<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Contrast in photos</title>
	<atom:link href="http://photocritic.org/photo-contrast/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://photocritic.org/photo-contrast/</link>
	<description>The Photocritic DIY photography projects blog</description>
	<pubDate>Thu, 20 Nov 2008 17:48:14 +0000</pubDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.6.2</generator>
		<item>
		<title>By: Brian Auer</title>
		<link>http://photocritic.org/photo-contrast/#comment-33679</link>
		<dc:creator>Brian Auer</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 28 Jan 2007 15:01:49 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.photocritic.org/2007/photo-contrast/#comment-33679</guid>
		<description>From Jon's Comment:
"Reserve the use of levels to times when you want to limit the output range (ie, reduce contrast by rendering ONLY the highlights OR shadows of the image for special effects, particularly in design), or to manipulate a selection or layer mask and its effects on the image."
If you're not using the levels adjustment prior to curves, you're not getting the most out of the curves tool.  More times than not, an image won't fill the histogram from shadow to highlight (as shown in the tutorial).  The levels tool will just stretch out the histogram to give the picture a larger tonal range.  Then, if you want to adust mid-tones, the curves tool will be more effective.  You shouldn't be moving the corner anchors in the curves adjustment -- that's what levels are for!</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>From Jon&#8217;s Comment:<br />
&#8220;Reserve the use of levels to times when you want to limit the output range (ie, reduce contrast by rendering ONLY the highlights OR shadows of the image for special effects, particularly in design), or to manipulate a selection or layer mask and its effects on the image.&#8221;<br />
If you&#8217;re not using the levels adjustment prior to curves, you&#8217;re not getting the most out of the curves tool.  More times than not, an image won&#8217;t fill the histogram from shadow to highlight (as shown in the tutorial).  The levels tool will just stretch out the histogram to give the picture a larger tonal range.  Then, if you want to adust mid-tones, the curves tool will be more effective.  You shouldn&#8217;t be moving the corner anchors in the curves adjustment &#8212; that&#8217;s what levels are for!</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Haje Jan Kamps</title>
		<link>http://photocritic.org/photo-contrast/#comment-33371</link>
		<dc:creator>Haje Jan Kamps</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 27 Jan 2007 17:15:52 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.photocritic.org/2007/photo-contrast/#comment-33371</guid>
		<description>"Nice. Someone is actually recommending levels for use in actual, direct image manipulation as a rule, rather than as an exception."

There's nothing intrinsically wrong with using the levels tool like this. Of course, Curves is better, or even shooting in Camera Raw, and then using the raw importing tool to make these kinds of changes. What you fail to notice is that this is an introduction on the topic, for photographers who post photos that look too flat and boring, rather than an in-depth photoshop tutorial -- That's where the further reading comes in.

Interestingly, I've already queued up an article on adjustment layers to go live in a couple of days, for the more advanced photographers :-)

"You do not understand the basic concept of the light you are working with" 

I think that's a bit of a tall claim. The difference is that I try to explain complex concepts to people who have little or no photographic skills, or who are downright afraid of using tools like Photoshop. Also bear in mind that many budding photographers use Photoshop Elements (which lacks a Curves tool), or other, simpler and cheaper image editing packages. 

I know full well that blown-out (i.e perfect white) is a fault in an image. In fact, I've &lt;a href="http://www.photocritic.org/2006/correct-exposure/ rel="nofollow"&gt;ranted about this at great length&lt;/a&gt; before. However, if you aim to have A SINGLE PIXEL (i.e the brightest pixel in an image) as perfect white, and A SINGLE PIXEL as perfect black, it ensures that you are using the full dynamic range expressable within the limited confounds of 8-bit imaging.

Finally, you're completely right about your comment about the final image. However, the point stands, in that this image is an illustration of how contrast makes a difference on a photo, which was what needed to be illustrated. 

I think I can't fault your argument on anything you say (apart from the things you say about me directly, but I'll let them slide), but the quirk is that this article is written to a very specific target audience (digital darkroom newbies), rather than to photographers who know it all already. 

I'm planning to do more in-depth more aimed-at-power-users articles on the same topic. When I do, I promise to link to them from this article, so there's a gradual progression. 

