snubbr.com

Is this an example of poor digital roll off? (2 images)
Does anyone have an opinion on the way that highlights have transitioned on the following photo?.

Image control:Zoom outZoom 100%Zoom inExpand AllOpen in new window.

And a crop in on the same shot of the feature.

Image control:Zoom outZoom 100%Zoom inExpand AllOpen in new window.

I've spent many years using slide and b&w film and have never seen this type of hard line transition, I would have expected a diffuse transition.Is this just something I have to learn to workaround with digital?.

This was taken on a canon A630, but my partner took a similar shot on a panasonic fz8 and saw the same issue.The photo has had no pp, straight out of the camera..

Walt.

Http://picasaweb.google.com/waltdall..

Comments (15)

...shooting into the light on this one, resulting in the blown-out background. I think it's best to shoot with the light behind you rather than shooting into the light..

It's not the camera....LucyE- 510, 40-150 and 14-54 lens!U ZI owner!Olympus C30-20Zhttp://www.pbase.com/lucyFCAS Member #98, Oly Division'Photography is the art of seeing what others do not.'.

Image control:Zoom outZoom 100%Zoom inExpand AllOpen in new window..

Comment #1

I have an A640, it's similar to your A630. I find it easily blows highlights in what I consider typical lighting situations. My default settings are exposure comp -2/3 ev and contrast -1, saturation -1. I then tweak things from there based on the light I'm working in..

The in camera histogram doesn't agree well with the histogram in my post processing software. My software shows more data on the high end of the histogram than the camera does. I feel exposing to the middle of the histogram in the camera is like exposing to the right when viewed in the post processing software..

I'm used to shooting slide film and exposing for the highlights. I treat this camera the same but with even more of a suspicious eye for situations where highlights will be lost...

Comment #2

I forgot to mention. Lower the sharpening in the camera settings also. IMO this looks like blown highlights and over sharpening (extreme overshoot due to sharpening settings and contrast). I tend to like minimal sharpening in the camera so I can post process and then sharpen as the last step..

Here's a few pages of explanation about how digital sharpening works.http://ronbigelow.com/articles/sharpen1/sharpen1.html..

Comment #3

Mrxdimension wrote:.

I have an A640, it's similar to your A630. I find it easily blowshighlights in what I consider typical lighting situations. Mydefault settings are exposure comp -2/3 ev and contrast -1,saturation -1. I then tweak things from there based on the lightI'm working in..

Actually this is shot at the lowest sharpening and contrast by using my colours space in the A630. The foreground, which is the subject, is underexposed to retain some detail in the mid background region. I was quite happy that there was no way I could retain good foreground shadow detail and highlights in the clouds. I just wasn't expecting such a sharp roll off at the highlights between the building and the clouds. I was expecting the clouds to be burnt out with no detail..

I also shot this in raw mode using the chdk hack and the transition at the building is exactly the same..

The FZ8 that my partner was using was shooting jpeg+raw, both suffered exactly the same sharp edge between the building and the clouds. I therefore think it is very unlikely that it is a feature of in camera sharpening or contrast..

The in camera histogram doesn't agree well with the histogram in mypost processing software. My software shows more data on the highend of the histogram than the camera does. I feel exposing to themiddle of the histogram in the camera is like exposing to the rightwhen viewed in the post processing software..

I'm used to shooting slide film and exposing for the highlights. Itreat this camera the same but with even more of a suspicious eye forsituations where highlights will be lost..

I have nothing but good to say about this camera (a630), I'm just wondering if this is an example of the poor roll off of highlights when comparing digital to film?.

Thanks for you thoughts..

Walt.

Http://picasaweb.google.com/waltdall..

Comment #4

Thinking outloud.... I'm not sure that it is the rapid roll off at the highlight boundary that is getting to me as I've been through some old film examples and the rapid transition is there, albeit not as obvious. The reason I think it's not so obvious is because the highlights have not 'bled' so much into the outline of the buildings in film, as they have here in this digital shot. The building in this shot looks almost as if a ham fisted person has attempted to cut the outline of the building out with a pair of big scissors thus not following the outline of the building and cutting into it instead..

Anyway, I'm not sure why this should happen more than what I'm used to on film, however I'm now pretty aware this happens at least with these 2 compact that we own (this is not the first example), so I guess I will have to work around it..

Walt.

Http://picasaweb.google.com/waltdall..

Comment #5

I think what you have here is an example of blooming..

Http://www.dpreview.com/learn/?/key=blooming.

Chris Elliott.

*Nikon* D Eighty + Fifty - Other equipment in Profile.

Http://PlacidoD.Zenfolio.com/..

Comment #6

Chris Elliott wrote:.

I think what you have here is an example of blooming..

Http://www.dpreview.com/learn/?/key=blooming.

