what do you do with bright spot?

Discussion in 'Digital Photography' started by leo, Feb 8, 2004.

  1. leo

    leo Guest

    Digital photography has limited dynamic range. When I have to shoot a frame
    with some bright spot, you'd get ugly white area - clipping. Do you wait
    forever for the bright light to go away or accept the limitation of digital
    photography?
     
    leo, Feb 8, 2004
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. leo

    Robertwgross Guest

    leo wrote:
    >Digital photography has limited dynamic range. When I have to shoot a frame
    >with some bright spot, you'd get ugly white area - clipping. Do you wait
    >forever for the bright light to go away or accept the limitation of digital
    >photography?


    Simple. Do some proper exposure compensation and do auto-bracketing as well. It
    would probably take a total of two seconds to get it done.

    ---Bob Gross---
     
    Robertwgross, Feb 8, 2004
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. In Addition

    Robertwgross wrote:

    > leo wrote:
    > >Digital photography has limited dynamic range. When I have to shoot a frame
    > >with some bright spot, you'd get ugly white area - clipping. Do you wait
    > >forever for the bright light to go away or accept the limitation of digital
    > >photography?

    >
    > Simple. Do some proper exposure compensation and do auto-bracketing as well. It
    > would probably take a total of two seconds to get it done.
    >
    > ---Bob Gross---


    Open in Photoshop.
    Select bright spot with magic wand tool.
    Adjust levels.
    Done.
    Bob Williams
     
    Robert E. Williams, Feb 8, 2004
    #3
  4. leo

    Robertwgross Guest

    Re: In Addition

    Bob Williams wrote:

    >Robertwgross wrote:
    >> leo wrote:
    >> >Digital photography has limited dynamic range. When I have to shoot a

    >frame
    >> >with some bright spot, you'd get ugly white area - clipping. Do you wait
    >> >forever for the bright light to go away or accept the limitation of

    >digital
    >> >photography?

    >>
    >> Simple. Do some proper exposure compensation and do auto-bracketing as

    >well. It
    >> would probably take a total of two seconds to get it done.
    >>
    >> ---Bob Gross---

    >
    >Open in Photoshop.
    >Select bright spot with magic wand tool.
    >Adjust levels.
    >Done.


    Yes, but what if the bright spot is already blown out? Then you can't fix it in
    Photoshop. It would be more foolproof to get the exposure bracketed at the time
    of the capture.

    ---Bob Gross---
     
    Robertwgross, Feb 8, 2004
    #4
  5. Re: In Addition

    "Robertwgross" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > Bob Williams wrote:
    >
    > >Robertwgross wrote:
    > >> leo wrote:
    > >> >Digital photography has limited dynamic range. When I have to shoot a

    > >frame
    > >> >with some bright spot, you'd get ugly white area - clipping. Do you

    wait
    > >> >forever for the bright light to go away or accept the limitation of

    > >digital
    > >> >photography?
    > >>
    > >> Simple. Do some proper exposure compensation and do auto-bracketing as

    > >well. It
    > >> would probably take a total of two seconds to get it done.
    > >>
    > >> ---Bob Gross---

    > >
    > >Open in Photoshop.
    > >Select bright spot with magic wand tool.
    > >Adjust levels.
    > >Done.

    >
    > Yes, but what if the bright spot is already blown out? Then you can't fix

    it in
    > Photoshop. It would be more foolproof to get the exposure bracketed at the

    time
    > of the capture.
    >
    > ---Bob Gross---


    There is a dynamic range limitation with film and with digital. With film,
    you can compensate in most cases if you have a darkroom and can use the
    equipment well. With digital, you can do the same thing digitally, at less
    cost and in less time.

    One way, is to take a series of pictures at bracketed exposures, with the
    camera on a tripod. Then cut and paste the best exposed parts of each
    picture to make a new one.

    In any case, the dynamic range of intensities in a print on paper will be
    less than on a negative or a digital file. You can compensate by adjusting
    the gamma of the image before printing.
     
    Marvin Margoshes, Feb 8, 2004
    #5
  6. leo

    Don Stauffer Guest

    Print film photography also has limited dynamic range. By that, I mean
    prints do. So, one exposes during printing for either shadow or
    highlights, whichever is more important in that particular image. Or,
    one prints on lower contrast paper.

    In the digital world, the reason I love digital is the ease of adjusting
    contrast before printing, not having to have grades of various contrast
    papers, or a variable contrast filter set, and then by trial and error
    pick the best printing contrast and exposure.