- Haje</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>&#8220;Nice. Someone is actually recommending levels for use in actual, direct image manipulation as a rule, rather than as an exception.&#8221;</p>
<p>There&#8217;s nothing intrinsically wrong with using the levels tool like this. Of course, Curves is better, or even shooting in Camera Raw, and then using the raw importing tool to make these kinds of changes. What you fail to notice is that this is an introduction on the topic, for photographers who post photos that look too flat and boring, rather than an in-depth photoshop tutorial &#8212; That&#8217;s where the further reading comes in.</p>
<p>Interestingly, I&#8217;ve already queued up an article on adjustment layers to go live in a couple of days, for the more advanced photographers :-)</p>
<p>&#8220;You do not understand the basic concept of the light you are working with&#8221; </p>
<p>I think that&#8217;s a bit of a tall claim. The difference is that I try to explain complex concepts to people who have little or no photographic skills, or who are downright afraid of using tools like Photoshop. Also bear in mind that many budding photographers use Photoshop Elements (which lacks a Curves tool), or other, simpler and cheaper image editing packages. </p>
<p>I know full well that blown-out (i.e perfect white) is a fault in an image. In fact, I&#8217;ve <a href="http://www.photocritic.org/2006/correct-exposure/ rel="nofollow">ranted about this at great length</a> before. However, if you aim to have A SINGLE PIXEL (i.e the brightest pixel in an image) as perfect white, and A SINGLE PIXEL as perfect black, it ensures that you are using the full dynamic range expressable within the limited confounds of 8-bit imaging.</p>
<p>Finally, you&#8217;re completely right about your comment about the final image. However, the point stands, in that this image is an illustration of how contrast makes a difference on a photo, which was what needed to be illustrated. </p>
<p>I think I can&#8217;t fault your argument on anything you say (apart from the things you say about me directly, but I&#8217;ll let them slide), but the quirk is that this article is written to a very specific target audience (digital darkroom newbies), rather than to photographers who know it all already. </p>
<p>I&#8217;m planning to do more in-depth more aimed-at-power-users articles on the same topic. When I do, I promise to link to them from this article, so there&#8217;s a gradual progression. </p>
<p>- Haje</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Jon</title>
		<link>http://photocritic.org/photo-contrast/#comment-33355</link>
		<dc:creator>Jon</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 27 Jan 2007 16:20:35 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.photocritic.org/2007/photo-contrast/#comment-33355</guid>
		<description>Nice. Someone is actually recommending levels for use in actual, direct image manipulation as a rule, rather than as an exception. 

I highly recommend you find a new use for the levels tool, and learn to use the curves tool (on an adjustment layer; they exist for a VERY good reason) for your contrast adjustments. The controls aren't as obvious, but they're far more powerful. 

Reserve the use of levels to times when you want to limit the output range (ie, reduce contrast by rendering ONLY the highlights OR shadows of the image for special effects, particularly in design), or to manipulate a selection or layer mask and its effects on the image. 

These 3 tips will do far more for the quality of your images than a million tips on using levels for contrast. 


"I believe that, in photography, black should be black. White should be white. In most cases, there is no real excuse for having almost-white and almost-black as the darkest and lightest point of your photograph (unless it is part of a photographic effect, in which case this all doesn’t apply.)"

This is why you are misusing the tool. You do not understand the basic concept of the light you are working with. The truth is the exact opposite of what you've stated. In reality the only thing that is truly white (255,255,255 in the scale you're using) is a completely blown out (colorless) light source or specular highlight such as jewelry or a chrome bumper. And the only time something is truly black (0,0,0 in 8-bit) is if NO photons reached the sensor. 

Now, if you want your 15,15,15 range to be 0,0,0 and your 240,240,240 whites (such as a dress, which should have detail even in the brightest portion) to be completely blown, then by all means send it off the charts. Clip the image. Do it because that's the way you want the image to look. Do it because you have decided that it is the appropriate treatment for your image. Heaven knows there are infinitely many cases where this is the point, and I do so on a regular basis.

But don't do it thinking that it's technically correct and that you have to have some specific artistic vision to do it any other way. 

