question regarding exposure corrections

Discussion in 'Digital Photography' started by sobriquet, Nov 5, 2011.

  1. sobriquet

    sobriquet Guest

    If you compare these two RAW images to versions that are supposedly
    corrected, would you agree with me that the exposure is actually worse
    in the corrected version and that highlights appear to be overexposed?

    RAW (converted to jpg):
    http://www.arumes.com/temp/IMG_5376_n.jpg
    http://www.arumes.com/temp/IMG_5384_n.jpg

    Corrected versions:
    http://www.arumes.com/temp/05112011/images/IMG_5384.jpg
    http://www.arumes.com/temp/05112011/images/IMG_5376.jpg

    So I'm not concerned with sharpness (which looks better in the
    corrected versions), but only exposure and whether or not the
    corrected versions look more properly exposed.
     
    sobriquet, Nov 5, 2011
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. "sobriquet" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    >
    > If you compare these two RAW images to versions that are supposedly
    > corrected, would you agree with me that the exposure is actually worse
    > in the corrected version and that highlights appear to be overexposed?
    >
    > RAW (converted to jpg):
    > http://www.arumes.com/temp/IMG_5376_n.jpg
    > http://www.arumes.com/temp/IMG_5384_n.jpg
    >
    > Corrected versions:
    > http://www.arumes.com/temp/05112011/images/IMG_5384.jpg
    > http://www.arumes.com/temp/05112011/images/IMG_5376.jpg
    >
    > So I'm not concerned with sharpness (which looks better in the
    > corrected versions), but only exposure and whether or not the
    > corrected versions look more properly exposed.


    Agreed. But do you not have control over the "correction" process?

    David
     
    David J Taylor, Nov 5, 2011
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. sobriquet

    sobriquet Guest

    On 5 nov, 16:33, "David J Taylor" <david-
    > wrote:
    > "sobriquet" <> wrote in message
    >
    > news:...
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    > > If you compare these two RAW images to versions that are supposedly
    > > corrected, would you agree with me that the exposure is actually worse
    > > in the corrected version and that highlights appear to be overexposed?

    >
    > > RAW (converted to jpg):
    > >http://www.arumes.com/temp/IMG_5376_n.jpg
    > >http://www.arumes.com/temp/IMG_5384_n.jpg

    >
    > > Corrected versions:
    > >http://www.arumes.com/temp/05112011/images/IMG_5384.jpg
    > >http://www.arumes.com/temp/05112011/images/IMG_5376.jpg

    >
    > > So I'm not concerned with sharpness (which looks better in the
    > > corrected versions), but only exposure and whether or not the
    > > corrected versions look more properly exposed.

    >
    > Agreed.  But do you not have control over the "correction" process?
    >
    > David


    They are not my pictures, but the person who made the pictures claims
    that the corrected versions are properly exposed.
     
    sobriquet, Nov 5, 2011
    #3
  4. sobriquet

    PeterN Guest

    On 11/5/2011 11:39 AM, sobriquet wrote:
    > On 5 nov, 16:33, "David J Taylor"<david-
    > > wrote:
    >> "sobriquet"<> wrote in message
    >>
    >> news:...
    >>
    >>
    >>
    >>
    >>
    >>
    >>
    >>
    >>
    >>
    >>
    >>> If you compare these two RAW images to versions that are supposedly
    >>> corrected, would you agree with me that the exposure is actually worse
    >>> in the corrected version and that highlights appear to be overexposed?

    >>
    >>> RAW (converted to jpg):
    >>> http://www.arumes.com/temp/IMG_5376_n.jpg
    >>> http://www.arumes.com/temp/IMG_5384_n.jpg

    >>
    >>> Corrected versions:
    >>> http://www.arumes.com/temp/05112011/images/IMG_5384.jpg
    >>> http://www.arumes.com/temp/05112011/images/IMG_5376.jpg

    >>
    >>> So I'm not concerned with sharpness (which looks better in the
    >>> corrected versions), but only exposure and whether or not the
    >>> corrected versions look more properly exposed.

    >>
    >> Agreed. But do you not have control over the "correction" process?
    >>
    >> David

    >
    > They are not my pictures, but the person who made the pictures claims
    > that the corrected versions are properly exposed.



    I think the originals look flat. It seem to me that the "corrections"
    were inexpertly done.

