Returned from Borneo trip

Alfred Molon wrote:
snip

It's not a subjective issue. The histogram of a properly exposed average
scene (not one of for instance a dark room, or of a hill covered with
white snow under the sunshine) has a bell shape.

snip more

I've run into this belief a few times now, and I have to say it is
wrong. A histogram *as applied to a digital image* has no relationship
to a bell curve at all.

From a statistical point of view, using histograms to look at a
population of some sort, e.g. age or height, will show a bell curve, and
will show if the sample is skewed, and so on.

But, the distribution of tones across a scene has nothing to do with
population samples. It has only to do with the various brightnesses in
the scene.

The concept of a digital histogram is not a statistical one; it is an
analytical tool to show the distribution of tones or brightnesses, and
to get an idea of exposure from that distribution.

Forget bell curves.

Colin D.

--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

On 2008-04-05 19:53:12 -0700, "Wilba" said:

Tully Albrecht wrote:
Wilba said:
Tully Albrecht wrote:

"A properly exposed photo has a histogram that looks like..."
is slathered with mistakes from the first phrase onward.

Yes, but that's not what he said. :-) He was talking about an "average
scene", without significant dark or light areas. I imagine he meant
something like a grassy landscape with blue sky. Sure, you take a big
risk in stating that the histogram for that image will have a bell
shape, but it's a very different statement to the idea you are
criticising.

OK, to avoid the impression that I'm arguing against a specific
statement made in this thread, try this:

"A properly composed photo will always follow the rule of thirds" is an
example of opinion expressed as absolute truth. When dealing with
creative judgment, There are no hard-and-fast rules. Instead of saying
"you blew your chance for proper composition in this scene because you
placed this model here and this one here" based on some rule learned in
art class, it would be both factually accurate and more constructive to
offer an opinion such as "I think this might look better with both
models on a line - so - and drawing the viewer into this part of the
scene" etc.

Ansel Adams was quite technical in his discussions about the choices he
made. Yet he includes many guidelines like this one:
"Various rule-of thumb instructions for the use of filters in recording
clouds have been published, but no adequate interpretation is possible
unless each subject is analyzed individually and the print is
thoroughly visuallized." (_Natural-light Photography_, 1952, p.66).

The photographer may thoroughly embrace Zone Sytems, densitometers
and histograms while retaining the essence of creativity, which is to
"break the rules" at will.

Ah. I took the impression from your first statement above that you were
referring only to content. Now I understand that you were referring to
the tone.

Not really. Someone else has commented on the tone - calling it
"condescending" or "insulting" or some such - that isn't my objection
at all. What I'm referring to is the slavish devotion to the technical.
In the days before digital, certain "photo engineering" types might be
shown a print for critique. Rather than commenting on the artistic
merits of the image, they would look at the back or want to test the pH
of the stop bath. The equivalent today is someone who can't help
commenting on the histogram, the bokeh, or some nugget plucked from the
EXIF data.

Of necessity, photography requires much more math and science than,
say, sculpture does. In exploring issues like lighting, macro
equipment, lens comparisons, etc., I have posted many images on my web
site that have little or no artistic merit at all. That is *not* the
case with the set of photos which started this thread. I personally
like quite a few of them, especially the macro stuff. I think they make
up a strong portfolio and for me, no technical matters distract from my
enjoyment of the images.

I'm willing to give Alfred the benefit of the doubt - when he said,
"The histogram of a properly exposed average scene (not one of for
instance a dark room, or of a hill covered with white snow under the
sunshine) has a bell shape.", I think he meant, "The histogram of a
properly exposed average
scene I have in mind (not one of for instance a dark room, or of a hill
covered with white snow under the sunshine) has a bell shape." I don't
believe he was proclaiming an immutable truth.

I think it's counter-productive to say "as usual, most of your images
are too dark." Likewise "a properly-exposed" anything sets off my BS
detector. There is no such animal. Depending on the mood I want to
convey, i could take three pictures of a flower in a pot, such that the
histograms do not resemble each other very much at all, yet if the
result is what I visuallized, then every (exposure + development) is
correct.

