Moose wrote:
>I like the first two. Composition of the third is nice, but the red
>channel blocked up, leaving no detail in the berries. A classic problem
>with digital and bright reds.
Yeah, those are nice! As to the reds blocking up, I agree. However, I have
noticed that not all RAW converters are equal in that regard. At issue is
the fact that the human eye actually does not see red, but the camera does.
(the eye sees orange and the absence of green and processes it for red
recognition). Red is not represented with enough bit-depth and goes
out-of-gamma far too easily. One way around this is to work in color-spaces
other than sRGB or even aRGB.
One reason why this is less of a problem with film than digital is that in
the film image, the reds are actually made up of blotches of colors other
than red which visually blend so the eye perceives red with gentle tonal
gradients. With digital (especially noise-free digital), the reds are red
and are represented by only 254 possible gradient steps, with very precious
few of those steps available at the extremes. One workaround is to add a
touch of HSV noise to the image on another layer. Add this noise while the
reds are NOT near out-of-gammut stage. Then adjust your contrast and
saturation to achieve the desired tonal curve. It takes very little noise
to accomplish this--in fact, if you can see the noise in the print, it's
probably too much. By working in layers, you can easily add and subtract
the noise as well as applying other characterists, such as a slight blurring
to the noise, to achieve the desired look.
AG (when you turn your camera on, does it return the favor?) Schnozz
==============================================
List usage info: http://www.zuikoholic.com
List nannies: olympusadmin@xxxxxxxxxx
==============================================
|