Date   

Monitor - Eye Adaptation

Louis Dina
 

I have a question about eye adaptation (not sure if that is the correct term). When editing an image in Photoshop, the longer I spend staring at the monitor, the more my eye adapts to what I am viewing, and the more normal it begins to appear. Sometimes, after 45 minutes working on an image, my wife will walk up and immediately say, "That's too green, contrasty, saturated, flat, or whatever." And, if I walk away from the computer for 5 minutes and come back, it becomes glaringly obvious to me too. The eye's ability to adapt to different lighting conditions is great for daily living, but it makes editing images difficult at times. I work visually and also use numbers (RGB, CMYK and Lab) as guides for white, neutrals, blacks, skin, sky, grass, etc, but still visual adaptation creeps in and messes me up. I know most people struggle with this issue to some extent. One thing I like about LightRoom is the ability to adjust images very quickly, so my visual system doesn't have as much time to "normalize" and play tricks on me. Unfortunately, LightRoom has many limitations, so most of my important images go to Photoshop. I know I can get up and walk away to 'recalibrate', but I prefer to stay put and just work on an image until it's done.

Does anyone have any suggestions, tips or solutions to help solve this human visual adaptation problem? Any links or articles that address it, and offer helpful suggestions? I'm curious what others do.

Thanks,

Lou Dina


Re: Digest Number 3601

Ron Kelly <ron@...>
 

Gunnar

I am referring to the event, as proven by the news item in the video below, that "proves"
you don't need to have any skills more than a monkey to take a picture nowadays, to
go along with correction-by-the-numbers demonstrating that simians and homo sapiens
can all photograph and color-correct along the same branch.

Ron Kelly


Video: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21134540/vp/43647606#43647606

Full Story: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2011051/Black-macaque-takes-self-portrait-Monkey-borrows-photographers-camera.html
On 2011-07-07, at 10:56 AM, Gunnar K wrote:



...1a. Re: Black Macaque
Posted by: "Ron Kelly" ron@... ronkellyshadow
Date: Thu Jul 7, 2011 3:06 am ((PDT))

"...Hmmm . . . the idea that a photographer can make better pictures than a monkey
is getting harder and harder to fight...."

....???
gunnar kullenberg
LA, CA






[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]


Re: Black Macaque

Ron Kelly <ron@...>
 

Paul:

You've nailed me to the wall with surprising accuracy; guilty as charged.

Managing people in front of the lens has never been my forté, and I admit, I haven't seen the results
of the photographer in question.

In my own defence, however, I do feel that blasting away with ambient light only, not much thought of formally posing
or detailed examination of the composition (these included the "formal" portraits at the wedding after all) is
perilously close to letting the camera take the picture, something any monkey could do.

There's no doubt that ambient light photography can be beautiful, and does definitely seem more spontaneous and
hence, "natural." It's also a lot easier for the photographer, coincidentally.

However, using no supplementary lighting for any shots cannot equate, quality -wise. The Shadow/Highlight
filter or similar techniques does not measure up to properly done flash-fill, for example. Even on an overcast day,
the eyes will be dull without flash, people under hats will be too dark.

My guess is that this is a trend based on new technology, and eventually the pendulum will swing back. The aesthetic
of noise in skin tone will not last.

Ansel Adams and Yousef Karsh may have burned and dodged every one of their prints, and I don't doubt that they
did, but I would wager that they would agree that effort in creating the "perfect" original is far better than all the post production
you can bring to bear.

Respectfully,
Ron Kelly

On 2011-07-07, at 9:35 AM, Paul Lawrence wrote:
Surely it is all about getting
results. Ron before you judge that photographer too harshly look at
his/her results, you might be surprised. Quality of light has always
been of prime importance, now quantity of light is less important than
it ever was. But as a landscape photographer Ron you will know more
about light quality than most wedding photographers need to know, and
dare I suggest probably a little less about managing people in front of
a camera at a wedding?