The bottom line for me is, don't let your objection to the tone of
Master Talk blind you to what he's trying to communicate. :-)

When I was walking around with a camera every day, I must have been
engaged hundreds of times by people who wanted to talk cameras and
lenses. The fact that I got tired of technobabble did not blind me to
anything. The endless repetition of "how much is that worth?" and the
scarcity of "what kind of photos do you make?" did not render me
incapable of communication. The difficulty of making my meaning clear
in a discussion group does not sour me on continuing to contribute my
two cents' worth =^)
--
"Our ignorance is not so vast as our failure to use what we know."

Tully Albrecht wrote:
Wilba said:
Tully Albrecht wrote:
Wilba said:
Tully Albrecht wrote:

"A properly exposed photo has a histogram that looks like..."
is slathered with mistakes from the first phrase onward.

Yes, but that's not what he said. :-) He was talking about an "average
scene", without significant dark or light areas. I imagine he meant
something like a grassy landscape with blue sky. Sure, you take a big
risk in stating that the histogram for that image will have a bell
shape, but it's a very different statement to the idea you are
criticising.

OK, to avoid the impression that I'm arguing against a specific
statement made in this thread, try this:

"A properly composed photo will always follow the rule of thirds" is an
example of opinion expressed as absolute truth. When dealing with
creative judgment, There are no hard-and-fast rules. Instead of saying
"you blew your chance for proper composition in this scene because you
placed this model here and this one here" based on some rule learned in
art class, it would be both factually accurate and more constructive to
offer an opinion such as "I think this might look better with both
models on a line - so - and drawing the viewer into this part of the
scene" etc.

Ansel Adams was quite technical in his discussions about the choices he
made. Yet he includes many guidelines like this one:
"Various rule-of thumb instructions for the use of filters in recording
clouds have been published, but no adequate interpretation is possible
unless each subject is analyzed individually and the print is thoroughly
visuallized." (_Natural-light Photography_, 1952, p.66).

The photographer may thoroughly embrace Zone Sytems, densitometers
and histograms while retaining the essence of creativity, which is to
"break the rules" at will.

Ah. I took the impression from your first statement above that you were
referring only to content. Now I understand that you were referring to
the tone.

Not really. Someone else has commented on the tone - calling it
"condescending" or "insulting" or some such - that isn't my objection at
all. What I'm referring to is the slavish devotion to the technical. In
the days before digital, certain "photo engineering" types might be shown
a print for critique. Rather than commenting on the artistic merits of the
image, they would look at the back or want to test the pH of the stop
bath. The equivalent today is someone who can't help commenting on the
histogram, the bokeh, or some nugget plucked from the EXIF data.

OK. I agree with everything you said, except that Alfred shows "slavish
devotion to the technical". The way I read it, he mentioned the histograms
to illustrate the problem he saw, to provide supporting evidence. That's
where we differ - we see things from opposite ends.

Of necessity, photography requires much more math and science than, say,
sculpture does. In exploring issues like lighting, macro equipment, lens
comparisons, etc., I have posted many images on my web site that have
little or no artistic merit at all. That is *not* the case with the set of
photos which started this thread. I personally like quite a few of them,
especially the macro stuff. I think they make up a strong portfolio and
for me, no technical matters distract from my enjoyment of the images.

Ok, there's another difference. :-) I find them overly dark, more
specifically, the highlights are subdued, and the histograms confirm my
impression.

I'm willing to give Alfred the benefit of the doubt - when he said, "The
histogram of a properly exposed average scene (not one of for instance a
dark room, or of a hill covered with white snow under the sunshine) has a
bell shape.", I think he meant, "The histogram of a properly exposed
average
scene I have in mind (not one of for instance a dark room, or of a hill
covered with white snow under the sunshine) has a bell shape." I don't
believe he was proclaiming an immutable truth.

I think it's counter-productive to say "as usual, most of your images are
too dark." Likewise "a properly-exposed" anything sets off my BS detector.
There is no such animal. Depending on the mood I want to convey, i could
take three pictures of a flower in a pot, such that the histograms do not
resemble each other very much at all, yet if the result is what I
visuallized, then every (exposure + development) is correct.

