Re: Ready to graduate to DSLR
- From: Bryan Olson <fakeaddress@xxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Thu, 22 Sep 2005 04:27:30 GMT
Chris Brown wrote:
> Bryan Olson wrote:
>
[Chris Brown wrote:]
>>>It's there in black-and-white - your claim is specifically that "digital
>>>images are far more flexible". Since digital images are new, it clearly
>>>follows that you believe this greater flexibility, apparently inherent to
>>>digital images, is also new.
>>
>>Why not interpret it to mean what it actually says. The flexibility
>>means this particular rule -- to expose at a level for final viewing,
>>no longer holds. If you had a different process so the rule didn't
>>apply anyway, great.
>
> But you specifically said it was a flexibility of *digital* images. Is it,
> or isn't it?
Yes, of course, just as I wrote. I've lost track of what you are arguing.
>>>So if you don't think this "exposing to the right" is, after all, a new
>>>technique enabled by the glorious histogram, then did you actually have a
>>>point at all?
>>
>>Histogram display is a winner.
>
> How so? I think histograms are great, but not because they enable
> highlight-oriented exposing, or even make it easier, because they don't.
Not sure, but I think I see the problem. The point I was making about decoupling exposure at data-capture from exposure in the final image, and the point of the expose-to-the-right-technique, is not that one should never let a highlight blow out.
In most cases, one wants the saturation point of the sensor to coincide with a low-point, a valley, a basin, of the image's histogram. Digital sensors (perhaps with rare exceptions) do not degrade gracefully at the high end. When transitions that should look smooth go from showing detail to blowing out, the change is often noticeable and, when it is noticeable, is almost always undesirable.
So when, as usual, the saturation point falls in histogram valley, what is the effect of allowing more light -- moving the histogram to the right as far as is possible -- while keeping the saturation point in the trough? The positive effect is a better signal-to-noise ratio. Obviously there may be other ancillary effects from the change that admitted more light, be it shutter speed, aperture, or additional lighting, but those are not the issue here. There is no general negative effect of significance.
"Expose to the right" is not exactly the same thing as "highlight-oriented exposing". Expose-to-the-right is not really about moving histograms to the left, though there are cases where the histogram can alert one to problems that should be solved by admitting less light. It is about capturing the most accurate and precise data possible, under the assumption that as long as the data is good, subsequent rendering can scale values as needed for a visually appealing result.
-- --Bryan .
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: Ready to graduate to DSLR
- From: Chris Brown
- Re: Ready to graduate to DSLR
- References:
- Ready to graduate to DSLR
- From: Freedom55
- Re: Ready to graduate to DSLR
- From: Bryan Olson
- Ready to graduate to DSLR
- Prev by Date: Re: DPI
- Next by Date: Re: So why is the 5D $3200?
- Previous by thread: Re: Ready to graduate to DSLR
- Next by thread: Re: Ready to graduate to DSLR
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|