    --
    Peter
     
    PeterN, Nov 5, 2011
    #4
  5. On 11/5/11 PDT 8:52 AM, PeterN wrote:
    > On 11/5/2011 11:39 AM, sobriquet wrote:
    >> On 5 nov, 16:33, "David J Taylor"<david-
    >> > wrote:
    >>> "sobriquet"<> wrote in message


    >>>> If you compare these two RAW images to versions that are supposedly
    >>>> corrected, would you agree with me that the exposure is actually worse
    >>>> in the corrected version and that highlights appear to be overexposed?
    >>>
    >>>> RAW (converted to jpg):
    >>>> http://www.arumes.com/temp/IMG_5376_n.jpg
    >>>> http://www.arumes.com/temp/IMG_5384_n.jpg
    >>>
    >>>> Corrected versions:
    >>>> http://www.arumes.com/temp/05112011/images/IMG_5384.jpg
    >>>> http://www.arumes.com/temp/05112011/images/IMG_5376.jpg
    >>>
    >>>> So I'm not concerned with sharpness (which looks better in the
    >>>> corrected versions), but only exposure and whether or not the
    >>>> corrected versions look more properly exposed.

    >>
    >> They are not my pictures, but the person who made the pictures claims
    >> that the corrected versions are properly exposed.

    >
    >
    > I think the originals look flat. It seem to me that the "corrections"
    > were inexpertly done.


    Indeed. Blown highlights on the mushroom cap. Didn't look at the other.
     
    John McWilliams, Nov 5, 2011
    #5
  6. sobriquet

    PeterN Guest

    On 11/5/2011 4:07 PM, Savageduck wrote:

    <snip>

    > All understood Floyd, just expressing my opinion. However reread the OP
    > from "Sobriquet", and his first follow up post. What he has made
    > available are jpegs of the converted uncorrected RAW files and the
    > corrected JPEGs. These were not his original files, he does not have the
    > RAW files (though he might be able to get them). He is not trying to fix
    > anything The purpose of his exercise is to settle an argument with the
    > photographer who performed the RAW conversion and post processing, and
    > who is unknown in this group.
    >


    The photographer might known to this group. It's his name that we do not
    know. ;-)




    --
    Peter
     
    PeterN, Nov 5, 2011
    #6
  7. sobriquet

    sobriquet Guest

    On 5 nov, 22:45, Savageduck <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> wrote:
    > On 2011-11-05 14:09:50 -0700, PeterN <> said:
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    > > On 11/5/2011 4:07 PM, Savageduck wrote:

    >
    > > <snip>

    >
    > >> All understood Floyd, just expressing my opinion. However reread the OP
    > >> from "Sobriquet", and his first follow up post. What he has made
    > >> available are jpegs of the converted uncorrected RAW files and the
    > >> corrected JPEGs. These were not his original files, he does not have the
    > >> RAW files (though he might be able to get them). He is not trying to fix
    > >> anything The purpose of his exercise is to settle an argument with the
    > >> photographer who performed the RAW conversion and post processing, and
    > >> who is unknown in this group.

    >
    > > The photographer might known to this group. It's his name that we do
    > > not know. ;-)

    >
    > True, however I suspect the great majority of "photographers", digital
    > or otherwise, are not to be found lurking in the rapidly emptying,
    > echoing halls of the photo-groups.
    > "Sobriquet" who has been absent from this group for some months now, is
    > arguing a point with the photographer. He has returned to gain some
    > debate points for his argument with the unidentified photog.
    >
    > --
    > Regards,
    >
    > Savageduck


    Actually, it was the photographer (Robert Spanjaard, who has also been
    posting in rec.photo.digital) who was arguing (in nl.foto) with others
    that his 'corrections' had improved the exposure and insisted the
    corrected images didn't have overexposed highlights because he ensured
    there was no clipping of the histogram.

    I was just interested to hear other people's opinion on the issue,
    since there is a wider audience of English speaking photographers in
    rec.photo.digital compared those speaking Dutch in nl.foto.