Re: Digest Number 3601

Gunnar K
 

...1a. Re: Black Macaque
Posted by: "Ron Kelly" ron@... ronkellyshadow
Date: Thu Jul 7, 2011 3:06 am ((PDT))

"...Hmmm . . . the idea that a photographer can make better pictures than a monkey
is getting harder and harder to fight...."

....???
gunnar kullenberg
LA, CA


Re: Black Macaque

Paul Lawrence
 

As a professional photographer who shot his first wedding using ONLY
available/ambient light just last month (I spent many years using a
Bronica 6x6 with flash/fill flash on ALL my wedding photographs) I
suspect that were Karsh and Adams here today and photographing a modern
fast moving wedding they would embrace every aspect of the latest
digital technology - except 'CHIMPING' !

I still do use a tripod occassionally at weddings, in part for crowd
control as well as camera control. Surely it is all about getting
results. Ron before you judge that photographer too harshly look at
his/her results, you might be surprised. Quality of light has always
been of prime importance, now quantity of light is less important than
it ever was. But as a landscape photographer Ron you will know more
about light quality than most wedding photographers need to know, and
dare I suggest probably a little less about managing people in front of
a camera at a wedding?

regards
Paul
Paul Lawrence T:01903 216621 M:07711 185478

On 07/07/2011 04:53, Ron Kelly wrote:
Hmmm . . . the idea that a photographer can make better pictures than a monkey is getting harder and harder to fight.

I was at a wedding recently, and very disturbed to notice that the photographer, who in my opinion was getting a pretty
good fee, was not using a tripod. Shooting in the church, outside, and at the reception with nothing but ambient light,
and undoubtedly using very high ISOs.

I'm just too much of a traditionalist, obviously. Give me Yousef Karsh, or Ansel Adams.

Cheers,
Ron Kelly


Re: Black Macaque

marshyswamp71 <samarsh@...>
 

Ron Kelly wrote:

Hmmm . . . the idea that a photographer can make better pictures than a monkey is getting harder and harder to fight. <
Ron, photographers are not the only ones with problems, to misquote the classic "there are an infinite number of monkeys out here wanting to talk to me about this script for a Shakespeare play that they have written".

Was that an infinite number or primes or primates?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Infinite_monkey_theorem


Best,

Stephen Marsh


Re: Black Macaque

Ron Kelly <ron@...>
 

Hmmm . . . the idea that a photographer can make better pictures than a monkey is getting harder and harder to fight.

I was at a wedding recently, and very disturbed to notice that the photographer, who in my opinion was getting a pretty
good fee, was not using a tripod. Shooting in the church, outside, and at the reception with nothing but ambient light,
and undoubtedly using very high ISOs.

I'm just too much of a traditionalist, obviously. Give me Yousef Karsh, or Ansel Adams.

Cheers,
Ron Kelly


On 2011-07-06, at 6:42 AM, David wrote:

Does anyone else on the list think it's the collective at work bringing another Black Macaque photograph into the mainstream? I've seen the story here and there, but NBC Nightly News closed with it last night.

Video: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21134540/vp/43647606#43647606

Full Story: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2011051/Black-macaque-takes-self-portrait-Monkey-borrows-photographers-camera.html

The retouching reminded me of Dan's book and I couldn't help but wonder if the Macaque has read Professional Photoshop.

Thanks Dan!

David Lawrence
pixelpurfect.com



[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]


Black Macaque

David Lawrence
 

Does anyone else on the list think it's the collective at work bringing another Black Macaque photograph into the mainstream? I've seen the story here and there, but NBC Nightly News closed with it last night.

Video: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21134540/vp/43647606#43647606

Full Story: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2011051/Black-macaque-takes-self-portrait-Monkey-borrows-photographers-camera.html

The retouching reminded me of Dan's book and I couldn't help but wonder if the Macaque has read Professional Photoshop.

Thanks Dan!

