Ugly Hedgehog - Photography Forum
Home Active Topics Newest Pictures Search Login Register
Main Photography Discussion
Art
Page <<first <prev 16 of 17 next>
Jan 14, 2019 21:15:15   #
tdekany Loc: Oregon
 
Bipod wrote:
The lossy compression always affects the end result--but whether or not you
can see it depends on how you display or print the image, and on subject,
and on the particular algorithm.

You may think you are controlling what PhotoShop does to your image file,
But digital filters peform very complex numerical transformations--which
may or may not lose information.

And you are viewing the results "though a glass, darkly" -- a very imperfect
monitor. And what-you-see is never what-you-get when making a print.
All often, probelms aren't spotted until the print is drying.

When you look at a final image (e.g, a print), you only care about subjective
impression. But when processing an intermediate image (a negative or an
image file), you need objective information.--an accurate assessment of image
qualtiies: tonal values, acutance, resolution, gradation, global contrast, etc.
It's impossible to do that using only the naked eye and an image displayed on
a montor.

We didn't hold our negatives up and peer at them. "I like that one--it's
pretty!" We put them on a light table and examined them with a high
quality loupe and a densiometer. (I also use a binocular microscope
with a reticle)

Can you tell black from gray by looking? No, you can't. What looks pure black
to the eye may contain three or four tones. If you scan the negative or lighten
the image file in processing, you can print those tones. This is as true of
image files as it was of negatives.

There are other problems with "seeing is believing":

* The eye is easily fooled into thinking tones are different that are in fact the same:
http://www.illusions.org/

* It is easy to miss changes that are gradual. If you apply five different filters and each
degrades your image a little bit, it may not be obvious. But if you compared the
original to the last revision, you might be shocked.

* Viewing size matters. Anything that increases acutance (at the price of gradation and
resolution) will look good (sharper) on a small display. But when you go to print, the loss
of gradation and detail will be glaringly obvious.

* Background lighting matters. Process a phtoto in a dimly lit room and it will look
very different than if it is processed in a brightly lit room.

* A monitor is brighter than any paper. What looks luminous (and is luminous!)
on a monitor may look murky on paper.

* Maximum black on paper is much blacker than black on any montior (except a CRT).
though OLEDs come pretty close. But you should be aware that there can be
much more contrast in your image file than you can see on a particular montior
(e.g., an LCD/LED screen).

* Or you may be assuming there is more conrtrast in the image file, and there isn't! You
can't tell by looking at an LCD/LED screen. But global contrast is important in deciding
how best to print the image.

* Any digital filter such as "sharpen" that increases acuance (at the cost of gradation and resolution)
will a small image look better. But when you print it, the loss of gradation and detail will be glaringly
obvious.

Some "sharpen" filters are better than others. When you shop for processing software, how do you
compare the filters between one package and another? There are hundreds.

Only the final image matters. Your subjective eye can judge the final image--but not a
negative and not an image file.

An image file is not a photograph--it's a table of numbers an encoding of an image.
Digital filtes operated upon the number--not upon an optical image. So just about
any sort of transformation is possible.

It might, for example, increase the redness of every prime-numbered pixel by 1.
How you gonna spot that?

A playful programmer my chose to encode his initials -- or face! -- into your image,
so it could only be seen with a colored filter. Wouldn't that be a laugh!

There are "concealment ciphers" the encrypt a text message into an image file
(not the header or EXIF -- the image itself) in such a way that it can be extracted
with the right software. (This is a big problem for the NSA.)

A digital filter algortihm may perform a dozen steps. You don't know what's done
to the numbers, and you can't control it.

You wouldn't develop film by dipping your finger into the developer to judge the temperature,
then counting "one-Mississipi, two-Mississipi...". You'd use a thermometer and a timer!
Photographer used to be scientific instruments. Everyone knew that a desniometer saw things
the eye cannot see.

