Date   

Re: Monitor - Eye Adaptation

Ron Kelly <ron@...>
 

Lou

You won't like my answer, probably. The answer is: if it's destined for print, proof it. That's the only way I know to get around your problem.

Even working by the numbers and using a calibrated monitor doesn't do it.

My experience is that my ability to "read" a screen is less reliable than I would like. There's the adaptation problem you've identified, and then there's
other things: you're not a robot, maybe you change one day to the next the way you see things because of fatigue, aging, nutrition, stress,
or even drugs such as alcohol and caffeine. That's not to mention that you're environment might change: the window light from the summer vs. other
seasons, equipment changes, etc.

My work schedule is also highly variable: my computer sits idle for long stretches while I'm away, and when I return it is a re-learning process.

I wonder how things go for people who sit in front of their screens every day, Do they find that they can see with "certainty?"

The gizmo pundits often imply that this is possible, but I never get there which leads me to the conclusion that I am insufficient, or they
are exaggerating, or some combination of both is at work.

Good luck,
Ron Kelly

PS Hey, what if somebody is controlling you through the Maxtrix? Don't forget to consider that one. ; - )

On 2011-07-08, at 5:07 AM, LouisD wrote:

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 wh


Re: Monitor - Eye Adaptation

Dick Dougall
 

On 7/8/2011 6:07 AM, LouisD wrote:
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
Lou - is your PhotoShop set up so the screen area around the picture being work on is neutral gray? That usually helps me judge color cast. Beyond that, I think you are into the suggestions published by our own Dan Margulis. Maybe someone can pinpoint us to one of several discussions where typical numbers are given for a variety of situations like caucasian flesh tones - grass green - clear blue sky - etc etc. Knowing these typical numbers can give you a clue as to the color balance of your image when you do not have an obvious neutral area to measure.

When there is a neutral area - white, gray or black, I use one of the eye droppers in Curves or Levels to make sure I am neutral. It is rare that an image does not have these tones -- and to that point, you will find a common bit of advice is to carry around a chip of 18% gray or a chart that has white, black and 18% gray which you insert into the first of a series of pictures taken under a given lighting condition - use that to bring that sample image in to color balance and then use that setting in ACR to snap all the others in the series into line.

Hope this helps.

Dick Dougall


Re: Monitor - Eye Adaptation

thoenphoto <jeff@...>
 

Lou,
I have found that the first work I do on any image is color, tone, and contrast enhancements. This takes about 5 minutes. So I don't have any issue with eye adaptation.
If I work on an image for 30-45 minutes for these basic corrections, then I do experience that problem. So if you can get faster it will help.
Another way to combat that issue (that helps me anyways) is to keep you bottom layer (background) untouched and work on a duplicate layer along with adjustment layers. Then you can periodically turn off all the other layers ( option click on the background layer eye ball in photoshop) and just view the uncorrected image. This give you a before and after look at your work and helps re-calibrate your eyes.
Hope this helps.

Jeff Natrop
Thoen & Associates Advertising Photography, Inc.
www.thoenphoto.com

--- In colortheory@..., "LouisD" <lou@...> wrote:

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: Black Macaque

Paul Lawrence
 

On 07/07/2011 20:13, Ron Kelly wrote:
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.
Ron I do agree completely with you there, and sadly for too many couples
I fear the Black Macaque might do a better job...
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.
you miss my point about quality of light, it is usually more difficult
to find available light that will provide good lighting (without heavy
shadows under hats and in eye sockets). It is the difference between
good photography and bad photography, just as after I have the RAW files
in Lightoom/Photoshop I start from what I learnt in the darkroom and
follow similar principals, though with vastly greater speed, accuracy
and ease.
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.
IF it isn't a pendulum it is a circle, but always nudged on by
technology, (too) heavy retouching is back in fashion, higher capture
resolutions mean in portraits you can often see every pore and hair on a
face IF it has been well lit and correctly exposed - at that wedding did
you hear the photographer's camera shooting like a machine gun? I have
heard that some modern wedding photographers bracket everything at 6 or
8 frames a second - I seem to remember reading that Ansel Adams may only
take 6 or 8 plates on a hike lasting several days when photographing
Yosemite.
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.
Again I agree and I strive for that perfect original, but I will use use
all the skills I have learn't from Dan's books and many contributors to
this list and will compromise knowing as I press the shutter what I
expect to do in Photoshop to achieve the result I can 'see' as I compose
a shot.

best regards
Paul

Paul Lawrence T:01903 216621 M:07711 185478


Re: Monitor - Eye Adaptation

David Lawrence
 

--- In colortheory@..., "LouisD" <lou@...> wrote:

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
Lou,

I use a gradient map adjustment layer. Select the third choice which is called black and white. Just add it to the top of the layer stack and turn it on every now and then to rest your eyes for a bit. When you turn it off you'll definitely notice any color issues.

David Lawrence
PixelPurfect.com


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

9781 - 9800 of 33548