    I don't care what his opinion is, as he ignores my postings anyway so
    it's not my intention to change his opinion or anything. I'm happy
    with the views presented here to confirm my impression that the
    'corrections' have actually degraded exposure rather than improving
    the exposure.
     
    sobriquet, Nov 6, 2011
    #7
  8. sobriquet

    PeterN Guest

    On 11/5/2011 5:45 PM, Savageduck wrote:
    > On 2011-11-05 14:09:50 -0700, PeterN <> said:
    >
    >> On 11/5/2011 4:07 PM, Savageduck wrote:
    >>
    >> <snip>
    >>
    >>> All understood Floyd, just expressing my opinion. However reread the OP
    >>> from "Sobriquet", and his first follow up post. What he has made
    >>> available are jpegs of the converted uncorrected RAW files and the
    >>> corrected JPEGs. These were not his original files, he does not have the
    >>> RAW files (though he might be able to get them). He is not trying to fix
    >>> anything The purpose of his exercise is to settle an argument with the
    >>> photographer who performed the RAW conversion and post processing, and
    >>> who is unknown in this group.
    >>>

    >>
    >> The photographer might known to this group. It's his name that we do
    >> not know. ;-)

    >
    > True, however I suspect the great majority of "photographers", digital
    > or otherwise, are not to be found lurking in the rapidly emptying,
    > echoing halls of the photo-groups.
    > "Sobriquet" who has been absent from this group for some months now, is
    > arguing a point with the photographer. He has returned to gain some
    > debate points for his argument with the unidentified photog.
    >


    Probably true. But the subject has some interest, including the lesson
    that one can ruin an image through incompetent procession.. I found that
    out many times, including one planned SI submission.

    --
    Peter
     
    PeterN, Nov 6, 2011
    #8
  9. sobriquet

    PeterN Guest

    On 11/5/2011 10:45 PM, Savageduck wrote:
    > On 2011-11-05 17:48:26 -0700, PeterN <> said:
    >
    >> On 11/5/2011 5:45 PM, Savageduck wrote:
    >>> On 2011-11-05 14:09:50 -0700, PeterN <>
    >>> said:
    >>>
    >>>> On 11/5/2011 4:07 PM, Savageduck wrote:
    >>>>
    >>>> <snip>
    >>>>
    >>>>> All understood Floyd, just expressing my opinion. However reread
    >>>>> the OP
    >>>>> from "Sobriquet", and his first follow up post. What he has made
    >>>>> available are jpegs of the converted uncorrected RAW files and the
    >>>>> corrected JPEGs. These were not his original files, he does not
    >>>>> have the
    >>>>> RAW files (though he might be able to get them). He is not trying
    >>>>> to fix
    >>>>> anything The purpose of his exercise is to settle an argument with the
    >>>>> photographer who performed the RAW conversion and post processing, and
    >>>>> who is unknown in this group.
    >>>>>
    >>>>
    >>>> The photographer might known to this group. It's his name that we do
    >>>> not know. ;-)
    >>>
    >>> True, however I suspect the great majority of "photographers", digital
    >>> or otherwise, are not to be found lurking in the rapidly emptying,
    >>> echoing halls of the photo-groups.
    >>> "Sobriquet" who has been absent from this group for some months now, is
    >>> arguing a point with the photographer. He has returned to gain some
    >>> debate points for his argument with the unidentified photog.
    >>>

    >>
    >> Probably true. But the subject has some interest, including the lesson
    >> that one can ruin an image through incompetent procession.. I found
    >> that out many times, including one planned SI submission.

    >
    > "procession"??
    >


    Some here might say that processing is a procession on processes.


    --
    Peter
    Nothing like a speako, when commenting on another's error.
     
    PeterN, Nov 6, 2011
    #9
  10. sobriquet

    Tim Conway Guest

    "sobriquet" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    >
    > If you compare these two RAW images to versions that are supposedly
    > corrected, would you agree with me that the exposure is actually worse
    > in the corrected version and that highlights appear to be overexposed?
    >
    > RAW (converted to jpg):
    > http://www.arumes.com/temp/IMG_5376_n.jpg
    > http://www.arumes.com/temp/IMG_5384_n.jpg
    >
    > Corrected versions:
    > http://www.arumes.com/temp/05112011/images/IMG_5384.jpg
    > http://www.arumes.com/temp/05112011/images/IMG_5376.jpg
    >
    > So I'm not concerned with sharpness (which looks better in the
    > corrected versions), but only exposure and whether or not the
    > corrected versions look more properly exposed.


    I agree. The highlights on both look washed out on the corrected ones. On
    the original they're not bad. Using Photoshop's Shadow/Highlight would have
    been better if they backed off the highlights.
     
