If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
Ideal characteristic curve for digital printing
Dear ng, the combination of the negative and positive charakteristik curves in analog photography leads to the well known s-shaped curve of the final print. The main reason for this characteristic is to compensate for flare light. Camera flare and viewing flare lowers gamma mostly in the dark tones and printer flare mostly in the light tones. So the gamma of the photographic system must be raised a lot at the high desities and a bit less at the low densities. As there is no optical enlarging step in digital printing an ideal characteristic curve for an image prepared to be printed on an inkjet should have a different characteristic than this. - Of course it must still care not to blow out the highlights, so ist should still be somewhat rounded. Any thoughts or references about that? Best regards! Marc Wossner |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
Ideal characteristic curve for digital printing
On Sat, 12 Apr 2008 03:57:46 -0700 (PDT), Marc Wossner
wrote: Dear ng, the combination of the negative and positive charakteristik curves in analog photography leads to the well known s-shaped curve of the final print. The main reason for this characteristic is to compensate for flare light. Camera flare and viewing flare lowers gamma mostly in the dark tones and printer flare mostly in the light tones. So the gamma of the photographic system must be raised a lot at the high desities and a bit less at the low densities. As there is no optical enlarging step in digital printing an ideal characteristic curve for an image prepared to be printed on an inkjet should have a different characteristic than this. - Of course it must still care not to blow out the highlights, so ist should still be somewhat rounded. Any thoughts or references about that? Best regards! Marc Wossner In the days of silver halide, the rule of thumb was: expose for the shadows, develop for the highlights. The process was exploited in Ansel Adam's Zone System, which kept shadow detail in the final print, and detail in the highlights without blowing them out, allowing specular reflections to go full white. In color, it was always expose for the highlights. Let the shadows fall where they may. In reality, having worked in film processing for over 30 years, as a profession at a Major Industrial level, computers *scanned* the negative and chose the best algorithm for the exposure of the negative, at a very very high rate of speed. Everything in *commercial* photo, not to be confused with advertising photo, was processed by a *lab* and the *lab* was automated, except for professionals who paid extra for "hand processing" which delivered better than the normal. By that I mean, hand cropping, enhancement, and so forth. But for 99.99% of the photographing public, when they brought their film to a lab, it went through an automated process. Only outliers went back for a reprint. And they were few and far between. Now with digital, the film isn't there anymore, but the principles remain the same. A light meter is an AVERAGING device. If you photograph a white piece of paper, a light meter will give you a reading to render it a neutral gray with time and aperture. If you photograph a black piece of paper, a light meter will give you a reading to render it a neutral gray with time and aperture. You have to know at some level, how the instrumentation is going to *see* the subject material, and interpret it for proper gamma. I most instances, I let the camera behave as it will withing parameters I program into it (Nikon D80), those being minimum shutter speed and preferred aperture, letting the ISO go wherever it must to stay within my parameters. From there I post process for sharpness, noise reduction, gamma/color balance, and even _this_ is now automated now that I have set up my computer to do this without my attention to each and every exposure. Later, if I want to *tweak* for some special effect, I can still do that. But for the majority of my photos, the software in-camera and in-computer (quad-core 4 gigs ram) 2.4 GHz, takes care of the great majority of the *issues* with the touch of a few buttons. So to get back to your question: Program the parameters you want to produce the results you need. This most likely will be adjustments to software both in-camera and in your computer post-processing software. Has this helped? Lg |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
Ideal characteristic curve for digital printing
On Apr 12, 5:57 am, Marc Wossner wrote:
Dear ng, the combination of the negative and positive charakteristik curves in analog photography leads to the well known s-shaped curve of the final print. The main reason for this characteristic is to compensate for flare light. Camera flare and viewing flare lowers gamma mostly in the dark tones and printer flare mostly in the light tones. So the gamma of the photographic system must be raised a lot at the high desities and a bit less at the low densities. As there is no optical enlarging step in digital printing an ideal characteristic curve for an image prepared to be printed on an inkjet should have a different characteristic than this. - Of course it must still care not to blow out the highlights, so ist should still be somewhat rounded. Any thoughts or references about that? Best regards! Marc Wossner I don't believe the main reason for the bends in the curve were to do with flare. There were films with a quite straight curve, and ones that were very S shaped. I believe the rounding of the ends (either a lot or a little) were somewhat inherent in the chemical processes. One could modify the curves by chemistry. The curve published in the mfg's catalog was with a certain developer and concentration and time. One could use a different developer, a different dilution, or a different developing time. Of course, you also could use a modified curve again when printing. One of the first things I marveled at in digital processing was how I could take an existing image and bend the curve around on the computer, and put it back if I made a mistake. In the olden days to change the curve on a negative after the fact meant reshooting :-( |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