David Lawrence
pixelpurfect.com


Re: Feininger's Zone System remarks

Jim Bean
 

john wrote: <That's not to say he didn't ever make a copy print for a particular
project. Karsh did that with his pictures that were sent out to
newspapers and magazines in the 1950's>

just a clarification regarding master prints/printers... for a publication that was creating halftone screens, you might be able to get by with a nice copy print... karsh/adams/everyone else on the planet during the 50's throught 80's, never made a copy print that was an equivalent to the original 'master print' created from the original negative... all copies have a signature look that says "I am not created from the original negative."

I completely agree with the classic b&w processing, expose for the shadows-dev for the hightlights'... this includes many times photographing dark complexions during events such as presentations/graduations/etc with electronic flash/flash bulbs, you would frequently 'over expose' and 'under develop'...to create a printable negative. perhaps similar to today's, low gamma moves that help to get dan's black dog out of the black chair.


jim bean


Re: Feininger's Zone System remarks

John Denniston <john_denniston@...>
 

Hi Howard,

This information is not correct. Adams like a lot of photographers would save a difficult print with areas of dodging and burning marked on it as well as paper grade, developer, and exposure times so the print could be duplicated at some future time.

When I cleaned out my darkroom a few years ago I came across a box of my own "master prints".

That's not to say he didn't ever make a copy print for a particular project. Karsh did that with his pictures that were sent out to newspapers and magazines in the 1950's. I found a bunch of them when the newspaper I worked for moved it's newsroom to a new building. Adams possibly did the same thing for prints meant for publication in newspapers and magazine.

Regards, John

On 7/4/2011 6:44 AM, Howard Smith wrote:
Adams produced a single, master print
with the aid of considerable darkroom manipulation. When he had just the
effect he wanted, he used a copy camera to
produce "orignals" from his master print. It seemed
unlikely that any man could faithfully reproduce all those complex darkroom
moves in subsequent prints,
Is this information correct?
--
www.Johndenniston.ca
www.dirtbikephoto.com
www.sportpix.ca


Re: Professional Phot... (WAS: Feininger's Zone System remarks)

Paul Lawrence
 

Hi All

As a professional photographer I started out studying Ansel Adams and
adapting his teaching to something workable for me.

Then I moved on to Hans-Carl Koch and working in the studio with various
cameras (including a wonderful Sinar) endeavouring to get close to the 4
stops using reflectors mirrors and lots of blue tack...

Then I saw a brief review of 'Professional Photoshop' in the British
Institute of Professional Photographers journal just as I was starting
to use Photoshop... So now in the completely digital world where I spend
far more time in front of a computer than behind a camera my workflow is
based on the writings of Dan Margulis where I have found most of it
comes together...

best regards
Paul

Paul Lawrence T:01903 216621 M:07711 185478

On 04/07/2011 03:09, George Machen wrote:
Oh, I dunno'.... "4 stop photography"
sounds like the best thing since sliced
bread (or zeroing-out the raw developer)
- that is, if one wants better results
in post.

http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m3065/is_n12_v16/ai_6153659/

- George Machen


Re: Feininger's Zone System remarks

Iliah Borg <ib@...>
 

Basically, and interestingly enough similarly to Dan's teachings, for most situations, what he proposed was to over expose and then under develop in order to get a flat neg, which would be easier to print because of the compressed tonal range.
Jenő Dulovits, 1937, Lichtkontraste und ihre Überwindung - the book where he exposes the technique he developed in 1932, adding later the use of pinacryptol green as a desensitizer to control the development of the film visually. I have his book from 1951, Meine Technik – meine Bilder. It sums up his experience and methods to achieve flat negs.


--
Iliah Borg
ib@...


Re: Feininger's Zone System remarks

Paco Marquez <paco@...>
 

Hi to all!

