GH3 low light indoor acrobatic show

Started 10 months ago | Discussions thread
Pete Berry
Senior MemberPosts: 2,087
Like?
Re: GH3 low light indoor acrobatic show
In reply to Kim Letkeman, 10 months ago

Kim Letkeman wrote:

Pete Berry wrote:

!Mein Gott! fellow, you're really swimming upstream and onto the rocks here! First, you have no idea what my monitor shows, do you, except that I told you I see only shades of grey in the shirt with some detail

And I believe that is all I attributed to you, isn't it ...

where you tell me you see white blown out - which is 255/255/255 in my book.

It is simply a bright white ... it cannot be 255 since Photoshop does not show that according to you. But it is a brightly lit white short under concert lighting, which means it should not be grey as you are seeing it.

It takes no extrapolation to know what your description means ...

And measuring the numbers confirm that this is not the case, and the grey is not uniform, with some gradation shown.

Trivial amounts of detail ... even creases disappear into the flat area.

I've selected all of the shirt, as well as the shirt of the woman to check the histogram, which shows a very low percentage of blown pixels, with 99% falling below 248 - ninety-nine%!

I see that all the time in posted images and I explained it to the OP as well ... dropping the highlights and the whites in Lightroom turns blow outs to greys ... but the lack of detail remains and the image looks unnatural.

Now you repeat your measurements again. So be it ... I'll ignore the rest because you so clearly want me to be wrong and are not going to be convinced.

So to summarize, the OP posted images with no real detail in several areas. No matter how your perfectly calibrated monitor displays them, there is still basically no detail. The OP admitted to turning down the highlights and anyone who has worked with that stuff for a while knows what that does.

So go bore someone else already ...

-- hide signature --

One question: At what luminance value does white become grey in your "book"? Oh, and another, how do you know the shirts were not a dirty white (that would be greyish) in the first place.

It seems you want the "whites" to be much brighter to prove in some very nice shots that everyone but you blows highlights, needing only salvation through your blog to correct their errors, with the price of ending up with blocked shadows whose lifting has made some nasty noise - thus the chicklet-sized images you display.

For you perusal below, the OP's first image with the shirts cut out on the left, leaving pure 255/255/255 white with a spike to the top of the right side of the histogram. The two spikes to the left of the end represent the light and dark greys of the histogram surround.

And on the right, the shirts are unchanged, but have been selected, and it's histogram reflects the shirts only. Nice, broad peak, isn't it, centering on about level 235 - not the narrow spike you'd see with artificially dimming an area of totally blown highlights. And guess what? you can even drop the selected shirts' white input level down to 235-40, brightening them considerably without erasing all detail, due to the dispersion of values in the shirts below that level.

Enough already about the effectively rescued shirts, which have enough detail and gradation seen on my monitor to satisfy me that they weren't blown blobs, and I presume to anyone else with a fully calibrated monitor and not blinded by their agenda.

What I really want to know is what the dude in the funny hat is doing!

HiFi's #1 image: (L) - shirts selected and cut out, leaving pure white. (R)- histogram of selected shirts. Original appearance

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Post (hide subjects)Posted by
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum PPrevious NNext WNext unread UUpvote SSubscribe RReply QQuote BBookmark post MMy threads
Color scheme? Blue / Yellow