I was adjusting colours in value instead of RGB. Better now?

[JBW]

[Geoff F]

Looks just right to me.

[Shadowman]

Nice.

[Rita]

Looking better Brian.

[Barbara Ponder]

Brian not familiar with all the technical jargon but think it is a lovely photo of the rose.

[JBW]

Looking better Brian.

slow but steady.

[JBW]

Brian not familiar with all the technical jargon but think it is a lovely photo of the rose.

loose translation.... it was like I had put a set of sunglasses on my camera.

I could still have good looking shots just not quite the shot I saw. Now what i see i can capture. on a good day.

[bnnrcn]

It looks nice

[JBW]

It looks nice

[Manfred M]

I have no idea what "value" is and I believe you are using a computer that has not been profiled and calibrated, so can't comment on how good the colours are. We could be looking at two completely different images...

[Stagecoach]

Brian,

The pertinent thing here is what do you mean or are asking by "Better now" ?

I can look at this image on my calibrated monitor or a non calibrated monitor and could not possibly comment on whether the colour is better, I have not seen that rose. I may have the most accurate monitor available but what's to say my eyes see shades of pink the same as your eyes on the same monitor

But as for the image it's very good technically and I would make that same comment if it appeared pink, orangey or bluish

[JBW]

I have no idea what "value" is and I believe you are using a computer that has not been profiled and calibrated, so can't comment on how good the colours are. We could be looking at two completely different images...

we could be but both of my monitors are calibrated on a fairly regular basis. As I am now adjusting to the RGB histogram in Gimp does it really matter that you have no idea of what "value' is?

[xpatUSA]

I have no idea what "value" is ...

"Value" is part of the HSV (hue, saturation, value) color model and is simply the level of the brightest channel in a RGB triplet. Adobe uses "HSB" where B for brightness is exactly the same as "Value".

Just so's we're clear, Value is not the same as Lightness in the CIELAB or HSL models.

[JBW]

Brian,

The pertinent thing here is what do you mean or are asking by "Better now" ?

I can look at this image on my calibrated monitor or a non calibrated monitor and could not possibly comment on whether the colour is better, I have not seen that rose. I may have the most accurate monitor available but what's to say my eyes see shades of pink the same as your eyes on the same monitor

But as for the image it's very good technically and I would make that same comment if it appeared pink, orangey or bluish

Here we have apparently entered into the realm of philosophy or theology. How many angels can dance on the point of a pin. Or how can we know that we are seeing what the other person sees?

So let me ask the same question in a different way.

For a while now i have been getting comments about loose shots and clipped colours. Is this tighter and are the colours (whatever they may appear to be ) less clipped?

or perhaps i could simply ask do you or anyone else think it is a nice shot of a pink rose.

[xpatUSA]

Here we have apparently entered into the realm of philosophy or theology. How many angels can dance on the point of a pin. Or how can we know that we are seeing what the other person sees?

So let me ask the same question in a different way.

For a while now i have been getting comments about loose shots and clipped colours. Is this tighter and are the colours (whatever they may appear to be ) less clipped?

or perhaps i could simply ask do you or anyone else think it is a nice shot of a pink rose.

In answer to the questions, Brian, very, very few of the 111,300 colors are clipped, and there is no over-saturation at all

The shot ain't bad either . . . .

[JBW]

In answer to the questions, Brian, very, very few of the 111,300 colors are clipped, and there is no over-saturation at all

The shot ain't bad either . . . .

Uhu, that is good news. obviously i need to upgrade my tech talk.

[george013]

Brian,

Me too was wondering what value means. As far I can read from this doc, it means RGB. http://docs.gimp.org/nl/gimp-tool-levels.html
There is only a choice between RGB(value), R, G, B or alpha(transparancy). So I don't understand what you've done.

Could you give a view of your screen as you did before?

George

[JBW]

Brian,

Me too was wondering what value means. As far I can read from this doc, it means RGB. http://docs.gimp.org/nl/gimp-tool-levels.html
There is only a choice between RGB(value), R, G, B or alpha(transparancy). So I don't understand what you've done.

Could you give a view of your screen as you did before?

George

Hi George, if you go into the Gimp histogram it will give you 6 options of what you can look at and adjust. For way too long I was adjusting in Value because I never clicked open the box to see the RGB option. When I clicked on RGB option a whole new world of adjusting opened up to me.

[george013]

Hi George, if you go into the Gimp histogram it will give you 6 options of what you can look at and adjust. For way too long I was adjusting in Value because I never clicked open the box to see the RGB option. When I clicked on RGB option a whole new world of adjusting opened up to me.

Brian,
What you're showing now is a histogram. You don't make adjustments in a histogram. It's only a representation of the colors in an image. In this case also for transparancy. The RGB choice is a combination of the 3 individual colors in one graphical presentation. The value is what GIMP would give it when transforming to grayscale. Adjustments you make in the levels-tool. And there is no RGB choice. As far I read in the documentation.

Going back to the other thread where you were wondering of the big difference in histograms between GIMP and some other software. It seems that you can make a choice between a linear and a logarithmic presentation. Maybe that was the reason of the differences. I can't find the other thread back.

George

[JBW]

Brian,
What you're showing now is a histogram. You don't make adjustments in a histogram. It's only a representation of the colors in an image. In this case also for transparancy. The RGB choice is a combination of the 3 individual colors in one graphical presentation. The value is what GIMP would give it when transforming to grayscale. Adjustments you make in the levels-tool. And there is no RGB choice. As far I read in the documentation.

Going back to the other thread where you were wondering of the big difference in histograms between GIMP and some other software. It seems that you can make a choice between a linear and a logarithmic presentation. Maybe that was the reason of the differences. I can't find the other thread back.

George

George you are right I don't make adjustments IN the histogram. But I do make adjustments that show up ON the histogram. Whether I make them in levels, curves, filters, layers or wherever they show up in the histogram. So now when I make an adjustment I can see if i am doing indecent acts to my shot.

the reason for the astounding difference was that I had the histogram reading Value which is simply the brightest of the RBG channels.