New Sony A350 pics

In article , Alan Browne
says...
Alfred Molon wrote:
In article , Alan Browne
says...
Alfred Molon wrote:
In article , Dica says...
Histograms shows that 90% of the pictures are to dark.
Nonsense. I downloaded via screengrab three random images and checked
their histograms. These images are not too dark - the entire range from
0 to 255 is covered.
Which is meaningless. A scene does not necessarily contain light values
in each bin.

As an example, a correctly exposed shot of a scene whose content was 18%
grey and lower would have no histogram content in the right third or so
(camera dependent).

Conversely, a shot with 18% grey and higher light, but nothing lower,
would have high content to the right of the histo, and nothing in the
lower 2/3 thirds (roughly).

Focus' shots in the referenced set were in the main well exposed, not
dark as the crap-stirrer suggested.

These are not shots of an 18% grey object - they are outdoor shots in
bright daylight and the camera metered to cover the entire scene dynamic
range. If the image were underexposed, the histogram would stop well
below 255, which is not the case.

You're failing to understand (or at least acknowledge) the point and
purpose of the histogram. It is a tool for the photographer, not a
measurement of technical success for the viewer. The example above was
simply to illustrate the principle of what the histo provides regarding
the shot made, not as an example of what should or should not occur in
any photograph.

There is absolutely no "typical" histogram shape, pattern or content
that describes a properly exposed photo. The photographer has to
interpret the scene and use the histo to judge if he "got it".

It can also be used to overexpose a scene with no highlight or light
tones (one with no content in the upper range) in order to maximize
shaddow detail in later processing where the image is then "re-exposed"
to the correct range. But again, this is using the histo as a tool for
image capture, not as a "measure" of exposure success.

You wrote three paragraphs, but said nothing. In any case, the question
was whether the images were too dark or not. For these purposes a
histogram can be used to check if this is the case or not. If the
histogram of a bright outdoor scene on a sunny day ends at 160, the
image has been underexposed and will look dark on most monitors.
--

Alfred Molon
------------------------------
Olympus 50X0, 8080, E3X0, E4X0, E5X0 and E3 forum at
http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/MyOlympus/
http://myolympus.org/ photo sharing site

Alfred Molon wrote:
In article , Alan Browne
says...
Alfred Molon wrote:
In article , Alan Browne
says...
Alfred Molon wrote:
In article , Dica says...
Histograms shows that 90% of the pictures are to dark.
Nonsense. I downloaded via screengrab three random images and checked
their histograms. These images are not too dark - the entire range from
0 to 255 is covered.
Which is meaningless. A scene does not necessarily contain light values
in each bin.

As an example, a correctly exposed shot of a scene whose content was 18%
grey and lower would have no histogram content in the right third or so
(camera dependent).

Conversely, a shot with 18% grey and higher light, but nothing lower,
would have high content to the right of the histo, and nothing in the
lower 2/3 thirds (roughly).

Focus' shots in the referenced set were in the main well exposed, not
dark as the crap-stirrer suggested.

These are not shots of an 18% grey object - they are outdoor shots in
bright daylight and the camera metered to cover the entire scene dynamic
range. If the image were underexposed, the histogram would stop well
below 255, which is not the case.
You're failing to understand (or at least acknowledge) the point and
purpose of the histogram. It is a tool for the photographer, not a
measurement of technical success for the viewer. The example above was
simply to illustrate the principle of what the histo provides regarding
the shot made, not as an example of what should or should not occur in
any photograph.

There is absolutely no "typical" histogram shape, pattern or content
that describes a properly exposed photo. The photographer has to
interpret the scene and use the histo to judge if he "got it".

It can also be used to overexpose a scene with no highlight or light
tones (one with no content in the upper range) in order to maximize
shaddow detail in later processing where the image is then "re-exposed"
to the correct range. But again, this is using the histo as a tool for
image capture, not as a "measure" of exposure success.

You wrote three paragraphs, but said nothing. In any case, the question
was whether the images were too dark or not. For these purposes a
histogram can be used to check if this is the case or not. If the
histogram of a bright outdoor scene on a sunny day ends at 160, the
image has been underexposed and will look dark on most monitors.



You said: "These images are not too dark - the entire range from
0 to 255 is covered."

And that is absolutely meaningless.


--
-- r.p.e.35mm user resource: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm
-- r.p.d.slr-systems: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpdslrsysur.htm
-- [SI] gallery & rulz: http://www.pbase.com/shootin
-- e-meil: Remove FreeLunch.

In article , Alan Browne
says...
Alfred Molon wrote:
In article , Alan Browne
says...
Alfred Molon wrote:
In article , Alan Browne
says...
Alfred Molon wrote:
In article , Dica says...
Histograms shows that 90% of the pictures are to dark.
Nonsense. I downloaded via screengrab three random images and checked
their histograms. These images are not too dark - the entire range from
0 to 255 is covered.
Which is meaningless. A scene does not necessarily contain light values
in each bin.

As an example, a correctly exposed shot of a scene whose content was 18%
grey and lower would have no histogram content in the right third or so
(camera dependent).

Conversely, a shot with 18% grey and higher light, but nothing lower,
would have high content to the right of the histo, and nothing in the
lower 2/3 thirds (roughly).