Chris Elliott.

*Nikon* D Eighty + Fifty - Other equipment in Profile.

Http://PlacidoD.Zenfolio.com/.

Thanks Chris, that is exactly what I have just been reading and was just about to post a "I'm going to shut up now" response..

Walt.

Http://picasaweb.google.com/waltdall..

Comment #7

Most cams other than good DSLRs use an inexpensive electronic shutter and CCD gating to achieve short shutter speeds so the photosites can overflow. By way of example the Nikon D40 uses such an arrangemment as did the d50 and d70 but the D60, D80 etc etc use a verticle electronic focal plane shutter which eliminates the problem..

Chris Elliott.

*Nikon* D Eighty + Fifty - Other equipment in Profile.

Http://PlacidoD.Zenfolio.com/..

Comment #8

Thanks again Chris, I used the search feature now that I know it is called blooming and saw your previous posts on this and the part about the focal plane shutter etc and the links to image resource and the differences between the d80 and d70. All very enlightening ..

Walt.

Http://picasaweb.google.com/waltdall..

Comment #9

Ha! Did you do your photography course by reading the instructions that came in the boxes with film?.

I love shooting into the sun and often get the sun in my shot. Photography is about breaking rules. personally I like the way the building has 'deconfigured' in the OP's shot. It's a bit flat though, needs some Levels and Curves tweaked.Jules.

Jules.

Lucy wrote:.

...shooting into the light on this one, resulting in the blown-outbackground. I think it's best to shoot with the light behind yourather than shooting into the light..

It's not the camera....Lucy.

?..

Comment #10

I don't think this is blooming. Usually, blooming produces artifacts that are shaped according to the layout of the circuitry between photosites. You'd get horizontal streaks or vertical streaks. This looks like nice smooth round scallop shapes, borne from the circles produced by unfocused areas..

The background is greatly overexposed. The background is out of focus. The circle of confusion for each part of the overexposed area produces a round patch of also-overexposed glare. Once you get farther into the castle/building/whatever than the radius of the circle of confusion, then the exposure very quickly drops into normal range and produces colored pixels instead of white. If the background were in focus, you'd get a sharper edge following the building's profile more closely..

To the OP, yes, digital is very unforgiving about overexposure, in that there is no way to process the details that have been lost. Film may be able to keep a tiny bit of detail in areas that were ALMOST pure white..

[ e d @ h a l l e yc c ] http://www.halley.cc/pix/..

Comment #11

Ed Halley wrote:.

I don't think this is blooming. Usually, blooming produces artifactsthat are shaped according to the layout of the circuitry betweenphotosites. You'd get horizontal streaks or vertical streaks. Thislooks like nice smooth round scallop shapes, borne from the circlesproduced by unfocused areas..

The background is greatly overexposed. The background is out offocus. The circle of confusion for each part of the overexposed areaproduces a round patch of also-overexposed glare. Once you getfarther into the castle/building/whatever than the radius of thecircle of confusion, then the exposure very quickly drops into normalrange and produces colored pixels instead of white. If thebackground were in focus, you'd get a sharper edge following thebuilding's profile more closely..

I think I see what you are saying, I my words, to see if we are talking the same thing: The boundaries where the overexposed area of the image and the normally exposed image meet end up with an accumulative effect where the normal exposure is added too by the overexposure creating of course an over exposed area. This occurs when the objects are out of focus..

If I understand correctly then this will also occur in film cameras? I must admit to have not noticed this in film, but that doesn't mean it doesn't occur. Some of this could be down to the difference in circle of confusion between small sensor digital cameras and full frame 35 mm film cameras, perhaps? Or it could be something completely different....:-).

I've included a further example below where the building was more in focus and it does fit your statement that I would get a edge following the boundary of the building better.Initial untouched picture.

Image control:Zoom outZoom 100%Zoom inExpand AllOpen in new window.

Crop of edge where building and sky are not overexposed.

Image control:Zoom outZoom 100%Zoom inExpand AllOpen in new window.

Cop where the background is overexposed.

Image control:Zoom outZoom 100%Zoom inExpand AllOpen in new window.

To the OP, yes, digital is very unforgiving about overexposure, inthat there is no way to process the details that have been lost.Film may be able to keep a tiny bit of detail in areas that wereALMOST pure white..

[ e d @ h a l l e yc c ] http://www.halley.cc/pix/.

Thanks for adding to the discussion, I can now see that if I am going to include an area of overexposure then I think I should try as much as possible to keep that area in focus, or consider bracketing and then merging as layers afterwards in an editing package. Or of course start carrying my Neutral Density graduated filter with me!.

Walt.

Http://picasaweb.google.com/waltdall..

