use the current background, it's in that context that I like all of the other choices.

[george013]

Hi Mike,

Here's how Photoshop reported the luminance on my computer:



Dropping the output maximum to 240 or so made a subtle but noticeable difference on my monitor.

I wouldn't be surprised if different software displayed this differently, but I don't understand why the output device would matter.

Dan

I know it's not liked by others but still a response.
First of all in your post you're not viewing a picture but editing a picture.
In the sensor the intensity of the light is captured by a analogue load. That load can have a maximum and minimum value. That maximum and minimum value determines the range the sensor is working with. If you know the range, you can divide it in equal peaces. If you use by example 8bit for that purpose, you can divide it in 255 peaces. Every peace stands for a sub range of 1/255 part of the input range.

So also for the output devices. Your monitor has been set to emit light in a certain strength. That setting defines the range of the monitor. It also has a build in capacity to show that intensity in 255 steps. Sending a pixel to the monitor of 255,255,255 means for the monitor: "show this digital info at maximal value."
Sending that pixel to different monitors with different max. intensities gives different results.

I don't know what different calibration tools are doing. But with mine, Spyder 3, I can't set the intensity or contrast of the monitor. It says to use the factory defaults or use a setting with which you're comfortable.

Prints are easier. They are as they are.

George