Amel Crimson?

[SnakeAround]

What version of PhotoShop are you using?

You need to understand some limitations of programmable adjustments in photographs. There are conditions known as washout in highlights, and blackouts in shadowed and darkened areas. What this means is that detail is actually lost in those instances. Areas that are too bright may be all white, and areas that are too dark will be all black. In reality there are details that an adjustment in the exposure of the camera or proper utilization of flash, would have been able to capture. When an image is whited out of blacked out, no program on earth can bring back those details that were not captured within the photo. All it can do is to make the whited out area darker, and the blacked out area lighter. It cannot bring forth hidden details that were destroyed by an improper exposure.

Programmatically, I think it would be extremely difficult for a program to be able to determine shadows from naturally occurring lighter and darker areas side by side. How does it know that instead of a white card laying on a black card the same size and shape, that the dark area exposed underneath is really a shadow instead?

How would it know that a ball that is sun faded on one side really looks that way and the darker area is not just a shadow?

All it knows is colors of pixels, not the INTENT of what the image is supposed to show.

Yeah, computer programs have gotten pretty smart, but they are not perfect and cannot do miracles.

So my recommendation would be to take care in taking the original photograph so you don't have to wind up wishing that your computer software can pull a rabbit out of a hat for you.

Thanks Rich for explaining. I do now that all the adjustment features are no miracle tools, I'm surprised my half jokingly comment is taken so serious. But since you seem ok with this 'off topic' topic I'll show you what i mean. I use PS CS 8.0.1. These are a before and after adjustment example, the adjustment was made in the image menu, adjustments and then shadow/highlights. I do understand that the program cannot know the difference between shadow and just black, and that if a pic is not sharp or detailed, it won't get sharper or more detailed. But somehow this adjustment makes it look like someone turned on the light in the picture, which is very nice when daylight is cloudy but sufficient to give sharp pictures. It does not add detail, but detail that is hardly visible shows up better, for example in the black area's behind the head you see scales better. I use flash less now, but use this feature instead so there is no wash out of colors but a more 'sunny' look. Of course natural bright sunlight is better, but this seems a good way to make pictures look better IMO. They show my snakes colors how I see them.

I added another example, watch the foot in the down left corner. You actually see it is a foot easily after the adjustment, before you didn't.

 

[Stephen29]

Rich,

I'm just now seeing your reply to my question. Thanks for sharing some of your secrets. We all, enjoy your photos , keep up the good work !!

Happy New Year !!!

 

[Rich Z]

But a general lightening of a photo is not shadow reduction nor removal. Nor is it contrast removal. Different things entirely. The photos you provided show what I mean. Yes the ones after being altered are lighter, but that is for all colors and has nothing really to do with shadow. It is compensating for an underexposed image. Obviously not underexposed enough to black out all the details, otherwise they could not be recaptured no matter how much you lightened the image. What contrast alteration does is to reduce the amount of difference between the lightest part of the photo and the darkest part. Lightening or darkening the image simply makes all colors lighter or darker across the entire image. Now you can fine tune this somewhat by selecting certain areas of the image to apply these filters selectively so as not to affect the non selected areas. This has a lot of advantages when used well. For instance, you can select the main item in the photo, then reverse the selection and defocus the background. This can have a startling effect when done right. And of course, you can set the background such to completely darken it out or white it out.

Just for chuckles, load both of those Pituophis photos into Photoshop and monitor the color underneath the cursor. Now use your original dark image and put the cursor in that dark area underneath your work area. I get mostly 010101 as the hex value, which is pretty nearly completely black (000000). Now do the same in the lighter photo. I see the color being mostly in the 040404 to 080808 range, which means that that black area has become closer to being gray instead of pure black. Which is exactly what lightening an image will do. Just as those black blotches on the Pituophis are no longer as dark black as they were in the original image. Even with a band selection (which version 7, which I am using, and does not have), you still can't tell the program what is shadow and what is wanted content in the photo unless you zone select it.

Personally I think getting a correct exposure in your original photo is the best way to go about this, but whatever works for you, I guess. I think this opinion of mine stems from my original flatbed scanner I had many years ago that was an absolute terror to work with. It would skew colors all over the map when I scan a print and it would take me HOURS trying to get it looking half way decent. You have NO idea how GREAT having inexpensive high quality digital cameras is after an experience like that.

Heck photography always interests me. And I love talking about it when I get a chance. Just wish I had time to make more chances to talk about it...

 

[Menhir]

Actually, the Highlight/Shadow tool changes the graduation curves, so that shadows are "lightened" and highlights "darkened" - to keep this simple.
Taking pictures in JPEG has the main problem, that there are 255 values for the lightness of a pixel. So, if the natural photo has a range between highlights and shadows that is greater, information gets lost. This is why you use detail. Another thing with Highlights/Shadows is, that our eye recognices, that the balance between light and dark areas is somehow wrong, cuase we expect the lighter areas to be lighter and the darker to be darker - pictures get an artificial look.

Example. A tree on a meadow. If we look at it in full sunshine, we can either close our iris and see something in the shadow that is dropped by that tree or we can open our iris and see the parts in sunlight - we won't get both. A technique to capture these things without loss of detail is called DRI. But remember - DRIs also tend to look artifical, excluding many photos taken at night.