And don't do it because you think that's the correct way to add contrast. MORE CONTRAST DOES NOT MEAN ZERO SHADOW AND HIGHLIGHT DETAIL. Master the use of curves and your contrast will sing without losing definition in your images. Once you understand it you can selectively apply contrast to the shadows while retaining the existing values in the highlights. 

And definitely don't go around telling other photographers that your misunderstanding should become their understanding. 

Seriously, your final image looks like crap, because there's nothing white in the scene and yet you've rendered it as though there is. If that's the effect you want then that's great, but to say that this should be done to all images is plain and simple ignorance.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Nice. Someone is actually recommending levels for use in actual, direct image manipulation as a rule, rather than as an exception. </p>
<p>I highly recommend you find a new use for the levels tool, and learn to use the curves tool (on an adjustment layer; they exist for a VERY good reason) for your contrast adjustments. The controls aren&#8217;t as obvious, but they&#8217;re far more powerful. </p>
<p>Reserve the use of levels to times when you want to limit the output range (ie, reduce contrast by rendering ONLY the highlights OR shadows of the image for special effects, particularly in design), or to manipulate a selection or layer mask and its effects on the image. </p>
<p>These 3 tips will do far more for the quality of your images than a million tips on using levels for contrast. </p>
<p>&#8220;I believe that, in photography, black should be black. White should be white. In most cases, there is no real excuse for having almost-white and almost-black as the darkest and lightest point of your photograph (unless it is part of a photographic effect, in which case this all doesn’t apply.)&#8221;</p>
<p>This is why you are misusing the tool. You do not understand the basic concept of the light you are working with. The truth is the exact opposite of what you&#8217;ve stated. In reality the only thing that is truly white (255,255,255 in the scale you&#8217;re using) is a completely blown out (colorless) light source or specular highlight such as jewelry or a chrome bumper. And the only time something is truly black (0,0,0 in 8-bit) is if NO photons reached the sensor. </p>
<p>Now, if you want your 15,15,15 range to be 0,0,0 and your 240,240,240 whites (such as a dress, which should have detail even in the brightest portion) to be completely blown, then by all means send it off the charts. Clip the image. Do it because that&#8217;s the way you want the image to look. Do it because you have decided that it is the appropriate treatment for your image. Heaven knows there are infinitely many cases where this is the point, and I do so on a regular basis.</p>
<p>But don&#8217;t do it thinking that it&#8217;s technically correct and that you have to have some specific artistic vision to do it any other way. </p>
<p>And don&#8217;t do it because you think that&#8217;s the correct way to add contrast. MORE CONTRAST DOES NOT MEAN ZERO SHADOW AND HIGHLIGHT DETAIL. Master the use of curves and your contrast will sing without losing definition in your images. Once you understand it you can selectively apply contrast to the shadows while retaining the existing values in the highlights. </p>
<p>And definitely don&#8217;t go around telling other photographers that your misunderstanding should become their understanding. </p>
<p>Seriously, your final image looks like crap, because there&#8217;s nothing white in the scene and yet you&#8217;ve rendered it as though there is. If that&#8217;s the effect you want then that&#8217;s great, but to say that this should be done to all images is plain and simple ignorance.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Brian Auer</title>
		<link>http://photocritic.org/photo-contrast/#comment-33335</link>
		<dc:creator>Brian Auer</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 27 Jan 2007 15:17:20 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.photocritic.org/2007/photo-contrast/#comment-33335</guid>
		<description>Great tip, I see a lot of photographers struggle with this type of thing.  It really IS a 1 minute operation, and when you combine a levels adjustment with a curves adjustment, the photo can turn out 1000% better than it was straight out of the camera.  I use the levels and curves so much, I've actually made a Photoshop action to lay down the two adjustment layers for me when I push F3.  I'm all about being lazy.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Great tip, I see a lot of photographers struggle with this type of thing.  It really IS a 1 minute operation, and when you combine a levels adjustment with a curves adjustment, the photo can turn out 1000% better than it was straight out of the camera.  I use the levels and curves so much, I&#8217;ve actually made a Photoshop action to lay down the two adjustment layers for me when I push F3.  I&#8217;m all about being lazy.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