Focus' shots in the referenced set were in the main well exposed, not
dark as the crap-stirrer suggested.

These are not shots of an 18% grey object - they are outdoor shots in
bright daylight and the camera metered to cover the entire scene dynamic
range. If the image were underexposed, the histogram would stop well
below 255, which is not the case.
You're failing to understand (or at least acknowledge) the point and
purpose of the histogram. It is a tool for the photographer, not a
measurement of technical success for the viewer. The example above was
simply to illustrate the principle of what the histo provides regarding
the shot made, not as an example of what should or should not occur in
any photograph.

There is absolutely no "typical" histogram shape, pattern or content
that describes a properly exposed photo. The photographer has to
interpret the scene and use the histo to judge if he "got it".

It can also be used to overexpose a scene with no highlight or light
tones (one with no content in the upper range) in order to maximize
shaddow detail in later processing where the image is then "re-exposed"
to the correct range. But again, this is using the histo as a tool for
image capture, not as a "measure" of exposure success.

You wrote three paragraphs, but said nothing. In any case, the question
was whether the images were too dark or not. For these purposes a
histogram can be used to check if this is the case or not. If the
histogram of a bright outdoor scene on a sunny day ends at 160, the
image has been underexposed and will look dark on most monitors.



You said: "These images are not too dark - the entire range from
0 to 255 is covered."

And that is absolutely meaningless.

No. Since the histogram does not stop at a value well below 255, it
means that the photo is not underexposed (i.e. not too dark).

These are photos of bright daytime outdoor scenes and the camera will
meter to use the entire brightness range of the sensor.
--

Alfred Molon
------------------------------
Olympus 50X0, 8080, E3X0, E4X0, E5X0 and E3 forum at
http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/MyOlympus/
http://myolympus.org/ photo sharing site

"Alfred Molon" wrote in message
...
If the
histogram of a bright outdoor scene on a sunny day ends at 160, the
image has been underexposed and will look dark on most monitors.

What crap, it depends entirely on distribution and subject content.

You said: "These images are not too dark - the entire range from
0 to 255 is covered."

Which of course is only the entire range for a crap camera, or someone
addicted to 8 bit Jpeg's in any case.

And that is absolutely meaningless.

No. Since the histogram does not stop at a value well below 255, it
means that the photo is not underexposed (i.e. not too dark).

These are photos of bright daytime outdoor scenes and the camera will
meter to use the entire brightness range of the sensor.

Not so, most camera's will meter to set the average, spot or matrix to a
level equal to 18% grey.
Now if you photograph an 18% grey card, the levels will stop well below 255
(or the actual maximum range, and well above 000) without being over OR
underexposed!

Similarly, photograph a flash light in a coal mine, and you can have values
at both extremes, whilst still having an unusable photo with no shadow
detail.
And before saying there is none, you *can* have the wall texture detail if
you expose for it.
Or maybe you want to expose to see the flashlight globe's filament. The
choice is yours, IF you don't use automatic exposure, and don't simply
centre the histogram.

MrT.

Alfred Molon wrote:
In article , Alan Browne

You said: "These images are not too dark - the entire range from
0 to 255 is covered."

And that is absolutely meaningless.

No. Since the histogram does not stop at a value well below 255, it
means that the photo is not underexposed (i.e. not too dark).

These are photos of bright daytime outdoor scenes and the camera will
meter to use the entire brightness range of the sensor.

You don't get it.
can't
won't

Your loss, not mine.


--
-- r.p.e.35mm user resource: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm
-- r.p.d.slr-systems: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpdslrsysur.htm
-- [SI] gallery & rulz: http://www.pbase.com/shootin
-- e-meil: Remove FreeLunch.

On Wed, 21 May 2008 20:25:39 +0100, Focus wrote:

Now I'm waiting for some sun! Blast! It's terrible. More global warming
please: I'm freezing in Portugal ;-|)

Please, no more global warming. It'll shift all of our histograms
too far to the right!

? "ASAAR" ?????? ??? ??????
...
On Wed, 21 May 2008 20:25:39 +0100, Focus wrote:

Now I'm waiting for some sun! Blast! It's terrible. More global warming
please: I'm freezing in Portugal ;-|)

Please, no more global warming. It'll shift all of our histograms
too far to the right!

Haven't you heard of the new Global Airconditioning System, that will dump
all of planet's surplus heat to Mars? Only it will need quite long pipes to
work....



--
Tzortzakakis Dimitrios
major in electrical engineering
mechanized infantry reservist
hordad AT otenet DOT gr

"Tzortzakakis Dimitrios" wrote in message
...

? "ASAAR" ?????? ??? ??????
...
On Wed, 21 May 2008 20:25:39 +0100, Focus wrote:

Now I'm waiting for some sun! Blast! It's terrible. More global warming
please: I'm freezing in Portugal ;-|)

Please, no more global warming. It'll shift all of our histograms
too far to the right!

Haven't you heard of the new Global Airconditioning System, that will dump
all of planet's surplus heat to Mars? Only it will need quite long pipes
to work....

Not to mention extraordinarily elastic.

Neil