Comment #12

Now that I can see the "spikey" nature of the roof line I don't think this is blooming but just a sharp transition to a blown sky which is "distorted" by the bokeh of the lens..

Chris Elliott.

*Nikon* D Eighty + Fifty - Other equipment in Profile.

Http://PlacidoD.Zenfolio.com/..

Comment #13

JulesJ wrote:.

Ha! Did you do your photography course by reading the instructionsthat came in the boxes with film?I love shooting into the sun and often get the sun in my shot.Photography is about breaking rules. personally I like the way thebuilding has 'deconfigured' in the OP's shot. It's a bit flat though,needs some Levels and Curves tweaked..

And 99% of the time you will be wrong as this is a beginner's forum. Beginner photography is about following the rules, not breaking them. When you have mastered the basic rules then you learn to break them, and you learn what works and what doesn't based upon prior experience. Those attempts are then qualified by others, at which point those qualifications are either accepted or rejected..

The OP is no beginner in photography, but seems to have little experience with digital. Film and digital can be very similar, but as you can see in this original post there are some differences that are quite pronounced, especially when using higher pixel density P&S type cameras..

Instead of critiquing another member on what may or may not be true regarding advanced photography technique, you could have used your superior knowledge to help others, which is why the Beginner Forum was developed..

Jules.

Jules.

Lucy wrote:.

...shooting into the light on this one, resulting in the blown-outbackground. I think it's best to shoot with the light behind yourather than shooting into the light..

It's not the camera....Lucy.

?.

Tim'Be the change you wish to see in the world.' -Mahatma GandhiE3/E1/7-14/12-60/50-200/EC-14/C8080http://www.flickr.com/photos/timskis6/..

Comment #14

Have it your own way Tim.

Timskis6 wrote:.

JulesJ wrote:.

Ha! Did you do your photography course by reading the instructionsthat came in the boxes with film?I love shooting into the sun and often get the sun in my shot.Photography is about breaking rules. personally I like the way thebuilding has 'deconfigured' in the OP's shot. It's a bit flat though,needs some Levels and Curves tweaked..

And 99% of the time you will be wrong as this is a beginner's forum.Beginner photography is about following the rules, not breaking them.When you have mastered the basic rules then you learn to break them,and you learn what works and what doesn't based upon priorexperience. Those attempts are then qualified by others, at whichpoint those qualifications are either accepted or rejected..

The OP is no beginner in photography, but seems to have littleexperience with digital. Film and digital can be very similar, butas you can see in this original post there are some differences thatare quite pronounced, especially when using higher pixel density P&Stype cameras..

Instead of critiquing another member on what may or may not be trueregarding advanced photography technique, you could have used yoursuperior knowledge to help others, which is why the Beginner Forumwas developed..

Jules.

Jules.

Lucy wrote:.

...shooting into the light on this one, resulting in the blown-outbackground. I think it's best to shoot with the light behind yourather than shooting into the light..

It's not the camera....Lucy.

?.

Tim'Be the change you wish to see in the world.' -Mahatma GandhiE3/E1/7-14/12-60/50-200/EC-14/C8080http://www.flickr.com/photos/timskis6/.

Why can't you blow bubbles with chewing gum?..

Comment #15

Click Here to View All...

Sponsored Amazon Deals:

1. Get big savings on Amazon warehouse deals.
2. Save up to 70% on Amazon Products.


This question was taken from a support group/message board and re-posted here so others can learn from it.

 

Categories: Home | Diet & Weight Management | Vitamins & Supplements | Herbs & Cleansing |

Sexual Health | Medifast Support | Nutrisystem Support | Medifast Questions |

Web Hosting | Web Hosts | Website Hosting | Hosting |

Web Hosting | GoDaddy | Digital Cameras | Best WebHosts |

Web Hosting FAQ | Web Hosts FAQ | Hosting FAQ | Hosting Group |

Hosting Questions | Camera Tips | Best Cameras To Buy | Best Cameras This Year |

Camera Q-A | Digital Cameras Q-A | Camera Forum | Nov 2010 - Cameras |

Oct 2010 - Cameras | Oct 2010 - DSLRs | Oct 2010 - Camera Tips | Sep 2010 - Cameras |

Sep 2010 - DSLRS | Sep 2010 - Camera Tips | Aug 2010 - Cameras | Aug 2010 - DSLR Tips |

Aug 2010 - Camera Tips | July 2010 - Cameras | July 2010 - Nikon Cameras | July 2010 - Canon Cameras |

July 2010 - Pentax Cameras | Medifast Recipes | Medifast Recipes Tips | Medifast Recipes Strategies |

Medifast Recipes Experiences | Medifast Recipes Group | Medifast Recipes Forum | Medifast Support Strategies |

Medifast Support Experiences |

 

(C) Copyright 2010 All rights reserved.