The tool or the function itself is used for e.g. landscape pictures where some areas are a little bit in the shadow - it does great work there and you won't recognice that something is done to the picture. But trying to kill the shadows of a missing flash or a completely missing light will lead to very suboptimal results and to the feeling of a missing contrast, that Rich already spoke of.

And just a word to that little picky sentence - if one writes 6000 posts a year, knowing everything from keeping, to breeding, to field-herping, to morphs, to photography, to the announces of other people - one should either be a corn snake hero or one should allow some experts on a special field to correct some statements. Thats at least my opinion.

 

[SnakeAround]

Actually, the Highlight/Shadow tool changes the graduation curves, so that shadows are "lightened" and highlights "darkened" - to keep this simple.
Taking pictures in JPEG has the main problem, that there are 255 values for the lightness of a pixel. So, if the natural photo has a range between highlights and shadows that is greater, information gets lost. This is why you use detail. Another thing with Highlights/Shadows is, that our eye recognices, that the balance between light and dark areas is somehow wrong, cuase we expect the lighter areas to be lighter and the darker to be darker - pictures get an artificial look.

Example. A tree on a meadow. If we look at it in full sunshine, we can either close our iris and see something in the shadow that is dropped by that tree or we can open our iris and see the parts in sunlight - we won't get both. A technique to capture these things without loss of detail is called DRI. But remember - DRIs also tend to look artifical, excluding many photos taken at night.

The tool or the function itself is used for e.g. landscape pictures where some areas are a little bit in the shadow - it does great work there and you won't recognice that something is done to the picture. But trying to kill the shadows of a missing flash or a completely missing light will lead to very suboptimal results and to the feeling of a missing contrast, that Rich already spoke of.

And just a word to that little picky sentence - if one writes 6000 posts a year, knowing everything from keeping, to breeding, to field-herping, to morphs, to photography, to the announces of other people - one should either be a corn snake hero or one should allow some experts on a special field to correct some statements. Thats at least my opinion.

Thanks for your explanation, and that I really mean. I'm gonna study a bit more on the differences in the pictures. Though what comes into my mind is; would artificial light from 3 sides not do the same as this function? It would prevent any shadows from existing, hence produce not realistic pictures....

I PM'd you on the picky sentence subject, thought it woudl be inappropriate to discuss that in public any further.

Rich, thanks for your detailed explanations, as you are a busy man. I did some tests, trying to make the dark picture of the miami phase look like the adjusted one, but then manually. I managed to do that with a combination of adjusting brightness, contrast and saturation, which obviously PS uses too in the funtion mentioned. I do think the adjusted pictures don't look artificial, but you do I understand? I use to see it when I have automatically sharpened a picture, but not now :shrugs:

 

[Rich Z]

I guess the point I am trying to make here is why risk losing information in a photo by not taking the time to get the exposure correct? At the very least, bracket your shots whenever possible. I think just the time savings alone would make this technique the far better choice, imho....

 

[SnakeAround]

Exposure is about how large the opening for incoming light is, right? I should increase the size of the opening then, right? Might give it a try!

Or I can just make a set up with 2 or 3 lights around the snake... but when I feel like taking pics, I don't have the patience to build a set first usually... but it might be worth doing it sometime, though I'm not sure if building such a set every time takes less time then adjusting the pics

 

[Rich Z]

Actually CORRECT exposure is a balance of specific variables: (1) aperture size, (2) shutter speed, (3) speed rating of the recording medium to capture an image, (4) the lightness or darkness of the subject itself, and (5) the amount of available light.

The important thing to remember about all this is "depth of field". That refers to the amount of the image, front to back, that will be in focus. This can be critical in closeup images. General rule of thumb is that the smaller the aperture (larger f stop number) the wider the depth of field. Which, of course, with the smaller aperture, you need to adjust one or more of the other variables to compensate. Slower shutter speed generally introduces camera shake which can blur the image. In the recording medium, a faster ability to capture an image often means a grainier image. Adding more light is realistically the better of all the other variables to try to control without detrimental side effects (other than your pocketbook).

Really, understanding exposure is what photography is really all about from the technical end of it. Composition is the artistic side of it. You really need mastery of both to get a GREAT image.

 

[SnakeAround]

Actually CORRECT exposure is a balance of specific variables: (1) aperture size, (2) shutter speed, (3) speed rating of the recording medium to capture an image, (4) the lightness or darkness of the subject itself, and (5) the amount of available light.

The important thing to remember about all this is "depth of field". That refers to the amount of the image, front to back, that will be in focus. This can be critical in closeup images. General rule of thumb is that the smaller the aperture (larger f stop number) the wider the depth of field. Which, of course, with the smaller aperture, you need to adjust one or more of the other variables to compensate. Slower shutter speed generally introduces camera shake which can blur the image. In the recording medium, a faster ability to capture an image often means a grainier image. Adding more light is realistically the better of all the other variables to try to control without detrimental side effects (other than your pocketbook).

Really, understanding exposure is what photography is really all about from the technical end of it. Composition is the artistic side of it. You really need mastery of both to get a GREAT image.

I might put the camera off the automatic adjustment mode and get into the world of manually trying to get the best pictures