Approve the Cookies
This website uses cookies to improve your user experience. By using this site, you agree to our use of cookies and our Privacy Policy.
OK
Index  •   • New posts  •   • RTAT  •   • 'Best of'  •   • Gallery  •   • Gear  •   • Reviews
Guest
New posts  •   • RTAT  •   • 'Best of'  •   • Gallery  •   • Gear  •   • Reviews
Register to forums    Log in

 
FORUMS Photography Talk by Genre General Photography Talk 
Thread started 20 May 2012 (Sunday) 12:41
Search threadPrev/next
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)

Where do you get your photos developed?

 
gingerjenny
THREAD ­ STARTER
Mostly Lurking
11 posts
Joined May 2012
     
May 20, 2012 21:00 |  #16

I'm not sure what you mean by the whites of the socks being clipped. Does that mean that part is overexposed? I am so green to this so this part is probably advanced for me. I am just learning and i'm currently reading some books and just practicing. With histograms the goal is to get the peak more in the middle right with no dramatic slopes? I'm going to ask my husband to check into making sure the screen is calibrated correctly too. Is there a particular program that i need to use to do that?




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)
Pink ­ Butterfly
Member
57 posts
Joined May 2012
     
May 20, 2012 21:39 |  #17
bannedPermanent ban

Wilt wrote in post #14460444 (external link)
But if you notice, the peak at the extreme right shows that the whites of the sox are also being clipped in the photos!

Hi, Wilt. Yes, I saw that. But just as it is sometimes necessary to lose detail to the shadows, this is clearly a case where it would be far better to lose detail in the highlights and clip the whites in the socks in order to properly expose the majority of the frame. Due to the overly bright socks, that image has a much wider range than the 5-stops which a Canon sensor can accommodate. I'm guessing the image probably has closer to 7-stops of total range (if not more). I would propose that it would be far better to expose the entire frame more appropriately and accept the clipped socks.


Who doesn't love a Pink Butterfly?

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Pink ­ Butterfly
Member
57 posts
Joined May 2012
     
May 20, 2012 21:46 |  #18
bannedPermanent ban

gingerjenny wrote in post #14460883 (external link)
I'm not sure what you mean by the whites of the socks being clipped. Does that mean that part is overexposed? I am so green to this so this part is probably advanced for me. I am just learning and i'm currently reading some books and just practicing. With histograms the goal is to get the peak more in the middle right with no dramatic slopes? I'm going to ask my husband to check into making sure the screen is calibrated correctly too. Is there a particular program that i need to use to do that?

Clipping highlights, simply means that the exposure of those portions of the frame is overexposed, thereby rendering it pure white. It results in a loss of detail, because there are no subtle shades of white. ... It's over-exposed (clipped) and it is just pure white. This occurs because the digital image sensor has limited sensitivity, and cannot map the full range of light that the eye can see (or that film can capture). Once the exposure parameters are set in the camera, if an image is taken wherein the light exceeds the sensor's ability to map it correctly, it simply goes white.

Similarly, you can clip the shadows if the light on a particular portion of a frame is lower than the "left-limit" of the sensor. In those cases, the sensor is unable to map varying shades of darkness. Anything darker than the lower limit simply goes black.

In exposing an image with a modern digital camera, it is important to recognize the dynamic range limitations of the camera, in order to choose the very best exposure parameters.


Who doesn't love a Pink Butterfly?

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Wilt
Reader's Digest Condensed version of War and Peace [POTN Vol 1]
Avatar
45,230 posts
Gallery: 1 photo
Likes: 3766
Joined Aug 2005
Location: Belmont, CA
     
May 20, 2012 22:15 |  #19

Pink Butterfly wrote in post #14461079 (external link)
Hi, Wilt. Yes, I saw that. But just as it is sometimes necessary to lose detail to the shadows, this is clearly a case where it would be far better to lose detail in the highlights and clip the whites in the socks in order to properly expose the majority of the frame. .

I agree with your comments. I simply did not agree with the automatic assumption that the exposure could be moved to the right by 2EV...it could, only if the photographer did not mind that there was an area of the photo which would be recorded as 'detailless white'. While chrome highlights or the bright sky might be detailess in a photo, it is less natural to have an item of clothing blown out!