And because dodging and burning were optical, you knew exactly was and wasn't being
affected. In any optical processing, we know what kinds of degradation are possible, so
we know what to look for.

But a digital filters is a secret algorhitm -- it can do anything. Nobody is going to pan all
over their image on the montior, magnifying every part and looking for every possible kind
of degreation. (And some -- like loss of contrast -- may be invisible on a paricular monitor.)

Your photographic results are now limited by extremely complex algorithms that you didn't write,
haven't read, and don't understand. And you have substituted your eye for a densiometer, making
the whole process erratic.

If that isn't a loss of control, I don't know what is.
The lossy compression always affects the end resul... (show quote)


(Download)

Reply
Jan 14, 2019 21:21:56   #
srt101fan
 
Bipod wrote:
The lossy compression always affects the end result--but whether or not you
can see it depends on how you display or print the image, and on subject,
and on the particular algorithm.

You may think you are controlling what PhotoShop does to your image file,
But digital filters peform very complex numerical transformations--which
may or may not lose information.

And you are viewing the results "though a glass, darkly" -- a very imperfect
monitor. And what-you-see is never what-you-get when making a print.
All often, probelms aren't spotted until the print is drying.

When you look at a final image (e.g, a print), you only care about subjective
impression. But when processing an intermediate image (a negative or an
image file), you need objective information.--an accurate assessment of image
qualtiies: tonal values, acutance, resolution, gradation, global contrast, etc.
It's impossible to do that using only the naked eye and an image displayed on
a montor.

We didn't hold our negatives up and peer at them. "I like that one--it's
pretty!" We put them on a light table and examined them with a high
quality loupe and a densiometer. (I also use a binocular microscope
with a reticle)

Can you tell black from gray by looking? No, you can't. What looks pure black
to the eye may contain three or four tones. If you scan the negative or lighten
the image file in processing, you can print those tones. This is as true of
image files as it was of negatives.

There are other problems with "seeing is believing":

* The eye is easily fooled into thinking tones are different that are in fact the same:
http://www.illusions.org/

* It is easy to miss changes that are gradual. If you apply five different filters and each
degrades your image a little bit, it may not be obvious. But if you compared the
original to the last revision, you might be shocked.

* Viewing size matters. Anything that increases acutance (at the price of gradation and
resolution) will look good (sharper) on a small display. But when you go to print, the loss
of gradation and detail will be glaringly obvious.

* Background lighting matters. Process a phtoto in a dimly lit room and it will look
very different than if it is processed in a brightly lit room.

* A monitor is brighter than any paper. What looks luminous (and is luminous!)
on a monitor may look murky on paper.

* Maximum black on paper is much blacker than black on any montior (except a CRT).
though OLEDs come pretty close. But you should be aware that there can be
much more contrast in your image file than you can see on a particular montior
(e.g., an LCD/LED screen).

* Or you may be assuming there is more conrtrast in the image file, and there isn't! You
can't tell by looking at an LCD/LED screen. But global contrast is important in deciding
how best to print the image.

* Any digital filter such as "sharpen" that increases acuance (at the cost of gradation and resolution)
will a small image look better. But when you print it, the loss of gradation and detail will be glaringly
obvious.

Some "sharpen" filters are better than others. When you shop for processing software, how do you
compare the filters between one package and another? There are hundreds.

Only the final image matters. Your subjective eye can judge the final image--but not a
negative and not an image file.

An image file is not a photograph--it's a table of numbers an encoding of an image.
Digital filtes operated upon the number--not upon an optical image. So just about
any sort of transformation is possible.

It might, for example, increase the redness of every prime-numbered pixel by 1.
How you gonna spot that?

A playful programmer my chose to encode his initials -- or face! -- into your image,
so it could only be seen with a colored filter. Wouldn't that be a laugh!

There are "concealment ciphers" the encrypt a text message into an image file
(not the header or EXIF -- the image itself) in such a way that it can be extracted
with the right software. (This is a big problem for the NSA.)