Sure. In this case the histograms show quite some consistency - many are
bunched on the left. That indicates to me that he's making choices at
exposure time that limit his options in post processing.

On Sat, 05 Apr 2008 20:33:01 GMT, Paul Furman
wrote:

Kulvinder Singh Matharu wrote:
I've returned from Borneo and have done an initial trawl of my images
and put them online he

I like this 'spikey plant':
http://www.metalvortex.com/myphotos/boa/spikes.htm
-interesting shadows in the diffraction circles.

Thanks. Not sure what those shadows are. I too liked the interplay
between sunlight, shadows, and diffraction circles. In some ways it
reminded me of one of my other images from Peru:

http://www.metalvortex.com/myphotos/.../DSCN1772a.htm

--
Kulvinder Singh Matharu

Website : www.MetalVortex.com
Contact : www.MetalVortex.com/contact

Blog : www.MetalVortex.com/blog
Experimental : www.NinjaTrek.com

Brain! Brain! What is brain?!

In article , says...

And just which ones are these?

Use your eyes and stop playing dumb.

Oh I'm sorry you forgot you said all of them are too dark. Not one
histogram according to you was close to being clipped. You can't have it
both ways. So just which is it?

This one has a histogram clipped at 0:
http://www.metalvortex.com/myphotos/boa/boat.htm
--

Alfred Molon
------------------------------
Olympus 50X0, 8080, E3X0, E4X0, E5X0 and E3 forum at
http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/MyOlympus/
http://myolympus.org/ photo sharing site

On 2008-04-06 00:51:26 -0700, "Wilba" said:

Tully Albrecht wrote:
Wilba said:
Tully Albrecht wrote:
Wilba said:
Tully Albrecht wrote:

"A properly exposed photo has a histogram that looks like..."
is slathered with mistakes from the first phrase onward.

Yes, but that's not what he said. :-) He was talking about an "average
scene", without significant dark or light areas. I imagine he meant
something like a grassy landscape with blue sky. Sure, you take a big
risk in stating that the histogram for that image will have a bell
shape, but it's a very different statement to the idea you are
criticising.

OK, to avoid the impression that I'm arguing against a specific
statement made in this thread, try this:

"A properly composed photo will always follow the rule of thirds" is an
example of opinion expressed as absolute truth. When dealing with
creative judgment, There are no hard-and-fast rules. Instead of saying
"you blew your chance for proper composition in this scene because you
placed this model here and this one here" based on some rule learned in
art class, it would be both factually accurate and more constructive to
offer an opinion such as "I think this might look better with both
models on a line - so - and drawing the viewer into this part of the
scene" etc.

Ansel Adams was quite technical in his discussions about the choices he
made. Yet he includes many guidelines like this one:
"Various rule-of thumb instructions for the use of filters in recording
clouds have been published, but no adequate interpretation is possible
unless each subject is analyzed individually and the print is
thoroughly visuallized." (_Natural-light Photography_, 1952, p.66).

The photographer may thoroughly embrace Zone Sytems, densitometers
and histograms while retaining the essence of creativity, which is to
"break the rules" at will.

Ah. I took the impression from your first statement above that you were
referring only to content. Now I understand that you were referring to
the tone.

Not really. Someone else has commented on the tone - calling it
"condescending" or "insulting" or some such - that isn't my objection
at all. What I'm referring to is the slavish devotion to the technical.
In the days before digital, certain "photo engineering" types might be
shown a print for critique. Rather than commenting on the artistic
merits of the image, they would look at the back or want to test the pH
of the stop bath. The equivalent today is someone who can't help
commenting on the histogram, the bokeh, or some nugget plucked from the
EXIF data.

OK. I agree with everything you said, except that Alfred shows "slavish
devotion to the technical". The way I read it, he mentioned the
histograms to illustrate the problem he saw, to provide supporting
evidence. That's where we differ - we see things from opposite ends.