Pink Butterfly wrote:
Due to the overly bright socks, that image has a much wider range than the 5-stops which a Canon sensor can accommodate. I'm guessing the image probably has closer to 7-stops of total range (if not more). I would propose that it would be far better to expose the entire frame more appropriately and accept the clipped socks

The typical Canon dSLR has just over 8EV of dynamic range, as reported by DPReview testing. I have underexposed the 18% gray tonality by -3.3EV before one could almost not detect a difference between the 18% gray and the black zone (which itself is not absolute black when exposed as metered -- notice the black edging is distinguishable from the black area in the as-metered shot).

IMAGE: http://i69.photobucket.com/albums/i63/wiltonw/metered.jpg
...as metered

IMAGE: http://i69.photobucket.com/albums/i63/wiltonw/minus3_3.jpg
...exposed at -3.33EV from metered exposure

and these test shots are as-metered, and not making use of ETTR increased number of tonal values in the shadow areas.

You need to give me OK to edit your image and repost! Keep POTN alive and well with member support https://photography-on-the.net/forum/donate.p​hp
Canon dSLR system, Olympus OM 35mm system, Bronica ETRSi 645 system, Horseman LS 4x5 system, Metz flashes, Dynalite studio lighting, and too many accessories to mention

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
tonylong
...winded
Avatar
54,657 posts
Gallery: 60 photos
Likes: 560
Joined Sep 2007
Location: Vancouver, WA USA
     
May 21, 2012 11:39 |  #20

I'll chime in!

First off, when you asked about your photos being "developed", you are using terminology from the film days, where you dropped off a roll of film to be "developed" and then printed. With digital, yes you can trust Walgreens to "auto correct" a digital shot before printing it but then you get what you get.

If you want the best quality prints, then you want to learn at least the basics of digital "post processing", using photo editing software and then testing your print providers. As has been said, a very common need will be to lower the brightness of your monitor, adjust your photos, re-test, and judge the results and print as necessary.

As to the photos being cropped when you print, well, that's another common problem. "Standard" print sizes come in various "aspect ratios" that are reflected by their dimensions in inches. A 4x6 print will have a different "aspect ratio" than will say a 5x7 print or even more so an 8x10 print. Imagine taking your photos and ordering a square print, say a 5x5-inch print -- can you imagine the result? Either you would have a print with a lot of "white space" or you would have the long dimentsion severely cropped, or the short dimension all stretched out!

So, you need to calculate your intended print dimensions into your cropping! For a 4x6 print, you want to crop with the same aspect ratio, which you can do in your software uising 4:6 or 2:3 for your relative dimentsions!

gingerjenny wrote in post #14460883 (external link)
I'm not sure what you mean by the whites of the socks being clipped. Does that mean that part is overexposed? I am so green to this so this part is probably advanced for me. I am just learning and i'm currently reading some books and just practicing. With histograms the goal is to get the peak more in the middle right with no dramatic slopes? I'm going to ask my husband to check into making sure the screen is calibrated correctly too. Is there a particular program that i need to use to do that?

Getting the highlights and shadows to "balance" is first a matter of getting a good exposure, and then using your post-processing software to "even things out". When you consider the whites of your photos, I wouldn't say that the shots are over-exposed, but that they are pushing against the "dynamic range" of the camera. In other words, if you exposed for the darker areas, you would tend to lose details in those white stockings.

I hate it when that happens!

I use the Raw format with my photography because it gives more "latitude" in those areas. But, for you in the beginner stages, it will come down to your software for these images and you will want to find out how to lighten your shadows for these photos. And, as I mentioned earlier, you will need to dial down the Brightness of your monitor so that what you see on your monitor will match your prints!


Tony
Two Canon cameras (5DC, 30D), three Canon lenses (24-105, 100-400, 100mm macro)
Tony Long Photos on PBase (external link)
Wildlife project pics here (external link), Biking Photog shoots here (external link), "Suburbia" project here (external link)! Mount St. Helens, Mount Hood pics here (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
RichSoansPhotos
Cream of the Crop
5,981 posts
Likes: 39
Joined Aug 2007
Location: London, UK
     
May 21, 2012 12:27 |  #21
bannedPermanent ban

I use lightroom to "develop" my photos. If you meant getting them printed on paper....I do that




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
SilverHCIC
Goldmember
Avatar
1,460 posts
Likes: 2
Joined Nov 2007
Location: Swimming, cycling or running ... somewhere in California
     
May 22, 2012 00:39 |  #22
bannedPermanent ban

Wilt wrote in post #14461248 (external link)
I agree with your comments. I simply did not agree with the automatic assumption that the exposure could be moved to the right by 2EV...it could, only if the photographer did not mind that there was an area of the photo which would be recorded as 'detailless white'. While chrome highlights or the bright sky might be detailess in a photo, it is less natural to have an item of clothing blown out!

