Re: Contrast of a print
- From: westin@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Thu, 18 Aug 2005 09:49:03 -0400
pixby <pixby_douglas@xxxxxxxxxxx> writes:
> This topic spans the gap between digital and film. Over the past 20 or
> so years there has been a gradual increase in the contrast of
> photographs. For some subjects this is beneficial, for some not.
>
> I have always preferred 'flat' or low contrast portraits. Kodak Portra
> was my favorite film. Now I'm nearly 90% digital, I found difficulty
> getting the same low contrast out of my Canon cameras. In particular I
> am less than impressed with skin tones from these cameras.
>
> I recently bought a Nikon D2X because I like the look of the images it
> produces. I am stoked on the camera but still unconvinced Nikon are
> being totally up front with their explanation of how they produce
> their 12 megapixel images. But that's another story... This is about
> contrast in prints.
>
> Has anyone else had an issue with contrast and skin tones with once
> going digital? I know in the USA saturated colour and high contrast is
> all the rage but what about in the rest of the world?
Well, there are several factors to think about here.
1. What comes out of the sensor
2. What processing occurs to get an RGB image
3. How the image is displayed
4. How the image is printed.
Factor 1 is probably not a problem here; modern digital sensors are
capable of lovely tonal rendition.
Factor 2 is where things get interesting. The output of the sensor
array is processed to compensate for sensor nonlinearity (in my
experience, the Canon CMOS sensors are a bit nonlinear in response,
unlike CCD's), demosaicked, corrected for white balance, and
transformed to some known RGB color space (sRGB, Adobe RGB, etc.)
There are tradeoffs to be made in this process, and you need to make
sure that you know which color space results and be consistent in
displaying and printing. As others have pointed out, your camera has a
"contrast" adjustment so you can tune to get what you want. This
assumes that you are shooting JPEG images; if you are producing CR2
files, the processing happens later, on the host, and you will need to
adjust there. The advantage of the latter approach is that there is
usually more flexibility in software conversion, and it's easier to
experiment.
Factor 3 is another point; are you well-organized on the image and
monitor profiles you use? If not, the monitor will show something
other than what the image, in principle, represents.
Factor 4 is, to me, the prime suspect: in order to get predictable
results, you must use the proper printer profile.
--
-Stephen H. Westin
Any information or opinions in this message are mine: they do not
represent the position of Cornell University or any of its sponsors.
.
- References:
- Contrast of a print
- From: pixby
- Contrast of a print
- Prev by Date: Re: Leica IIIf shutter's curtain has cracks but works fine - shall I replace it?
- Next by Date: Re: Should I learn on a 35mm SLR Manual or Digital?
- Previous by thread: Re: Contrast of a print
- Next by thread: Re: Contrast of a print
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