We also have different agendas. You seem determined to defend one
particular poster. I am writing about a trend in criticism with which I
disagree.

Of necessity, photography requires much more math and science than,
say, sculpture does. In exploring issues like lighting, macro
equipment, lens comparisons, etc., I have posted many images on my web
site that have little or no artistic merit at all. That is *not* the
case with the set of photos which started this thread. I personally
like quite a few of them, especially the macro stuff. I think they make
up a strong portfolio and for me, no technical matters distract from my
enjoyment of the images.

Ok, there's another difference. :-) I find them overly dark, more
specifically, the highlights are subdued, and the histograms confirm my
impression.

I would put more faith in the opinion of someone who acknowledged that
the jungle is a dark place, even if he didn't know a histogram from a
histamine.

I'm willing to give Alfred the benefit of the doubt - when he said,
"The histogram of a properly exposed average scene (not one of for
instance a dark room, or of a hill covered with white snow under the
sunshine) has a bell shape.", I think he meant, "The histogram of a
properly exposed average
scene I have in mind (not one of for instance a dark room, or of a hill
covered with white snow under the sunshine) has a bell shape." I don't
believe he was proclaiming an immutable truth.

I think it's counter-productive to say "as usual, most of your images
are too dark." Likewise "a properly-exposed" anything sets off my BS
detector. There is no such animal. Depending on the mood I want to
convey, i could take three pictures of a flower in a pot, such that the
histograms do not resemble each other very much at all, yet if the
result is what I visuallized, then every (exposure + development) is
correct.

Sure. In this case the histograms show quite some consistency - many
are bunched on the left. That indicates to me that he's making choices
at exposure time that limit his options in post processing.

I get the impression that you would evaluate the taste of a
tree-ripened peach by taking it to a lab and writing at length about
the chromatograph results.
--
"Our ignorance is not so vast as our failure to use what we know."

In article , Allen says...

You need to learn the Rule of Holes. If you are in one, stop digging.
Put up or shut up, as you are making a fool of yourself.
Allen

Welcome to my killfile.
--

Alfred Molon
------------------------------
Olympus 50X0, 8080, E3X0, E4X0, E5X0 and E3 forum at
http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/MyOlympus/
http://myolympus.org/ photo sharing site

Tully Albrecht wrote:
Wilba said:
Tully Albrecht wrote:
Wilba said:
Tully Albrecht wrote:
Wilba said:
Tully Albrecht wrote:

"A properly exposed photo has a histogram that looks like..."
is slathered with mistakes from the first phrase onward.

Yes, but that's not what he said. :-) He was talking about an
"average scene", without significant dark or light areas. I imagine
he meant something like a grassy landscape with blue sky. Sure, you
take a big risk in stating that the histogram for that image will
have a bell shape, but it's a very different statement to the idea
you are criticising.

OK, to avoid the impression that I'm arguing against a specific
statement made in this thread, try this:

"A properly composed photo will always follow the rule of thirds" is
an example of opinion expressed as absolute truth. When dealing with
creative judgment, There are no hard-and-fast rules. Instead of saying
"you blew your chance for proper composition in this scene because you
placed this model here and this one here" based on some rule learned
in art class, it would be both factually accurate and more
constructive to offer an opinion such as "I think this might look
better with both models on a line - so - and drawing the viewer into
this part of the scene" etc.

Ansel Adams was quite technical in his discussions about the choices
he made. Yet he includes many guidelines like this one:
"Various rule-of thumb instructions for the use of filters in
recording clouds have been published, but no adequate interpretation
is possible unless each subject is analyzed individually and the print
is thoroughly visuallized." (_Natural-light Photography_, 1952, p.66).

The photographer may thoroughly embrace Zone Sytems, densitometers
and histograms while retaining the essence of creativity, which is to
"break the rules" at will.

Ah. I took the impression from your first statement above that you were
referring only to content. Now I understand that you were referring to
the tone.

