I simply through the histogram out the window.

[JBW]

Spaghetti Lily: Sony Alpha a68 ~ Tamron 90mm 272E Macro Lens ~ ISO 100 ~ Shutter Speed 1/20s ~ F/16 ~ Exposure Compensation 0.0 ~ Natural Light. This was shot in our garden/temple with bright sunlight on the plant and dark shadows as a background.

[mugge]

Brian, you did not throw the histogram out the window at all. You used it to display what you wanted it to display.
Cheers Ole

[DanK]

You could have fooled me. It looks like you used it exactly right. In an image like this--very nice, by the way--most of the mass of the histogram will be piled up at the low end, and if you want pure black, it's fine for it to clip. The rest of the mass should be strung out along the rest of the values, not hitting 255, and that's exactly what your image has when I open it in photoshop.

One of the unfortunate things in using a histogram with an image like this is that most software will try to scale the histogram so that no peak exceeds the top value, or exceeds it by much. For many images, that's a useful approach, but for an image like this, it would make much more sense to rescale it to let the very low values go off the top and let us more clearly see variations in the rest of the histogram. That's what people doing statistical analysis would often do. However, AFAIK (someone correct me if I am wrong), common photoediting software doesn't provide that option. At least, I can't find the option if it's there.

[xpatUSA]

One of the unfortunate things in using a histogram with an image like this is that most software will try to scale the histogram so that no peak exceeds the top value, or exceeds it by much. For many images, that's a useful approach, but for an image like this, it would make much more sense to rescale it to let the very low values go off the top and let us more clearly see variations in the rest of the histogram. That's what people doing statistical analysis would often do. However, AFAIK (someone correct me if I am wrong), common photo-editing software doesn't provide that option. At least, I can't find the option if it's there.

Admittedly not used by "most of us":-

RawTherapee has a button where the Y axis can either allow huge counts to go "off the top"; or instead scale all the counts to the highest one which can, as you say, make life difficult.

The GIMP lets you select between linear or logarithmic vertical scale which can be handy.

RawDigger (not an editor though) goes one better vertically by including a square-law selection and one better horizontally by including a log scale for levels.

Sometimes these less-common apps have some really good features.

[DanK]

RawTherapee has a button where the Y axis can either allow huge counts to go "off the top"; or instead scale all the counts to the highest one which can, as you say, make life difficult.

The GIMP lets you select between linear or logarithmic vertical scale which can be handy.

Sometimes these less-common apps have some really good features.

perhaps there is some way to do this in Lightroom or Photoshop, but if so, I haven't found it yet.

[Tom Barry]

Histogram, smishtogram. You nailed this, however achieved.

[Shadowman]

Nicely captured and processed.

[Dave A]

Love it!

[JBW]

perhaps there is some way to do this in Lightroom or Photoshop, but if so, I haven't found it yet.

not using either Photoshop or Lightroom I wish you luck on your quest.

[JBW]

Histogram, smishtogram. You nailed this, however achieved.

I hadn't pictured the bg as dark as it turned out. A few clones and spot removals plus some burning was all it took. Thankfujlly ther dark area within the flower area needed very little retouching

[JBW]

Nicely captured and processed.

I am getting better in Capt. 1.

[JBW]

Love it!

Thanks, I have an affinity for this type of shot.

[Round Tuit]

Thanks, I have an affinity for this type of shot.

So do I.
Beautiful!

[JBW]

So do I.
Beautiful!

Thank-you. For me the intriguing thing about this shot is that much of it was done in camera with just basic clean up and pp.

[FootLoose]

Nice work, Brian.

[JBW]

Nice work, Brian.

One of those shots that just happen

[HoratioH]

You might have thrown the histogram out the window, but you accomplished a perfect shot. This is really brilliant, JBW, WOW!

[JBW]

You might have thrown the histogram out the window, but you accomplished a perfect shot. This is really brilliant, JBW, WOW!

It certainly turned out better than I had hoped.

[Round Tuit]

Thank-you. For me the intriguing thing about this shot is that much of it was done in camera with just basic clean up and pp.

The reason this happens is because our eyes can handle a much greater dynamic range than the sensor in our camera. When you meter for a flower that is in direct sunlight, if the background is in the shade it will be under exposed and appear almost black even though it is quite visible to our eyes. Here is an example of a daylilly that I took at midday where the background was shaded by a cedar hedge.



I've only applied a bit of sharpening to the image.

André

[JBW]

The reason this happens is because our eyes can handle a much greater dynamic range than the sensor in our camera. When you meter for a flower that is in direct sunlight, if the background is in the shade it will be under exposed and appear almost black even though it is quite visible to our eyes. Here is an example of a daylilly that I took at midday where the background was shaded by a cedar hedge.



I've only applied a bit of sharpening to the image.

André

I shall have to get intentional about using this technique. And a nice Day Lily it is.