Posterization Article

I have just posted an article on posterization on my web at:

http://www.ronbigelow.com/articles/posterization/posterization.htm

Other articles can be found at:

http://ronbigelow.com/articles/articles.htm

Ron Bigelow
http://ronbigelow.com

Thanks for the work, I read some of your articles and I found them quite interesting and well structured.

Specially usefull for newbies and everyone who wants to learn more about photography and pos-processing, for the amount of replys (or lack of) to your post it seems that a lot of people is more interested in the photo equipment then learning photography.

Thanks for the work you have to write the articles (again).

Regards,
RVB

--
De Gustibus Non Est Disputandum

...savin 'em all!

Larry

Ron Bigelow said:

I have just posted an article on posterization on my web at:

http://www.ronbigelow.com/articles/posterization/posterization.htm

Other articles can be found at:

http://ronbigelow.com/articles/articles.htm

Ron Bigelow
http://ronbigelow.com

Click to expand...

Ron Bigelow said:

I have just posted an article on posterization on my web at:
http://www.ronbigelow.com/articles/posterization/posterization.htm

Click to expand...

The article is quite fine, but it does omit one basic technique that avoid the whole issue: shooting in JPEG and doing it so that you don't require any post-processing.

Don't get me wrong: I don't want to start a holy war. Nevertheless, when I shoot, I try to make the pictures come right the first time, without post-processing. Although this isn't possible when the dynamic range is extremely high or when colours are all funny, I find that in my gobby work I can get everything right most of the time. These photos look great when photo-printed at 75x50 cm (approx 30x20 inches).

I am using the 5D, neutral picture style, sharpening 2 of 7, contrast from low to middle depending on the situation, other settings at neutral. And as said, most of the time I just don't need to go to the RAW world at all.

I don't try to negate your article, but it might perhaps be worth mentioning that if you've got the shot nailed so that it doesn't need any post-processing, posterization (usually) doesn't occur.

Kind regards,

• Henrik

--
And if a million more agree there ain't no great society

I have had a problem with posterization, even in Raw. I have found a work around but it bugs me that I'm seeing this in Raw. I haven't tried really hard determined why this is happening but thought I'd run it by you. This is with a 1Ds Mk1.

Closeup:



Whole image:



Anybody have any ideas? Some converters do it worse than others.

Thanks in advance,

Ernie

Henrik Herranen said:

The article is quite fine, but it does omit one basic technique
that avoid the whole issue: shooting in JPEG and doing it so that
you don't require any post-processing.

...it might perhaps be worth mentioning that if you've got
the shot nailed ... posterization (usually) doesn't occur.

Click to expand...

Your picture-taking advice is good, but tying it to Jpeg vs. Raw muddies the water. Basically, you are suggesting that photographers should get the exposure correct (and where possible shoot within the dynamic range of the sensor). That is good advice for digital cameras just as it was (is) with film. Perhaps, another way of saying the same thing is, "Expose as if you were shooting slide film." Correcting after the fact for less than ideal exposure always risks image degradation, but that has nothing to do with Jpeg vs. Raw. Jpeg irretrievably discards information so you have much less flexibility when it comes to compensating for bad exposure. On the other hand, you can process Raw files in Canon DPP to produce jpegs that are essentially equivalent to the in-camera versions. You benefit from correct exposure just as you would with the in-camera jpegs.