    As far as I am concerned, digital allows me to make better use of the
    wider dynamic range of the camera versus the print on paper.

    leo wrote:
    >
    > Digital photography has limited dynamic range. When I have to shoot a frame
    > with some bright spot, you'd get ugly white area - clipping. Do you wait
    > forever for the bright light to go away or accept the limitation of digital
    > photography?


    --
    Don Stauffer in Minnesota

    webpage- http://www.usfamily.net/web/stauffer
     
    Don Stauffer, Feb 8, 2004
    #6
  7. leo

    Chris Guest

    "leo" <> wrote in message
    news:uJjVb.19308$...
    > Digital photography has limited dynamic range. When I have to shoot a

    frame
    > with some bright spot, you'd get ugly white area - clipping. Do you wait
    > forever for the bright light to go away or accept the limitation of

    digital
    > photography?


    Learn how to use your camera properly in all aspects of photography. There
    are ways to compensate for this. There are also ways to adjust this
    lighting condition after taking the shot, so don't worry so much if you
    can't fix it until you have the picture saved.

    Get yourself a copy of Adobe Photoshop, or some other photo editing
    software, and learn as much as you can about it. Your pictures are only as
    good as your camera, but they're also only as good as the photographer
    taking them.
     
    Chris, Feb 8, 2004
    #7
  8. leo

    Skaliwag Guest

    Not only is the dynamic range of digital limited; it is also
    unbalanced.
    Typically a digital camera will have at least 1 f-stop more range in
    the shadows than in the highlights. To prevent clipping, try
    permanently under-exposing, using your exposure compensation.
    Depending on your camera, and other settings, a value of -0.3 to -0.7
    will usually do. You will then need to correct the picture, typically
    using Levels, in your photo-editing package to bring back the shadow
    detail.

    "leo" <> wrote in message news:<uJjVb.19308$>...
    > Digital photography has limited dynamic range. When I have to shoot a frame
    > with some bright spot, you'd get ugly white area - clipping. Do you wait
    > forever for the bright light to go away or accept the limitation of digital
    > photography?
     
    Skaliwag, Feb 9, 2004
    #8
  9. leo

    Don Stauffer Guest

    I don't understand what you are saying. How can the 'dynamic range'
    vary on the two ends. To me, dynamic range means the whole range, the
    ratio between the lowest brightness that has a discrete value to the
    highest brightness that has a discrete value.

    Skaliwag wrote:
    >
    > Not only is the dynamic range of digital limited; it is also
    > unbalanced.
    > Typically a digital camera will have at least 1 f-stop more range in
    > the shadows than in the highlights. To prevent clipping, try
    > permanently under-exposing, using your exposure compensation.
    > Depending on your camera, and other settings, a value of -0.3 to -0.7
    > will usually do. You will then need to correct the picture, typically
    > using Levels, in your photo-editing package to bring back the shadow
    > detail.
    >
    > "leo" <> wrote in message news:<uJjVb.19308$>...
    > > Digital photography has limited dynamic range. When I have to shoot a frame
    > > with some bright spot, you'd get ugly white area - clipping. Do you wait
    > > forever for the bright light to go away or accept the limitation of digital
    > > photography?


    --
    Don Stauffer in Minnesota

    webpage- http://www.usfamily.net/web/stauffer
     
    Don Stauffer, Feb 9, 2004
    #9
  10. leo

    KBob Guest

    On Mon, 09 Feb 2004 08:38:34 -0600, Don Stauffer
    <> wrote:

    >I don't understand what you are saying. How can the 'dynamic range'
    >vary on the two ends. To me, dynamic range means the whole range, the
    >ratio between the lowest brightness that has a discrete value to the
    >highest brightness that has a discrete value.
    >

    He's probably referring to the unnatural compression of highlights &
    shadows that occurs as a result of "toe" and "shoulder" response of
    films. A digital's CCD exhibits the far more desireable linear H-D
    curve, instead of the S-distortion common to varying degrees in most
    films. People here keep going on about the limited dynamic range of
    digitals, but I'm still waiting for someone to show me a film that is
    capable of capturing 10+ stops. If a camera with 3X12-bit RAW imaging
    is claimed to have poor latitude, it sounds rather that the user has
    either failed to center exposure properly (a common problem when
    depending on TTL metering methods), or is used to depending on
    difficult darkroom methods to recover shadow or highlight detail.
    Digitals take unkind revenge on improper exposure.
     