Ansel Adams came up with the Zone System when he taught at the Art Center College of Design where I graduated from. To understand it, we were assigned the dreaded "9 neg test." Basically, and interestingly enough similarly to Dan's teachings, for most situations, what he proposed was to over expose and then under develop in order to get a flat neg, which would be easier to print because of the compressed tonal range.

This is exactly what Dan proposes when he says that flatness is our friend. The proof of which is undeniable in the series There Are No Bad Originals.

As someone who started out as a B&W printer in a commercial lab, I can tell you that both approaches are identical in as to what the ideal workflow starting point is; be it chemical or digital.

And then, even though the starting point is good, both need work; maybe lots of it in some cases but... what does not?

All the best!

Paco Marquez
661 McKinley
San Juan, PR 00907
787-721-8554 Studio
787-587-7384 Cel.
http://www.pacomarquez.com

On Jul 4, 2011, at 2:26 PM, Lee Varis wrote:

Dan writes:
Adam's approach to photography was valuable in that it introduced a systematic way of thinking about the end results when you were planning the picture.


Re: Feininger's Zone System remarks

George Machen
 

Begin forwarded message:

George,

At [xxx] Studio we took 8x10 and 10x12
and 11x14 negs. Put them on a contact
printer. We did some work on the negs
themelves and then put waxed paper, etc.
below the neg but between the light
source, we dodged the waxed paper
further with grease pencil etc. to even
out the lighting and printed away. Each
one dodged and burned the same. Maybe
that's what Adams did.

Happy Interdependence day!

Bob
- George Machen


Re: Feininger's Zone System remarks

Lee Varis
 

Dan writes:

We have a lot more use for the Zone System's fundamentals today than a photographer of the 1970s would. As advice on how to expose a picture, as Feininger said, it was way too complex and probably caused more problems than it cured.
Adam's approach to photography was valuable in that it introduced a systematic way of thinking about the end results when you were planning the picture. The amount of control you could exert after the exposure was very limited by the technology of the day so it helped to have some idea of where one should start before you could pre-visualize the end result.

To say that many of his images were bracketed does not necessarily invalidate his conceptual approach to technical quality, identifying zones and determining how these would print, etc... Certainly exposure today is made easier with automatic through-the-lens matrix metering BUT I still feel we can benefit from the original concepts of identifying the real limits of the dynamic range of the camera through a testing procedure and applying this knowledge to exposure judgements to maximize quality.

Yes... one can simply defer all judgement to post processing by using an HDR approach (blending multiple exposures into a high dynamic range file and "tone mapping" to suit one's taste) but not all circumstances lend themselves to that approach and the statistical averages approach of matrix metering cannot replace a decision guided by informed human intelligence.

My own testing, using Ansel Adam's principals with modern digital technology, has shown me that most cameras (and exposure meters) do not respond the same under different color temperatures and that this is not something that is compensated for by any automatic metering system. There IS something like an ideal exposure for digital captures that minimizes noise and maximizes detail and tonal variation AND allows for maximum creative manipulation without negative side effects – very often this requires some level of human judgement to determine!

I think a lot of photographers have gotten lazy with the power of Photoshop to rescue less than ideal exposures and certainly the notion that files only need to be "good enough" is prevalent in the commercial world. Still, I would argue that the quest for excellence is relevant today even with all the technical advances in digital imaging.


regards,

Lee Varis
varis@...
http://www.varis.com
http://blog.varis.com
323-209-5376

President of the LADIG

Photographer & Author of
Skin: The Complete Guide to Digitally, Lighting, Photographing
and Retouching Faces and Bodies - 2nd edition
ISBN-10: 0470592125
ISBN-13: 978-0470592120
Paperback, 368 pages, Aug 2010
&
Mastering Exposure and the Zone System for Digital Photographers
ISBN-13: 978-1-59863-987-2
ISBN-10: 1-59863-987-0
Paperback, 257 pages, 2010

also:

the DVD series: "Beyond Skin"
http://varis.acmeeducational.com


Re: Feininger's Zone System remarks

dbernaerdt
 

I first came across this article from Sinar originally in the 80's.

http://www.sinar.ch/en/infos/light-metering

The lower density range papers (ie, newsprint) require even less range than 4 f/stops, however I wonder how many photographers understand how to use a spot meter to assess the brightness range of a scene. Likely a lost art in the age of histogram worshippers.