Not really. Someone else has commented on the tone - calling it
"condescending" or "insulting" or some such - that isn't my objection at
all. What I'm referring to is the slavish devotion to the technical. In
the days before digital, certain "photo engineering" types might be
shown a print for critique. Rather than commenting on the artistic
merits of the image, they would look at the back or want to test the pH
of the stop bath. The equivalent today is someone who can't help
commenting on the histogram, the bokeh, or some nugget plucked from the
EXIF data.

OK. I agree with everything you said, except that Alfred shows "slavish
devotion to the technical". The way I read it, he mentioned the
histograms to illustrate the problem he saw, to provide supporting
evidence. That's where we differ - we see things from opposite ends.

We also have different agendas. You seem determined to defend one
particular poster.

I'll defend anyone who appears to me to be unfairly attacked. Even you! :-)

I am writing about a trend in criticism with which I disagree.

OK. If we continue to with this, let's leave Alfred out of it and only
discuss "slavish devotion to the technical".

Of necessity, photography requires much more math and science than, say,
sculpture does. In exploring issues like lighting, macro equipment, lens
comparisons, etc., I have posted many images on my web site that have
little or no artistic merit at all. That is *not* the case with the set
of photos which started this thread. I personally like quite a few of
them, especially the macro stuff. I think they make up a strong
portfolio and for me, no technical matters distract from my enjoyment of
the images.

Ok, there's another difference. :-) I find them overly dark, more
specifically, the highlights are subdued, and the histograms confirm my
impression.

I would put more faith in the opinion of someone who acknowledged that the
jungle is a dark place, even if he didn't know a histogram from a
histamine.

OK, the jungle is a dark place. That doesn't mean that you should compromise
the exposure or your images of it ... does it?

I'm willing to give Alfred the benefit of the doubt - when he said,
"The histogram of a properly exposed average scene (not one of for
instance a dark room, or of a hill covered with white snow under the
sunshine) has a bell shape.", I think he meant, "The histogram of a
properly exposed average scene I have in mind (not one of for
instance a dark room, or of a hill covered with white snow under
the sunshine) has a bell shape." I don't believe he was proclaiming
an immutable truth.

I think it's counter-productive to say "as usual, most of your images
are too dark." Likewise "a properly-exposed" anything sets off my BS
detector. There is no such animal. Depending on the mood I want to
convey, i could take three pictures of a flower in a pot, such that the
histograms do not resemble each other very much at all, yet if the
result is what I visuallized, then every (exposure + development) is
correct.

Sure. In this case the histograms show quite some consistency - many are
bunched on the left. That indicates to me that he's making choices at
exposure time that limit his options in post processing.

I get the impression that you would evaluate the taste of a tree-ripened
peach by taking it to a lab and writing at length about the chromatograph
results.

Can you admit it when you are wrong? :-)

On 2008-04-06 21:55:59 -0700, "Wilba" said:

Tully Albrecht wrote:
Wilba said:
Tully Albrecht wrote:
Wilba said:
Tully Albrecht wrote:
Wilba said:
Tully Albrecht wrote:

"A properly exposed photo has a histogram that looks like..."
is slathered with mistakes from the first phrase onward.

Yes, but that's not what he said. :-) He was talking about an "average
scene", without significant dark or light areas. I imagine he meant
something like a grassy landscape with blue sky. Sure, you take a big
risk in stating that the histogram for that image will have a bell
shape, but it's a very different statement to the idea you are
criticising.

OK, to avoid the impression that I'm arguing against a specific
statement made in this thread, try this:

"A properly composed photo will always follow the rule of thirds" is an
example of opinion expressed as absolute truth. When dealing with
creative judgment, There are no hard-and-fast rules. Instead of saying
"you blew your chance for proper composition in this scene because you
placed this model here and this one here" based on some rule learned in
art class, it would be both factually accurate and more constructive to
offer an opinion such as "I think this might look better with both
models on a line - so - and drawing the viewer into this part of the
scene" etc.

Ansel Adams was quite technical in his discussions about the choices he
made. Yet he includes many guidelines like this one:
"Various rule-of thumb instructions for the use of filters in recording
clouds have been published, but no adequate interpretation is possible
unless each subject is analyzed individually and the print is
thoroughly visuallized." (_Natural-light Photography_, 1952, p.66).