    Tim Conway, Nov 6, 2011
    #10
  11. sobriquet <> writes:

    > If you compare these two RAW images to versions that are supposedly
    > corrected, would you agree with me that the exposure is actually worse
    > in the corrected version and that highlights appear to be overexposed?
    >
    > RAW (converted to jpg):
    > http://www.arumes.com/temp/IMG_5376_n.jpg
    > http://www.arumes.com/temp/IMG_5384_n.jpg
    >
    > Corrected versions:
    > http://www.arumes.com/temp/05112011/images/IMG_5384.jpg
    > http://www.arumes.com/temp/05112011/images/IMG_5376.jpg
    >
    > So I'm not concerned with sharpness (which looks better in the
    > corrected versions), but only exposure and whether or not the
    > corrected versions look more properly exposed.


    In IMG_5384 the "corrected" version definitely blows the top of the
    mushroom cap off the scale. Since the mushroom is a major factor in the
    picture, I think this is a bad choice. (There is of course no such
    thing as "correct" exposure; it's an artistic choice. But I think the
    number of people who want those highlights blown will be very, very,
    very, small.)

    Incidentally -- you listed the images in opposite order in the two
    lists, so I at first got non-matching photographs up on my screen.
     
    David Dyer-Bennet, Nov 7, 2011
    #11
  12. sobriquet <> writes:

    > On 5 nov, 22:45, Savageduck <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> wrote:
    >> On 2011-11-05 14:09:50 -0700, PeterN <> said:
    >>
    >> > On 11/5/2011 4:07 PM, Savageduck wrote:

    >>
    >> > <snip>

    >>
    >> >> All understood Floyd, just expressing my opinion. However reread the OP
    >> >> from "Sobriquet", and his first follow up post. What he has made
    >> >> available are jpegs of the converted uncorrected RAW files and the
    >> >> corrected JPEGs. These were not his original files, he does not have the
    >> >> RAW files (though he might be able to get them). He is not trying to fix
    >> >> anything The purpose of his exercise is to settle an argument with the
    >> >> photographer who performed the RAW conversion and post processing, and
    >> >> who is unknown in this group.

    >>
    >> > The photographer might known to this group. It's his name that we do
    >> > not know. ;-)

    >>
    >> True, however I suspect the great majority of "photographers", digital
    >> or otherwise, are not to be found lurking in the rapidly emptying,
    >> echoing halls of the photo-groups.
    >> "Sobriquet" who has been absent from this group for some months now, is
    >> arguing a point with the photographer. He has returned to gain some
    >> debate points for his argument with the unidentified photog.
    >>
    >> --
    >> Regards,
    >>
    >> Savageduck

    >
    > Actually, it was the photographer (Robert Spanjaard, who has also been
    > posting in rec.photo.digital) who was arguing (in nl.foto) with others
    > that his 'corrections' had improved the exposure and insisted the
    > corrected images didn't have overexposed highlights because he ensured
    > there was no clipping of the histogram.


    I just looked at the histogram of the one ending in 84, the corrected
    version. In Irfan View, the luminance histogram looks okay. However,
    if you look at the three primary colors, the red histogram looks clearly
    clipped.

    So, he's probably right that he carefully adjusted it so the composite
    histogram wasn't getting clipped. However -- that's a technical
    criterion, and doesn't guarantee good-looking photos. The resulting
    image looks severely blown, which is what really matters in the end.

    I find this issue (clipping just one channel) to come up in macro
    photography more often than most other areas, presumably because I'm
    often filling much of the frame with a flower of some bright color. Red
    roses will nearly ALWAYS produce weird off-color images if you just
    adjust exposure by the meter, or make the composite histogram come out
    right. But if you check in more detail, the red histogram is getting
    blown all to hell, so no surprise!
     
    David Dyer-Bennet, Nov 7, 2011
    #12
    1. Advertising

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. Robert11

    Gamma and Sharpen Corrections: Questions On ?

    Robert11, Aug 8, 2003, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    368
    Robert11
    Aug 8, 2003
  2. S. S.
    Replies:
    3
    Views:
    559
    Dave Martindale
    Jun 24, 2004
  3. =?Utf-8?B?UldI?=

    Corrections to book...

    =?Utf-8?B?UldI?=, Aug 12, 2006, in forum: MCSE
    Replies:
    2
    Views:
    455
    =?Utf-8?B?RGVyZWsgTW9vcmU=?=
    Aug 14, 2006
  4. Replies:
    12
    Views:
    489
    jeremy
    Sep 14, 2006
  5. Replies:
    2
    Views:
    838
Loading...

Share This Page