The typical Canon dSLR has just over 8EV of dynamic range, as reported by DPReview testing. I have underexposed the 18% gray tonality by -3.3EV before one could almost not detect a difference between the 18% gray and the black zone (which itself is not absolute black when exposed as metered -- notice the black edging is distinguishable from the black area in the as-metered shot).
QUOTED IMAGE
...as metered

QUOTED IMAGE
...exposed at -3.33EV from metered exposure

and these test shots are as-metered, and not making use of ETTR increased number of tonal values in the shadow areas.

I am not an expert at the current level of digital sensor technology, but I have not been able to get 8 stops of useable range on any shot from any of my Canon DSLRs. Granted, I have not upgraded my 5DII to a 5DIII, but I would be really pleased to see 8 stops of effective range from Canon, Nikon, or Sony. That would be a real treat.


"It's easy to find your bike in transition when you're the last one out of the ocean ... it's no fun being lost at sea :rolleyes:."

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
digital ­ paradise
"It takes a bit of work to get it in."
Avatar
17,970 posts
Gallery: 125 photos
Likes: 13196
Joined Oct 2009
Location: Canada
     
May 22, 2012 10:18 |  #23

I calibrate my monitor and use PS or LR to work on my files. I get prints done at now of two local places. Labworks is high end.

http://thelabworks.com​/ (external link)

http://www.photocentra​l.ca/ (external link)


Image Editing OK

Website (external link) ~ Buy/Sell Feedback

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Wilt
Reader's Digest Condensed version of War and Peace [POTN Vol 1]
Avatar
45,230 posts
Gallery: 1 photo
Likes: 3766
Joined Aug 2005
Location: Belmont, CA
     
May 22, 2012 10:47 |  #24

SilverHCIC wrote in post #14466927 (external link)
I am not an expert at the current level of digital sensor technology, but I have not been able to get 8 stops of useable range on any shot from any of my Canon DSLRs. Granted, I have not upgraded my 5DII to a 5DIII, but I would be really pleased to see 8 stops of effective range from Canon, Nikon, or Sony. That would be a real treat.

As one can read in this report, DPReview came up with a technique for assessing Dynamic Range, and applied it to the 5D (classic).

They show just over 8 EV of dynamic range, and even report 8.4 EV for the very venerable 20D!
http://www.dpreview.co​m/reviews/canoneos5d/2​2 (external link)

Nikons perform similarly, as shown in this D90 test from 2008
http://www.dpreview.co​m/reviews/nikond90/22 (external link)

And this Sony testing in 2011 is summarized as having almost 9 EV of dynamic range!
http://www.dpreview.co​m/reviews/sonyslta77/1​5 (external link)


You need to give me OK to edit your image and repost! Keep POTN alive and well with member support https://photography-on-the.net/forum/donate.p​hp
Canon dSLR system, Olympus OM 35mm system, Bronica ETRSi 645 system, Horseman LS 4x5 system, Metz flashes, Dynalite studio lighting, and too many accessories to mention

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)

3,803 views & 0 likes for this thread
Where do you get your photos developed?
FORUMS Photography Talk by Genre General Photography Talk 
AAA
x 1600
y 1600

Jump to forum...   •  Rules   •  Index   •  New posts   •  RTAT   •  'Best of'   •  Gallery   •  Gear   •  Reviews   •  Member list   •  Polls   •  Image rules   •  Search   •  Password reset

Not a member yet?
Register to forums
Registered members may log in to forums and access all the features: full search, image upload, follow forums, own gear list and ratings, likes, more forums, private messaging, thread follow, notifications, own gallery, all settings, view hosted photos, own reviews, see more and do more... and all is free. Don't be a stranger - register now and start posting!


COOKIES DISCLAIMER: This website uses cookies to improve your user experience. By using this site, you agree to our use of cookies and to our privacy policy.
Privacy policy and cookie usage info.


POWERED BY AMASS forum software 2.1forum software
version 2.1 /
code and design
by Pekka Saarinen ©
for photography-on-the.net

Latest registered member is pdwilson_75
858 guests, 266 members online
Simultaneous users record so far is 15144, that happened on Nov 22, 2018

Photography-on-the.net Digital Photography Forums is the website for photographers and all who love great photos, camera and post processing techniques, gear talk, discussion and sharing. Professionals, hobbyists, newbies and those who don't even own a camera -- all are welcome regardless of skill, favourite brand, gear, gender or age. Registering and usage is free.