Re: Histogram Anomaly
- From: "Wilba" <PUTFROMNAMEHERE@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Thu, 8 Mar 2007 11:10:30 +0900
Stan Beck wrote:
Different exposures will generate different histograms. The 0 composition
looks good. When you under expose, you will be shifting all of your data
to the left, so the extreme light areas (right) might be more spread out.
Visa Versa.
That's how I understand it.
Also, histograms from the camera won't always match Photoshop, or a
different brand camera for that matter. It is just a guide, to visually
see your value distribution, and to see if you are clipping your whites or
blacks.
Yep, that's how I think of it. In my experience, there is a reasonable match
between the shape of the histogram in the camera and in PS, so it comes as a
shock to me that there is a significant isolated peak appearing in one that
didn't show in the other.
Look at your 0 comp exposure - if your ends look like this, you are OK.
Yeah, that's my basic understanding, so now I'm working on refining that,
taking into account the advice to "expose to the right of the histogram". At
this stage I'm not a sophisticated user of PS (and I have the cut-down
version), so it's a multi-facetted task. :-)
You might still need to use your Shadow/Highlight filters to pull detail
out
of your shadows, though.
Yeah, that's a significant part of the learning.
Thanks!
.
- References:
- Histogram Anomaly
- From: Wilba
- Re: Histogram Anomaly
- From: Stan Beck
- Histogram Anomaly
- Prev by Date: Re: Histogram Anomaly
- Next by Date: Re: Histogram Anomaly
- Previous by thread: Re: Histogram Anomaly
- Next by thread: Canon film camera lenses work w. digital?
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
|