Ideal characteristic curve for digital printing
On 12 Apr., 16:14, Don Stauffer in Minnesota
wrote: On Apr 12, 5:57 am, Marc Wossner wrote: Dear ng, the combination of the negative and positive charakteristik curves in analog photography leads to the well known s-shaped curve of the final print. The main reason for this characteristic is to compensate for flare light. Camera flare and viewing flare lowers gamma mostly in the dark tones and printer flare mostly in the light tones. So the gamma of the photographic system must be raised a lot at the high desities and a bit less at the low densities. As there is no optical enlarging step in digital printing an ideal characteristic curve for an image prepared to be printed on an inkjet should have a different characteristic than this. - Of course it must still care not to blow out the highlights, so ist should still be somewhat rounded. Any thoughts or references about that? Best regards! Marc Wossner I don't believe the main reason for the bends in the curve were to do with flare. *There were films with a quite straight curve, and ones that were very S shaped. I believe the rounding of the ends (either a lot or a little) were somewhat inherent in the chemical processes. You are of course right, I should have written that the characteristic of the final print must be somewhat curved or bent to accomodate the different gammas required to compensate for the different amounts of flare in the highlights and in the shadows as can be seen in the The Focal Encyclopedia of Photography (http://books.google.de/books? id=CU7-2ZLGFpYC&pg=PA148&lpg=PA148&dq=%22viewing+flare %22+gamma&source=web&ots=d8tQGLXtfr&sig=8sI7ELK8w9 megD7pGtnm6qvt7FY&hl=de page 146 top left). But anyway, what about the fact that there is no optical enlarging stage in digital imaging. How should that affect the characteristic of the final print as far as the highlight part is concerned? Marc Wossner |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
Ideal characteristic curve for digital printing
On Apr 12, 11:52 am, Marc Wossner wrote:
On 12 Apr., 16:14, Don Stauffer in Minnesota wrote: On Apr 12, 5:57 am, Marc Wossner wrote: Dear ng, the combination of the negative and positive charakteristik curves in analog photography leads to the well known s-shaped curve of the final print. The main reason for this characteristic is to compensate for flare light. Camera flare and viewing flare lowers gamma mostly in the dark tones and printer flare mostly in the light tones. So the gamma of the photographic system must be raised a lot at the high desities and a bit less at the low densities. As there is no optical enlarging step in digital printing an ideal characteristic curve for an image prepared to be printed on an inkjet should have a different characteristic than this. - Of course it must still care not to blow out the highlights, so ist should still be somewhat rounded. Any thoughts or references about that? Best regards! Marc Wossner I don't believe the main reason for the bends in the curve were to do with flare. There were films with a quite straight curve, and ones that were very S shaped. I believe the rounding of the ends (either a lot or a little) were somewhat inherent in the chemical processes. You are of course right, I should have written that the characteristic of the final print must be somewhat curved or bent to accomodate the different gammas required to compensate for the different amounts of flare in the highlights and in the shadows as can be seen in the The Focal Encyclopedia of Photography (http://books.google.de/books? id=CU7-2ZLGFpYC&pg=PA148&lpg=PA148&dq=%22viewing+flare %22+gamma&source=web&ots=d8tQGLXtfr&sig=8sI7ELK8w9 megD7pGtnm6qvt7FY&hl=de page 146 top left). But anyway, what about the fact that there is no optical enlarging stage in digital imaging. How should that affect the characteristic of the final print as far as the highlight part is concerned? Marc Wossner Fortunately, the dynamic range of digital cameras far exceeds the dynamic range of printing papers. Thus using the curve tool in a good image editor works fine. But there IS no rule about the preferred shape. Each image is unique. If the original scene has a wide dynamic range you must compensate somehow. However, it if is a flat, low key scene you can use quite a linear shape. One of the neatest aids recently has been the HDR software, either special program or built into things like PS CS2 and 3, or the latest version of PSP. This GREATLY eases the computer work for high range scenes, though at the expense of needing to shoot multiple exposures. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
brochure printing,online yearbook,printing,books printing,publishing | elie | In The Darkroom | 0 | August 21st 07 06:40 AM |
free/ premium buisness cards, digital photo printing, canvas printing & alot more | [email protected] | Digital Photography | 1 | March 17th 06 01:39 AM |
Ideal Aspect Ratio for Digital Cameras? | Evad | Digital Photography | 31 | February 8th 05 04:17 AM |
What is the Characteristic Curve function of a digital camera? | Roger N. Clark (change username to rnclark) | Digital Photography | 9 | January 31st 05 03:29 PM |
What is the Characteristic Curve function of a digital camera? | Roger N. Clark (change username to rnclark) | Digital Photography | 0 | January 30th 05 05:33 PM |