    KBob, Feb 9, 2004
    #10
  11. leo

    Ron Morfitt Guest

    Repeating what KBob is saying...Anyone used to film is so used to the
    non-linear (S-distortion) that film gives, that this non-linear curve is
    taken as "truth". When someone used to film moves to digital, they find
    the linear response of the digital camera to be "wrong". It's a matter
    of what one is used to.

    Another thing that gets people not used to digital, is the quantization,
    or the 8-bit, 10-bit or 12-bit. This is what makes digital, digital.
    It also makes digital images much more of an approximation to the true
    picture than film images. With film you essentially have an infinite
    number of brightnesses per grain, compared to 8-bit images anyway. This
    allows "dark room magic" to take a badly exposed photo and make it look
    quite good. With digital if the photo was badly exposed, the
    quantization shows up when doing the "photo software magic".

    My opinion is film is more forgiving for both the non-linear response
    and the infinite quantization levels, both allowing the dark room to
    improve the prints. With digital you have to be pretty close to the
    exposure you want or your pictures will look "icky" when you attempt to
    fix the exposure.

    -Ron

    KBob wrote:
    > On Mon, 09 Feb 2004 08:38:34 -0600, Don Stauffer
    > <> wrote:
    >
    >
    >>I don't understand what you are saying. How can the 'dynamic range'
    >>vary on the two ends. To me, dynamic range means the whole range, the
    >>ratio between the lowest brightness that has a discrete value to the
    >>highest brightness that has a discrete value.
    >>

    >
    > He's probably referring to the unnatural compression of highlights &
    > shadows that occurs as a result of "toe" and "shoulder" response of
    > films. A digital's CCD exhibits the far more desireable linear H-D
    > curve, instead of the S-distortion common to varying degrees in most
    > films. People here keep going on about the limited dynamic range of
    > digitals, but I'm still waiting for someone to show me a film that is
    > capable of capturing 10+ stops. If a camera with 3X12-bit RAW imaging
    > is claimed to have poor latitude, it sounds rather that the user has
    > either failed to center exposure properly (a common problem when
    > depending on TTL metering methods), or is used to depending on
    > difficult darkroom methods to recover shadow or highlight detail.
    > Digitals take unkind revenge on improper exposure.
     
    Ron Morfitt, Feb 15, 2004
    #11
  12. leo

    Guest

    In message <402f0ad3$0$>,
    Ron Morfitt <> wrote:

    >My opinion is film is more forgiving for both the non-linear response
    >and the infinite quantization levels, both allowing the dark room to
    >improve the prints. With digital you have to be pretty close to the
    >exposure you want or your pictures will look "icky" when you attempt to
    >fix the exposure.


    If you shoot in JPEG and accept all the defaults this might be true,
    especially with non-DLSRs and higher ISOs, but with a DSLR, RAW mode,
    and lower ISOs, you have quite a bit of latitude. On the Canon 10D, I
    can shoot a high-contrast scene at 4 different stops of EC and make them
    look the same after RAW conversion or some levels adjustment afterward.
    Low contrast, I could do 6 or 7 stops, easily.

    RAW quantizes the shadows less, and often has more highlights than JPEG
    offers (1 stop more green and blue, and 1.6 stops more red on the 10D),
    and these highlights are all cut away and rendered at 255 if the camera
    is set to JPEG.
    --

    <>>< ><<> ><<> <>>< ><<> <>>< <>>< ><<>
    John P Sheehy <>
    ><<> <>>< <>>< ><<> <>>< ><<> ><<> <>><
     
    , Feb 15, 2004
    #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. § GateKeeper §

    Bright Idea

    § GateKeeper §, Jul 22, 2003, in forum: Computer Support
    Replies:
    35
    Views:
    1,108
    trout
    Jul 23, 2003
  2. Bun Mui
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    897
    Bun Mui
    Nov 30, 2003
  3. Keyser Soze

    Re: You may have to clear a spot.

    Keyser Soze, Jul 19, 2004, in forum: Computer Support
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    443
    Keyser Soze
    Jul 19, 2004
  4. zxcvar
    Replies:
    10
    Views:
    1,063
    David J. Littleboy
    Jan 14, 2004
  5. Lawrence D'Oliveiro

    How Quickly Can You Spot A New Woger Nym?

    Lawrence D'Oliveiro, Feb 22, 2010, in forum: NZ Computing
    Replies:
    2
    Views:
    363
    Squiggle
    Feb 28, 2010
Loading...

Share This Page