A digital filter algortihm may perform a dozen steps. You don't know what's done
to the numbers, and you can't control it.

You wouldn't develop film by dipping your finger into the developer to judge the temperature,
then counting "one-Mississipi, two-Mississipi...". You'd use a thermometer and a timer!
Photographer used to be scientific instruments. Everyone knew that a desniometer saw things
the eye cannot see.

And because dodging and burning were optical, you knew exactly was and wasn't being
affected. In any optical processing, we know what kinds of degradation are possible, so
we know what to look for.

But a digital filters is a secret algorhitm -- it can do anything. Nobody is going to pan all
over their image on the montior, magnifying every part and looking for every possible kind
of degreation. (And some -- like loss of contrast -- may be invisible on a paricular monitor.)

Your photographic results are now limited by extremely complex algorithms that you didn't write,
haven't read, and don't understand. And you have substituted your eye for a densiometer, making
the whole process erratic.

If that isn't a loss of control, I don't know what is.
The lossy compression always affects the end resul... (show quote)


Loss of control is being unable to keep up with the times.....

Reply
Jan 14, 2019 21:55:24   #
waegwan Loc: Mae Won Li
 
BigDaddy wrote:
I'm simply saying when you use Auto mode the camera is making all processing decisions. As soon as you change from auto, you are usurping the cameras decision making responsibilities. You can do it before taking the picture, say adjusting iso, aperture, speed, white balance etc. or you can do it in post. Most rewarding is doing both.

Those that insinuate doing post work is fake, or, not photography or whatever is lame, and in my mind is the same as saying only taking pictures in AUTO mode is photography. A photographer today controls both camera software and post software to produce the pictures he wants.
I'm simply saying when you use Auto mode the camer... (show quote)


I agree. And anyone who has seriously developed their own film is/was thinking through post process when they decided what film to load in the camera fir whatever particular shoot....choice of film and paper developers, temperature, time, burning and dodging etc. And if the shooter simply lets a print lab do it for them then they have simply decided to let someone else make those decisions fir them. Sure, set the camera to produce the best workable image but to say there is pure SOOC I think is a not right. :-)

Reply
 
 
Jan 15, 2019 09:06:47   #
BigDaddy Loc: Pittsburgh, PA
 
waegwan wrote:
I agree. And anyone who has seriously developed their own film is/was thinking through post process when they decided what film to load in the camera fir whatever particular shoot....choice of film and paper developers, temperature, time, burning and dodging etc. And if the shooter simply lets a print lab do it for them then they have simply decided to let someone else make those decisions fir them. Sure, set the camera to produce the best workable image but to say there is pure SOOC I think is a not right. :-)
I agree. And anyone who has seriously developed th... (show quote)

We agree to agree:-)
You stumbled on another of my pet peeves, which is people insinuating that photo editors don't strive to get the best picture they can SOOC? Who doesn't do that? The fact that a picture can and should be edited in no way means you don't try to get a good pic from the get go. I submit everyone tries to get the best picture possible based on ability and time allotted.

Reply
Jan 15, 2019 09:13:06   #
Longshadow Loc: Audubon, PA, United States
 
BigDaddy wrote:
We agree to agree:-)
You stumbled on another of my pet peeves, which is people insinuating that photo editors don't strive to get the best picture they can SOOC? Who doesn't do that? The fact that a picture can and should be edited in no way means you don't try to get a good pic from the get go. I submit everyone tries to get the best picture possible based on ability and time allotted.

Yup, the best image you can get, as a starting point.

Reply
Jan 15, 2019 09:43:02   #
BigDaddy Loc: Pittsburgh, PA
 
Bipod wrote:
The lossy compression always affects the end result--but whether or not you
can see it depends on how you display or print the image, and on subject,
and on the particular algorithm.

The end result is what I can see. What you can't see in a photo is meaningless to everyone. It's the whole entire point of a photo.
Bipod wrote:

You may think you are controlling what PhotoShop does to your image file,
But digital filters peform very complex numerical transformations--which
may or may not lose information.

