This is G o o g l e's cache of http://www.nikonians.org/dcforum/DCForumID86/6558.html as retrieved on Jun 30, 2005 10:53:11 GMT.
G o o g l e's cache is the snapshot that we took of the page as we crawled the web.
The page may have changed since that time. Click here for the current page without highlighting.
This cached page may reference images which are no longer available. Click here for the cached text only.
To link to or bookmark this page, use the following url: http://www.google.com/search?q=cache:BVeK5AZncCQJ:www.nikonians.org/dcforum/DCForumID86/6558.html+site:www.nikonians.org+bclaff&hl=en


Google is neither affiliated with the authors of this page nor responsible for its content.
These search terms have been highlighted: bclaff 


Discussions @ Nikonians

Subject: "Contrast – The Real Culprit"     Previous Topic | Next Topic
Printer-friendly copy    
Conferences NIKON PRODUCTS FORUMS D70 Users Group Topic #6558
Reading Topic #6558
bclaff</b>donator_silver
Member since 26-Oct-04
1945 posts
28-Jun-05, 11:56 PM (GMT+2)
Click to EMail <b style=bclaff"> </b>Click to send private message to <b style=bclaff"> </b>Click to view user profileClick to add this user to your buddy list  
"Contrast – The Real Culprit"
 
   LAST EDITED ON 28-Jun-05 AT 11:57 PM (GMT 2)
 
Sorry, it's another long one.
I hope you find it worth reading for another point of view.

Perhaps you’re unhappy with the images that come straight out of your D70.
Whether this is underexposure or some other factor doesn’t change that fact.
On the other hand, if you come to understand why you’re getting certain results; you may be able to change how you use your D70 and improve your images.

In my opinion, underexposure if often blamed when contrast is the real issue.
See D70 Metering – Does Not Underexpose regarding whether the D70 underexposes.
A properly exposed, low contrast scene simply won’t have deep shadows and/or brilliant highlights.
And although sometimes we could wish for more dynamic range, generally the D70 has more than enough range for the scene and a low contrast image is the result.

Remember, exposure simply aligns the dynamic range of the scene with the sensor by using a single exposure value.
Exposure doesn’t change the dynamic range of your scene or the sensor.

If your low contrast image lacks highlights then you might characterize this as underexposed.
If your low contrast image lacks shadows then you might characterize this as not sharp.

In both cases simple post processing adjustments often make a striking difference.

One could wish for the availability of a more aggressive auto contrast capability in the firmware.
However, lacking this; what can the photographer do?

Try Matrix metering.
Although it’s a “black box” that some avoid because it’s “magic”; Matrix metering is more sophisticated than Spot or Center Weighted metering.
You can think of it as an evolution of Center weighted into content weighted.

Expose to the right.
Use positive exposure compensation, if necessary, to get your histogram to the right (without clipping).
Generally, unless lighting is changing quickly, you should not have to change this frequently on a shoot.
Remember, the signal to noise ratio on the right hand side of the histogram is much better than on the left hand side.
So even if you wind up darkening a little later, your image quality will generally be better.

Use a curve.
I’m not a fan of this technique but list it for completeness.
If I did use a custom tone curve I would definitely shoot Raw+Jpeg so I could apply a different curve than the in camera curve under certain circumstances.
A custom tone curve will allow you to redistribute the contrast of the image, for example expanding the dynamic range of a low contrast image.
However, if the image going in is not a low contrast image then the custom tone curve may well destroy contrast you want to keep.

So, pay attention to your metering, and expose to the right.
Also, having exposed to the right; don’t be shy about raising the shadow level to increase contrast and apparent sharpness.
(I can’t tell you how many times I’ve seen claims that images that were improved by sharpening when I have gotten the same or better results simply by raising the shadow level.)

Respectfully,
Bill

Visit me, info and galleries at: Nikon Photos and Information


  Alert | IP Printer-friendly page | Edit | Reply | Reply With Quote | Top

  Subject     Author     Message Date     ID  
  RE: Contrast – The Real Culprit Kerry Pierce 29-Jun-05 1
  RE: Contrast – The Real Culprit Canuck 29-Jun-05 2
     RE: Contrast – The Real Culprit bclaff</b>donator_silver 29-Jun-05 3
         RE: Contrast – The Real Culprit rleibfreid 29-Jun-05 4
             RE: Contrast – The Real Culprit bclaff</b>donator_silver 29-Jun-05 5
                 RE: Contrast – The Real Culprit rleibfreid 30-Jun-05 6
                     RE: Contrast – The Real Culprit bclaff</b>donator_silver 30-Jun-05 7
                         RE: Contrast – The Real Culprit rleibfreid 30-Jun-05 8

Home | Conferences | Forums | Topics | Previous Topic | Next Topic
Kerry Pierce
Member since 23-Apr-05
80 posts
29-Jun-05, 00:27 AM (GMT+2)
Click to EMail Kerry%20Pierce Click to send private message to Kerry%20Pierce Click to view user profileClick to add this user to your buddy list  
1. "RE: Contrast – The Real Culprit"
In response to message #0
 
   Very interesting posts, Bill. Thanks for taking the time and making the effort to do the tests and share the results.

Kerry


  Alert | IP Printer-friendly page | Edit | Reply | Reply With Quote | Top
Canuck
Member since 3-May-05
64 posts
29-Jun-05, 01:23 AM (GMT+2)
Click to EMail Canuck Click to send private message to Canuck Click to view user profileClick to add this user to your buddy list  
2. "RE: Contrast – The Real Culprit"
In response to message #0
 
   Thankyou once again for clarifying a complex issue. When you say that we should "raise the shadow level", do you mean that we should be increasing the tone compensation setting in the camera? Or are you referring to post-processing?

