Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="WayneF" data-source="post: 202301" data-attributes="member: 12496">My notion is that it is too much exposure to be natural.&nbsp;&nbsp; There are dark tones in the histogram, but the brightest tones are on the face, which is too bright to be optimum.&nbsp;&nbsp; And it seems like it has excessive contrast added too. The original seems like it must have seen substantial settings already.If you are using Adobe something as an editor, on the original images, bring up Levels (CTRL L), which is your histogram.&nbsp; &nbsp; Now, while holding the ALT key down, grab the White Point at 255, and move it slightly lower, say to 240.&nbsp;&nbsp; Holding the ALT key changes the view, to then show you only the pixels which become clipped at 240.&nbsp; IOW, anything you can see now was brighter than 240.&nbsp; This is NOT a suggested setting (it will make it worse instead). It is merely a suggested way to identify which tones are which pixels.&nbsp; Hit Cancel to end it.If using Adobe Raw editor, then Exposure is the same as White Point, and hold Alt and increasing Exposure is the same as lowering White Point (both show clipping at the new setting).Holding ALT and moving the Black Point works the same (in Raw, it is Blacks), to identify which tones are what. The large peak is the background, the face does not enter it until at least the midpoint.My own notion is that the bright highlights on the human skin ought not be brighter than 240, if even quite that.&nbsp; But this is the entire face, all brighter than 240.&nbsp; And too much contrast from somewhere, IMO. My suspicion is that it was the contrast that affected it.&nbsp; Contrast reduces White Point and increases Black Point, and yours implies it has already been manipulated significantly.&nbsp;&nbsp; Contrast is usually helpful for B&amp;W, but color does not tolerate so much.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="WayneF, post: 202301, member: 12496"] My notion is that it is too much exposure to be natural. There are dark tones in the histogram, but the brightest tones are on the face, which is too bright to be optimum. And it seems like it has excessive contrast added too. The original seems like it must have seen substantial settings already. If you are using Adobe something as an editor, on the original images, bring up Levels (CTRL L), which is your histogram. Now, while holding the ALT key down, grab the White Point at 255, and move it slightly lower, say to 240. Holding the ALT key changes the view, to then show you only the pixels which become clipped at 240. IOW, anything you can see now was brighter than 240. This is NOT a suggested setting (it will make it worse instead). It is merely a suggested way to identify which tones are which pixels. Hit Cancel to end it. If using Adobe Raw editor, then Exposure is the same as White Point, and hold Alt and increasing Exposure is the same as lowering White Point (both show clipping at the new setting). Holding ALT and moving the Black Point works the same (in Raw, it is Blacks), to identify which tones are what. The large peak is the background, the face does not enter it until at least the midpoint. My own notion is that the [B]bright highlights [/B]on the human skin ought not be brighter than 240, if even quite that. But this is the entire face, all brighter than 240. And too much contrast from somewhere, IMO. My suspicion is that it was the contrast that affected it. Contrast reduces White Point and increases Black Point, and yours implies it has already been manipulated significantly. Contrast is usually helpful for B&W, but color does not tolerate so much. [/QUOTE]

Verification