The photographer may thoroughly embrace Zone Sytems, densitometers
and histograms while retaining the essence of creativity, which is to
"break the rules" at will.

Ah. I took the impression from your first statement above that you were
referring only to content. Now I understand that you were referring to
the tone.

Not really. Someone else has commented on the tone - calling it
"condescending" or "insulting" or some such - that isn't my objection
at all. What I'm referring to is the slavish devotion to the technical.
In the days before digital, certain "photo engineering" types might be
shown a print for critique. Rather than commenting on the artistic
merits of the image, they would look at the back or want to test the pH
of the stop bath. The equivalent today is someone who can't help
commenting on the histogram, the bokeh, or some nugget plucked from the
EXIF data.

OK. I agree with everything you said, except that Alfred shows "slavish
devotion to the technical". The way I read it, he mentioned the
histograms to illustrate the problem he saw, to provide supporting
evidence. That's where we differ - we see things from opposite ends.

We also have different agendas. You seem determined to defend one
particular poster.

I'll defend anyone who appears to me to be unfairly attacked. Even you! :-)

Commendable.

I am writing about a trend in criticism with which I disagree.

OK. If we continue to with this, let's leave Alfred out of it and only
discuss "slavish devotion to the technical".

Perfect.

Of necessity, photography requires much more math and science than,
say, sculpture does. In exploring issues like lighting, macro
equipment, lens comparisons, etc., I have posted many images on my web
site that have little or no artistic merit at all. That is *not* the
case with the set of photos which started this thread. I personally
like quite a few of them, especially the macro stuff. I think they make
up a strong portfolio and for me, no technical matters distract from my
enjoyment of the images.

Ok, there's another difference. :-) I find them overly dark, more
specifically, the highlights are subdued, and the histograms confirm my
impression.

I would put more faith in the opinion of someone who acknowledged that
the jungle is a dark place, even if he didn't know a histogram from a
histamine.

OK, the jungle is a dark place. That doesn't mean that you should
compromise the exposure or your images of it ... does it?

If exact reproduction is the aim (such as copystand or graphic arts
camerawork) then there is one "correct" exposure, and you can talk
about "compromise" as a negative term. Not so with art.

I'm willing to give Alfred the benefit of the doubt - when he said,
"The histogram of a properly exposed average scene (not one of for
instance a dark room, or of a hill covered with white snow under the
sunshine) has a bell shape.", I think he meant, "The histogram of a
properly exposed average scene I have in mind (not one of for
instance a dark room, or of a hill covered with white snow under
the sunshine) has a bell shape." I don't believe he was proclaiming
an immutable truth.

I think it's counter-productive to say "as usual, most of your images
are too dark." Likewise "a properly-exposed" anything sets off my BS
detector. There is no such animal. Depending on the mood I want to
convey, i could take three pictures of a flower in a pot, such that the
histograms do not resemble each other very much at all, yet if the
result is what I visuallized, then every (exposure + development) is
correct.

Sure. In this case the histograms show quite some consistency - many
are bunched on the left. That indicates to me that he's making choices
at exposure time that limit his options in post processing.

I get the impression that you would evaluate the taste of a
tree-ripened peach by taking it to a lab and writing at length about
the chromatograph results.

Can you admit it when you are wrong? :-)

Yes. Am I mistaken, or are you taking an analytical approach to aesthetics?
--
"Our ignorance is not so vast as our failure to use what we know."

? "Harry Lockwood" ?????? ??? ??????
...
In article ,
Kulvinder Singh Matharu wrote:

I've returned from Borneo and have done an initial trawl of my images
and put them online he

www.metalvortex.com/myphotos/boa/


A lot of very good stuff there and elsewhere on your site. You do a bit
of traveling, don't you. ;-)

Very nice photos. Very well composed, and exposed, too. But there are no
photos of felines! Meooow! www.picato.net


--
Tzortzakakis Dimitrios
major in electrical engineering
mechanized infantry reservist
hordad AT otenet DOT gr