Your right about that, I do think I control what PS does to a photo. Virtually everything PS does is controlled by me in Photoshop, nothing is left to chance, and, I can see it as I do it. I may not fully get what the programers did to attain the results I want, but if that was a requirement, no one would be using computers, including programers since no one fully understands everything. Fortunately for billions of computer users, it is not a requirement, never was, never will be.
Bipod wrote:

And you are viewing the results "though a glass, darkly" -- a very imperfect
monitor. And what-you-see is never what-you-get when making a print.
All often, probelms aren't spotted until the print is drying.

A lot of variables when printing, everything effects the print besides the picture itself, such as paper, printer relationship to paper, printer relationship to monitor, printer cabability, ink, ink capability and on and on and on. Most of that can be alleviated by knowing what you are doing with the editor, and sending the photo to a professional printing service. Few people care, because almost 0% of photo's are ever printed today.

Bottom line is today, photography is just as much about using an editor as it is taking the picture, and IMNSHO editing is the bigger part, and probably the most rewarding part.

Reply
Jan 15, 2019 09:47:00   #
tdekany Loc: Oregon
 
BigDaddy wrote:
We agree to agree:-)
You stumbled on another of my pet peeves, which is people insinuating that photo editors don't strive to get the best picture they can SOOC? Who doesn't do that? The fact that a picture can and should be edited in no way means you don't try to get a good pic from the get go. I submit everyone tries to get the best picture possible based on ability and time allotted.



Reply
 
 
Jan 15, 2019 10:04:08   #
SusanFromVermont Loc: Southwest corner of Vermont
 
BigDaddy wrote:
A lot of variables when printing, everything effects the print besides the picture itself, such as paper, printer relationship to paper, printer relationship to monitor, printer cabability, ink, ink capability and on and on and on. Most of that can be alleviated by knowing what you are doing with the editor, and sending the photo to a professional printing service. Few people care, because almost 0% of photo's are ever printed today.

Bottom line is today, photography is just as much about using an editor as it is taking the picture, and IMNSHO editing is the bigger part, and probably the most rewarding part.
A lot of variables when printing, everything effec... (show quote)

Just curious - why do so many make the statement about the % of photos that are printed today? Percentages can be misleading. All it tells us is that there is a huge number of photographs running around on the internet and sitting in people's computers. It does NOT account for the fact that printing of images keeps many print labs in business!

Even though we are turning our printing over to those labs, they have the expertise and the equipment to do that job properly. And if there should be a problem, most will gladly do it over again at no charge! Those print labs are a blessing for those of us who do not have a printer that will produce larger-format prints! So I am very grateful to all those who send in their images to be printed, because without them I would be limited to printing 8x10 photos!

Reply
Jan 15, 2019 10:30:33   #
BigDaddy Loc: Pittsburgh, PA
 
SusanFromVermont wrote:
Just curious - why do so many make the statement about the % of photos that are printed today? Percentages can be misleading. All it tells us is that there is a huge number of photographs running around on the internet and sitting in people's computers. It does NOT account for the fact that printing of images keeps many print labs in business!

True that. Still the ratio of number of pictures printed to number taken is extremely small. Before digital, 100% of pictures taken were printed, it was the only method to view them. Today, probably 95% of pictures taken are displayed on cell phones, 4.9999% on PC and TV screens and a few printed. (Numbers are my guesstimate, certainly not perfectly accurate)

My self I can't really hang any more pictures in the house, I have to remove one to put one up. My kids, in their 30's don't even own printers, how bad is that? Still, if you want to hang anything over 8x10, most will need to go to a print service. I've been both printing my own and sending out for 20+ years. Never had problems sending out, and few printing my own until my current printer, which refuses go give me decent prints, which is unfortunate, because it's the first printer that I've owned that doesn't charge a fortune for ink. (Epson ET-2750)

Reply
Jan 15, 2019 15:26:21   #
Bipod
 
It is so much easier to attack the poster than to respond to the post.

