next thread »

[monoceros84]

Just like you I didn't want to use the exact same shot for both. But it only shows I have no experience with b/w portrait photos. My main concern was to get the pigeon not blown out. The color version of the first photo is in my 23 stream and I can sent you the raw files, as I would be very grateful to learn what needs to be done differently.

The problem is already in the original (coloured) file - at least with the first image. Her face is too dark compared to the pigeon. Nothing that can't be fixed in GIMP but you will need some time. Dodging her skin and especially her eyes, burning the bird. Or maybe even do two different RAW exposures and combine them - a darker development for the background and the bird, a brighter one for the model.
It's hard to do this one right in the first place because the tones of her outfit, her skin and the pigeon are that different but those three "objects" are all very close by in location. So as soon as you brighten one, you will brighten the other.
But obviously you managed to do this in the second image
One very important aspect that many amateur photographers forget is the background. This one here is too crowded - too much detail, too sharp, too much different tones and colours and absolutely not related to her. Let her step a little further from the stuff behind and open the aperture really wide, approach her as close as possible but stick with at least 50mm. So you will blur the background. Or: let her step directly in front of this white-brown paper background behind her so this will fill the whole frame.
Her posing is quite good but I am with GIMPel, the pigeon is too dominant. In size, in position, in lightness. However, I can see the border between it and the background clearly. So it might be the screen setting that gives him the impression of equal tones. But I am also with littletank, it's almost blown out. The RAW contains so much more detail.

If you do the b/w conversion I would use the channel mixer and pump the reds up. This will already brighter her skin but not the rest.

[GIMPel]

The pigeon is blown out. And because the wall in the background also is nearly
white, there not even is a border between them.

I thought I got the pigeon not blown out. But maybe my monitor gammy is off or the rescaling by 23 messes it up. So here is a screenshot how it looks for me on 23, it is clearly separated from the wall behind.

OK, there is distinction between the wall (which seems not to be a wall, but some paper stuff),
bt for my taste it is too stressful to make a distinction.
I really feel my eyes doing hard work.

I used the color-picker to check if my monitor or my eyes are blown out and not the picture ;-)
but there are some areas at the pigeon which are (R,G,B) = (255,255,255).
And a lot of values are very close to that maximum.

But maybe my monitor is also a problem. Or my eyes? My taste? ;-)


Look at the histogram, there is much black and also much white,
and it looks like cutted-off at the borders.



EDIT(s): typo correction and adding a pic with histogram

[GIMPel]

[...]
Look at the histogram, there is much black and also much white,
and it looks like cutted-off at the borders.
[...]

More on that now.

In my Canon camera in the preview of the shots,
blown out pixels are shown as black blinking.

I picked up this idea, took your b/w stuff and did a similar thing.

First I converted the png into jpg with "convert".
I hope there will not be too much of change by that.
I did this, because my C-code at the moment only eats jpg.


Then I created one pic with all pixels of value 255 set to 0.
And a second one with all pixels > 250 set to 0.

Look at the results...

(btw: just doing it for all pixels with value >= 250
(instead of == 250) makes the area becoming even larger.
The difference is easy to see. Just some percent of the pixels,
but a big difference...


EDIT: typos removed

[GIMPel]

[...]
It's hard to do this one right in the first place because the tones of her outfit, her skin and the pigeon are that different but those three "objects" are all very close by in location. So as soon as you brighten one, you will brighten the other.
[...]

...layer masks can help here

[GIMPel]

Edit:
Ok, for all those who haven't gotten it yet and to clear up all the commotion: That's not me in the photo. So stop emailing me!
[...]

Oh, the guys want to marry you?
But they meant your model? ;-)

heheh

BTW: when I open the pic (png), Gimp says, it's an indexed picture.

Does indexing really make sense here?

[nachbarnebenan]

First I converted the png into jpg with "convert".
I hope there will not be too much of change by that.
I did this, because my C-code at the moment only eats jpg.


Then I created one pic with all pixels of value 255 set to 0.
And a second one with all pixels > 250 set to 0.

BTW: when I open the pic (png), Gimp says, it's an indexed picture.

Does indexing really make sense here?

Please note that these are 16bit PNG files, even the monochrome one. The development version can use them.
I tried to expose so not to have blown out highlights, because I knew the pigeon would be troublesome. But I wanted to have it in.

[GIMPel]

First I converted the png into jpg with "convert".
I hope there will not be too much of change by that.
I did this, because my C-code at the moment only eats jpg.


Then I created one pic with all pixels of value 255 set to 0.
And a second one with all pixels > 250 set to 0.

BTW: when I open the pic (png), Gimp says, it's an indexed picture.

Does indexing really make sense here?

Please note that these are 16bit PNG files, even the monochrome one. The development version can use them.

Gimp devel version can hanlde 16-bit already?
Or only in png?
Might be an alternative... :-)

I tried to expose so not to have blown out highlights, because I knew the pigeon would be troublesome. But I wanted to have it in.

It's a hard task to get such bright colors inside without blowing out.
I also had much problems with so extremely white birds on my photographs.
Last nigth I looked at some of my pics from my last Japan journey,
and there were some good pics with grey and brown birds,
but those with white birds most often were blown out at my pics too.
Sometimes partially, sometimes complete!

I normally don't throw pics away with easy, but some of those white-bird pics
had so extrenely blown out birds, that I threw them away.
In one pic for example it looked like the silhouette of the bird was filled with white color. ;-)
(maybe in some way it was funny ;-) might become a new art form?)

