Up close to an Hibiscus bud. An itsy bitsy teeny weeny bit on the dark side

[JBW]

[Shadowman]

Brian,

This is perhaps one of your brightest captures, unfortunately there isn't enough in focus and a bit noisy.

[just me]

Brian.....just my two cents worth ......it could have been a nice image....but it is not very sharp, perhaps next time use a tripod ?

Griddi.......

[JBW]

Brian.....just my two cents worth ......it could have been a nice image....but it is not very sharp, perhaps next time use a tripod ?

Griddi.......

It was podded. there was a wisp of wind. it was shot at f/5.6 whiuch made for a long exposure.

[JBW]

Brian,

This is perhaps one of your brightest captures, unfortunately there isn't enough in focus and a bit noisy.

Admittedly there is minimal in focus. I'm seeing soft where you see noise? I would not consider it bright at all?

[mugge]

Brian, you have joined 'the dark side.' I do like the composition though. Next time use a tripod he he.
Cheers Ole

[tao2]

It's OK Brian, ah understand...

low light, shallow depth of field - it's supposed tae be like that. There's no camera shake. Ah think the bit ye wanted in focus...is in focus. Ye don't need a histogram tae tell ye what's right and what's wrong, it's how you want it, not how a software engineer thinks it should be. It doesn't have tae be ETTR'd. It is what it is, conveying soft light and soft colours. Ah like it...

[Manfred M]

Ye don't need a histogram tae tell ye what's right and what's wrong, it's how you want it, not how a software engineer thinks it should be. It doesn't have tae be ETTR'd. It is what it is, conveying soft light and soft colours. Ah like it...

This is a point where I think we should agree to disagree. I think understanding and using the histogram is one of the most important tools that a photographer can work with. Understanding them, both from a colour channel perspective and more importantly when looking at the tonal distribution of an image. Important for colour photographers and absolutely critical for B&W photographers.

When you see a dull looking image posted, you can be almost certain that the poster has not exploited the full dynamic range available to him or her. As a long-time B&W photographer, the one thing that was driven into my head decades ago is that virtually every B&W photo must have a pure black value and a pure white value.

[JBW]

Brian, you have joined 'the dark side.' I do like the composition though. Next time use a tripod he he.
Cheers Ole

I did use my tripod. But there was just a bit of wind.

[JBW]

It's OK Brian, ah understand...

low light, shallow depth of field - it's supposed tae be like that. There's no camera shake. Ah think the bit ye wanted in focus...is in focus. Ye don't need a histogram tae tell ye what's right and what's wrong, it's how you want it, not how a software engineer thinks it should be. It doesn't have tae be ETTR'd. It is what it is, conveying soft light and soft colours. Ah like it...

You're right I was aiming for the tip.

[JBW]

This is a point where I think we should agree to disagree. I think understanding and using the histogram is one of the most important tools that a photographer can work with. Understanding them, both from a colour channel perspective and more importantly when looking at the tonal distribution of an image. Important for colour photographers and absolutely critical for B&W photographers.

When you see a dull looking image posted, you can be almost certain that the poster has not exploited the full dynamic range available to him or her. As a long-time B&W photographer, the one thing that was driven into my head decades ago is that virtually every B&W photo must have a pure black value and a pure white value.

Grumpy, not to argue nor to take up your time. Could you point me in the direction of some online info about white and black values?

[Wavelength]

Yes, this could have been classic, if it were well focused; worthy of a re shoot

[Manfred M]

Sorry Brian - I don't have any. Most of my knowledge comes from sources other than on-line; books, photography courses I've taken and mentoring I've received in the past.

The concept is extremely easy. The black point are normally the "0" value or the extreme left side of the histogram. The white point is the extreme right, or "255" value. If there is substantive data (that's a pretty loose term) from the very left hand side of the histogram to the very right, you have a full tonal range and you will get a nice looking image.

Let's look at what "a substantive amount of data means". If you look at a histogram, you will often find that one or other (or both) sides of the histogram are either non-existent or have very a very thin line. The point where the thin like starts to turn into a fairly significant amount of data, is where the substantive amount of data starts. In a lot of your work, there is a lot of data on the left side of the histogram, but relatively little on the right.

If you adjust your image by moving the black point the right to the point on the histogram where you start getting substantive data will set any data to the left side of the point to a value of 0 (pure black). If you do the same thing with the white point and move it to the left, anything to the right of the white point will be given a value of 255 (pure white). The rest of the data will be distributed between these two points and your image will have a full tonal range of values of 0 to 255. Your image will look more a lot less muddy and will have more "punch".

The final adjustment is is the gamma, or midpoint adjustment. By moving the midpoint left or light, your image will get darker or lighter, but will preserve the tonal range. If you have a well exposed image, you will find you have a fair bit of latitude to adjust, a poorly exposed image may not work (which is why I have been urging you to get properly exposed images) and the results can be quite awful.

Unfortunately, I don't know your PP tools. Photoshop's Levels control lets you do all three adjustments with a single tool.

Clear as mud, I suppose?

[ScoutR]

Brian, I don't know if this will help, but it's worth a look. It's setting black/white points using gimp

http://www.lpgallery.mb.ca/gimp/g4.htm

[JBW]

Yes, this could have been classic, if it were well focused; worthy of a re shoot

I did ho back for a reshoot. But the bud had grown, the light had changed. But the next time a little deeper DoF?

[JBW]

Sorry Brian - I don't have any. Most of my knowledge comes from sources other than on-line; books, photography courses I've taken and mentoring I've received in the past.

The concept is extremely easy. The black point are normally the "0" value or the extreme left side of the histogram. The white point is the extreme right, or "255" value.
Clear as mud, I suppose?

Not as muddy as some of my shots! And it helped.

[JBW]

Brian, I don't know if this will help, but it's worth a look. It's setting black/white points using gimp

http://www.lpgallery.mb.ca/gimp/g4.htm

and a whole bunch more, very helpful, thanks.

[JBW]

Yes, this could have been classic, if it were well focused; worthy of a re shoot

I did try for a reshoot but the light had changed and the bud had grown.