And easier to post a slogan or a graphic than to make an argument or to
present a fact.

Why is it that insults and personal attacks are OK on UHH, but honest criticism
of a photo isn't -- except in a special forum?

Reply
Jan 15, 2019 15:43:32   #
tdekany Loc: Oregon
 
Bipod wrote:
Why is it that insults and personal attacks are OK on UHH, but honest criticism
of a photo isn't -- except in a special forum?


You insult the entire photography community regularly. Why is that OK?

If you don’t like the way this forum is being run, go start your own. You are a guest, in case you have forgotten.

Reply
 
 
Jan 15, 2019 15:45:24   #
SusanFromVermont Loc: Southwest corner of Vermont
 
BigDaddy wrote:
True that. Still the ratio of number of pictures printed to number taken is extremely small. Before digital, 100% of pictures taken were printed, it was the only method to view them. Today, probably 95% of pictures taken are displayed on cell phones, 4.9999% on PC and TV screens and a few printed. (Numbers are my guesstimate, certainly not perfectly accurate)

My self I can't really hang any more pictures in the house, I have to remove one to put one up. My kids, in their 30's don't even own printers, how bad is that? Still, if you want to hang anything over 8x10, most will need to go to a print service. I've been both printing my own and sending out for 20+ years. Never had problems sending out, and few printing my own until my current printer, which refuses go give me decent prints, which is unfortunate, because it's the first printer that I've owned that doesn't charge a fortune for ink. (Epson ET-2750)
True that. Still the ratio of number of pictures ... (show quote)

I am aware that many have no interest in doing more than sharing images by email or on social media. But my suspicion is those individuals are not really interested in the "art" of photography, just in exchanging snapshots! If the statistics could be able to eliminate those numbers, the proportions would certainly change!

Sorry to hear about your printer problem. I never used a printer with eco-tank technology, but one guess would be that it has not been perfected! The rising price of ink cartridges is also one of my pet peeves. I did some math and found that the expensive 80 ml cartridges are actually a lot more reasonable per ml. Makes sense, since a lot of the cost would be in the packaging [the cartridge]. Amazing how can be charged for a little plastic box filled with colored liquid.

I have a Canon all-in-one that prints very nice photos, but I have the Epson P800 on my wish list! Decided it was time for a printer designed for printing photos! Still figuring out the space problem, since the Epson is larger than my Canon! Also, deciding whether it is cost-effective to get a high-priced printer rather than just sending my images out for printing!

Reply
Jan 15, 2019 17:02:19   #
Shutterbug57
 
BigDaddy wrote:
Before digital, 100% of pictures taken were printed, it was the only method to view them.


You must be a young one. Most of us older folk would remember sitting through interminable slide shows from our neighbors vacations. There was another way to show pictures that did not include printing.

Reply
Jan 15, 2019 22:14:25   #
Wallen Loc: Middle Earth
 
Shutterbug57 wrote:
You must be a young one. Most of us older folk would remember sitting through interminable slide shows from our neighbors vacations. There was another way to show pictures that did not include printing.


Yes, and we have been adept at reading negatives too, choosing which ones to print from there :-)

Reply
Jan 15, 2019 22:39:12   #
Wallen Loc: Middle Earth
 
Picture Taker wrote:
Are we confusing "ART" with taste. That is another subject


That is the truth. Very few understand what art is but everybody is a critique/opinionated.
Even some of those who trained are more concerned with their own taste than what art really is. Such as calling a light-bulb that goes on and off in an empty room or a peeing statue art. Worse, they believe and push it as high art and is the future of artistic endeavors.

Reply
Page <<first <prev 16 of 17 next>
If you want to reply, then register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.
Main Photography Discussion
UglyHedgehog.com - Forum
Copyright 2011-2024 Ugly Hedgehog, Inc.