So I know the problem very well.

[monoceros84]

[...]
It's hard to do this one right in the first place because the tones of her outfit, her skin and the pigeon are that different but those three "objects" are all very close by in location. So as soon as you brighten one, you will brighten the other.
[...]

...layer masks can help here

I was talking about the photography itself - getting it right in the first place... But it would be cool to have layer masks there too

It's a hard task to get such bright colors inside without blowing out.
I also had much problems with so extremely white birds on my photographs.

If you only shoot the white bird you could try spot or center-weighted average metering instead of matrix metering. This could help getting the exposure right while not considering the brightness of the environment.

But it won't work with that portrait of nachbarnebenan.

[GIMPel]

[...]
It's hard to do this one right in the first place because the tones of her outfit, her skin and the pigeon are that different but those three "objects" are all very close by in location. So as soon as you brighten one, you will brighten the other.
[...]

...layer masks can help here

I was talking about the photography itself - getting it right in the first place... But it would be cool to have layer masks there too

Ah ok.

... but I thought you have them always with you, even when doing the shots? 

It's a hard task to get such bright colors inside without blowing out.
I also had much problems with so extremely white birds on my photographs.

If you only shoot the white bird you could try spot or center-weighted average metering instead of matrix metering. This could help getting the exposure right while not considering the brightness of the environment.

But it won't work with that portrait of nachbarnebenan.

Yes, I have not used the right metering for many of the failed shots.
For example here is one of my blown-out shots.
It was done with matrix-metering..... I'm just learning, and far from perfect ;-)

( Here also the white cloud is annoying.... a blown-out area and a background that is close to the object of interest... so it's an example of how to do it wrong )


BTW: why does Gimp show me "raw" in Bild->Eigenschaften?
It's a jpg-shot and AFAIK I didn't had RAW+JPEG used there...?!
jhead does not show my anything about raw...

[monoceros84]

BTW: why does Gimp show me "raw" in Bild->Eigenschaften?
It's a jpg-shot and AFAIK I didn't had RAW+JPEG used there...?!
jhead does not show my anything about raw...

digiKam neither. No idea what GIMP thinks to read here

Should be get back on topic or shall I split the thread so we can discuss some exposure stuff in more detail?

[GIMPel]

Hi,

BTW: why does Gimp show me "raw" in Bild->Eigenschaften?
It's a jpg-shot and AFAIK I didn't had RAW+JPEG used there...?!
jhead does not show my anything about raw...

digiKam neither. No idea what GIMP thinks to read here

Should be get back on topic or shall I split the thread so we can discuss some exposure stuff in more detail?

Let's just bring it back on topic...

The first pic is just desaturated.

The second I had first decomposed into rgb and corrected the red (sic! the RED) layer
with cloning and blurring, before I recomposed and then  desaturated it. (And I did some minor corrections after the blurring, which removed some greenish stuff from the RED-channel-correction, but brought in some gray from the bird into the sky...

The third pic was an accident: I had forgotten to remove the selection which I used
for blurring (intended was to get picture two).
But it somehow looked interesting to me.

There is that brightg white part at the lower part of the wing of the bird.
In color IMHO it looks good, but in b/w I rather think I might better have corrected it.

Or what do you think?

[GIMPel]

Oh,


yeszterday I visited friends and showed them some selected photographs
from the huge mass of photos I shot in Japan in last may.

One shot was the white bird with the white cloud behind it.
I had there 115 photos, and they liked three very much.
One of them was this bird (but the original is different, because I showed a crop here).

I really was astouned, that this picture is one of their favourites.
The color is blown out at some places from the bird, the white cloud behind the bird
makes it less easy to see "the bird", but they liked it.

Maybe my view is a too-technical (a typical beginners problem),
and not so much a view of an artist?

Or is it just a matter of taste?

So I'm somewhat irritated on this now...

[monoceros84]

My guess is that they liked it because it's very seldom you can shoot a bird like this. And even though you have your camera ready and a bird crosses your way you will hardly have success with a point&shoot.
So for amateurs such shots are amazing. And there is nothing wrong about it. You can impress people - that's what you do it for. You won't win any prizes though

[GIMPel]

My guess is that they liked it because it's very seldom you can shoot a bird like this. And even though you have your camera ready and a bird crosses your way you will hardly have success with a point&shoot.
So for amateurs such shots are amazing. And there is nothing wrong about it. You can impress people - that's what you do it for. You won't win any prizes though

...the comment was: the white strip looks like coming from a plane, but what you see is a bird.
In the original there is much more blue "empty" space... and the whits strip is going through the whole pic. Maybe the selected area looks less good than the original... maybe I have golden mean in the original... not sure, but it maybe is about close to that proportions.
Maybe it looks better in this case.

Today i again showed some pics... and compared original shot and
cropped stuff. Often the original was said to look better than the
cropped stuff. So I may join the composition challenge...
... at least with those pics ;-)

[nachbarnebenan]

Ok, long time no monochrome post.
I took these two during the night of the museums. Both are uncropped and straight out of UFRaw (Luminosity conversion).

This is one of the passages downtown — even at this late hour it's still not deserted.


That's a lucky shot of one of the restorated old buildings. I shot this at iso 3200 and it looks awful in color, but in monochrome it has something.


I uploaded the original raw files as well as two shots taken during daytime as comparison here:
http://www.speedyshare.com/files/22276818/DayAndNight.zip