Darren Bernaerdt

--- In colortheory@..., George Machen <gmachen@...> wrote:

Oh, I dunno'.... "4 stop photography"
sounds like the best thing since sliced
bread (or zeroing-out the raw developer)
- that is, if one wants better results
in post.

http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m3065/is_n12_v16/ai_6153659/

- George Machen


Re: Zone System (WAS: Is there a problem with our communication)

Dick Dougall
 

Thanks Mike.

Dick Dougall

On 7/3/2011 8:57 PM, Michael Demyan wrote:

Hear Hear!

Mike Demyan

----- Original Message -----
From: Richmond J Dougall
To: colortheory@... <mailto:colortheory%40yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Sunday, July 03, 2011 8:44 PM
Subject: Re: [colortheory] Re: Zone System (WAS: Is there a problem
with our communication)

Isn't wonderful to be alive and well in today's digital camera age when
you can shoot three or more bracketed shots and combine them with


Re: Feininger's Zone System remarks

Howard Smith
 

I seem to recall running across an article claiming that Adams used one
other technique that does not appear to have become common knowledge. From
my recollection, the author said that Adams produced a single, master print
with the aid of considerable darkroom manipulation. When he had just the
effect he wanted, he used a copy camera (not sure of the technical term) to
produce "orignals" from his master print. Until then it had been my
impression that he laboriously produced each new print with the same
labor-intensive technique he had used for the first print. It seemed
unlikely that any man could faithfully reproduce all those complex darkroom
moves in subsequent prints, but that appears to have been-and still is-the
prevailing thought about Adam's technique. So far as the Zone Method is
concerned, it would seem that Adams relied far more on his darkroom and his
copy camera than on trying to get the perfect exposure in the field.



Is this information correct?







Howard Smith

(drhobbes@...)



_____

On 7/2/11 Clyde McConnell included the following in his post:

The California Musuem of Photography at UC Riverside sometimes shows
material from the time that Adams was photographing campuses throughout the
University of California system, and I recall seeing a mounted proof sheet
of roll-film images that were likely taken in what looked like a desert
canyon (might have been a field station). It was a tough exposure situation,
with late, raking light and important shadow information. The exposures were
ALL OVER the place. No Zone System here, but rather a very profligate and
pragmatic bracketing in the face of near-total uncertainty as to what was
going to work, and what the "best" print would turn out to be...or if there
would be a print at all.


Re: Zone System (WAS: Is there a problem with our communication)

Iliah Borg <ib@...>
 

On Jul 3, 2011, at 8:44 PM, Richmond J Dougall wrote:
Isn't wonderful to be alive and well in today's digital camera age when
you can shoot three or more bracketed shots and combine them with
PhotoMatix or Nik HDR

For the same reasons print density can' reach much more than 2.5D (glare and flare) sensor capture maintains sufficient linearity within 11 stops. Stacking of bracketed shots makes sense when sensor dynamic range is less than that, or in order to decrease the noise in shadows if shadows are to be heavily pushed. Unfortunately that is not how HDR promoters claim. Vast majority ignore physics, and ignore obvious image degradation coming out of the HDR. Many times I heard the claims that a scene of 12+ stops is captured, but never supporting exposure meter data was given.

--
Iliah Borg
ib@...


Re: Feininger's Zone System remarks

George Machen
 

Oh, I dunno'.... "4 stop photography"
sounds like the best thing since sliced
bread (or zeroing-out the raw developer)
- that is, if one wants better results
in post.

http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m3065/is_n12_v16/ai_6153659/

- George Machen

9801 - 9820 of 33563