Canuck


  Alert | IP Printer-friendly page | Edit | Reply | Reply With Quote | Top
bclaff</b>donator_silver
Member since 26-Oct-04
1945 posts
29-Jun-05, 01:31 AM (GMT+2)
Click to EMail <b style=bclaff"> </b>Click to send private message to <b style=bclaff"> </b>Click to view user profileClick to add this user to your buddy list  
3. "RE: Contrast – The Real Culprit"
In response to message #2
 
   I was referring to post processing; for example the first Input Levels value in the PhotoShop Levels command.

Bill

Visit me, info and galleries at: Nikon Photos and Information


  Alert | IP Printer-friendly page | Edit | Reply | Reply With Quote | Top
rleibfreid
Member since 25-Feb-02
524 posts
29-Jun-05, 04:30 AM (GMT+2)
Click to send private message to rleibfreid Click to view user profileClick to add this user to your buddy list  
4. "RE: Contrast – The Real Culprit"
In response to message #3
 
   LAST EDITED ON 29-Jun-05 AT 04:37 AM (GMT 2)
 
I've had a lot of luck using the "local contrast enhancement" technique outlined here at Luminous Landscape, although one must be conservative when applying it to people. Static objects on the other hand, can survive several rounds of application - you might get some blown highlights, but in some images it works.

http://www.luminous-landscape.com/tutorials/contrast-enhancement.shtml


this one too-


http://www.cambridgeincolour.com/tutorials/local-contrast-enhancement.htm


  Alert | IP Printer-friendly page | Edit | Reply | Reply With Quote | Top
bclaff</b>donator_silver
Member since 26-Oct-04
1945 posts
29-Jun-05, 05:36 AM (GMT+2)
Click to EMail <b style=bclaff"> </b>Click to send private message to <b style=bclaff"> </b>Click to view user profileClick to add this user to your buddy list  
5. "RE: Contrast – The Real Culprit"
In response to message #4
 
   Ronald,

IMO, the first link is an absolutely classic example of the wrong way to fix this situation.
(Sorry Luminous Landscape, your stuff is usually better )

I went to the site and saved the croft-without.jpg and croft-with jpg files (as well as the non-cropped file).
(An aside, strangely one is Adobe RGB and the other is sRGB !)

I can improve the croft-without.jpg and make it look just like, if not better than the croft-with.jpg by using Photoshop Levels and only increasing the first Input value.
At 8 the images look about the same to me.
At higher values, even as high as 30, I think the image looks better and better, especially at about 15-20.
Also, this is touted as a high dynamic range image but it's obvious from the luminosity histogram (and how well it responds to the shadow level technique) that it lacks deep shadow content.

Try it yourself!

BTW, this is exactly what I was referring to in my parenthetical comment at the end of my original post.

Respectfully,
Bill

Visit me, info and galleries at: Nikon Photos and Information


  Alert | IP Printer-friendly page | Edit | Reply | Reply With Quote | Top
rleibfreid
Member since 25-Feb-02
524 posts
30-Jun-05, 02:10 AM (GMT+2)
Click to send private message to rleibfreid Click to view user profileClick to add this user to your buddy list  
6. "RE: Contrast – The Real Culprit"
In response to message #5
 
   Yeah, I know you've got some points, although Thomas Knoll should know what he's talking about...

I personally use it and like it in the right situations. As you consistently point out, nothing can beat a properly exposed image with a good range of tones. I don't know about you, but I'm not always fortunate enough for this to be the case with every shot.


  Alert | IP Printer-friendly page | Edit | Reply | Reply With Quote | Top
bclaff</b>donator_silver
Member since 26-Oct-04
1945 posts
30-Jun-05, 02:58 AM (GMT+2)
Click to EMail <b style=bclaff"> </b>Click to send private message to <b style=bclaff"> </b>Click to view user profileClick to add this user to your buddy list  
7. "RE: Contrast – The Real Culprit"
In response to message #6
 
   Ronald,

I have a great deal of respect for Thomas.
But there are few people I take at face value on any subject.
After all, no one is perfect
(Although my mother wouldn't agree )

If this technique works for you, then great!
But I think you would find that using Levels first and resorting to other techniques if necessary is simpler.

My real objection is that Sharpening is a more destructive transform than Levels and is far more likely to cause artifacts such as halos.
Sharpening should be done when sharpening is needed.

You can drive a nail into a board with the handle of a screwdriver... but that doesn't make it the right tool!

Best Regards,
Bill

Visit me, info and galleries at: Nikon Photos and Information


  Alert | IP Printer-friendly page | Edit | Reply | Reply With Quote | Top
rleibfreid
Member since 25-Feb-02
524 posts
30-Jun-05, 06:20 AM (GMT+2)
Click to send private message to rleibfreid Click to view user profileClick to add this user to your buddy list  
8. "RE: Contrast – The Real Culprit"
In response to message #7
 
   You are correct, it can add some halos and can blow out some channels. It's certainly something that needs to be used sparingly and in the right circumstances. I'll try your method to see if I can get the same look.


  Alert | IP Printer-friendly page | Edit | Reply | Reply With Quote | Top

Home | Conferences | Forums | Topics | Previous Topic | Next Topic


Newsletter |  News & Podcasts |  About Us |  Contact |  Terms of Use |  Your Privacy |  Your Membership |  Advertise |  RSS 2.0 |  FAQ's

Copyright © Nikonians 2000, 2005
All Rights Reserved

Nikonians® is a registered trademark of Nikonians.org. Nikon®, Nikonos® and Nikkor® are registered trademarks of Nikon Corporation.
The nikonia, nikonian and nikonians domains are not associated with the Nikon Corporation nor with any of its subsidiaries or affiliates.
Have a community related question or problem? Please see our FAQ's. If that did not help, you can get in contact with us.