This thread is no longer active. See our most recent posts and join!
04-19-2010 at 7:22 PM
Mr&MrsS
Not Ranked
Joined on 11-07-2009
Central PA
17,336 Points
Mr&MrsS is not online. Last active: 02-11-2012, 2:05 PMSilver

Alright...Histogram Masters, School Me!

I am 5.  Tell me everything.

please. :-)


No worries, Bump Gods, I'm not a professional!


Anniversary

Photography Blog
Flickr

In my camera bag:
Canon Digital Rebel XTi
Canon 50mm f/1.8
Canon 35mm f/2.0
Tamron 28-75mm f/2.8
Speedlite 430 EX II
Extension Tubes 
04-19-2010 at 7:25 PM
Mr&MrsS
Not Ranked
Joined on 11-07-2009
Central PA
17,336 Points
Mr&MrsS is not online. Last active: 02-11-2012, 2:05 PMSilver
I'll admit, I am far enough along that I should know this by now.  Needless to say I'm kind of embarrassed asking this.  Embarrassed

No worries, Bump Gods, I'm not a professional!


Anniversary

Photography Blog
Flickr

In my camera bag:
Canon Digital Rebel XTi
Canon 50mm f/1.8
Canon 35mm f/2.0
Tamron 28-75mm f/2.8
Speedlite 430 EX II
Extension Tubes 
04-19-2010 at 7:30 PM
punkfictio...
Not Ranked
Joined on 10-31-2009
dallas. duh.
12,198 Points
punkfiction_v.3 is not online. Last active: 05-16-2012, 4:44 PMGold

just claim it for my blog!! ;) lol

 

::watches thread::


aidan kincaid (12.19.06) sawyer grace (7.30.08)

reese madeline (5.11.10) miller paige (2.6.12)



stalk my photos. stalk my words. photog questions? 
04-19-2010 at 7:33 PM
jbrooke
Not Ranked
Joined on 05-09-2004
1,333 Points
jbrooke is not online. Last active: 05-14-2012, 9:07 PMBronze

The great MTOW wrote this for me when i asked about histograms a while back...she is so awesome! It really helped me :)

 

This would be easier with pictures, but I'll give it a shot without.

So the histogram looks like a mountain range in a box, right?  Really, it's a map of the number of pixels across your tonal range.  The far left is pure black, and the far right is pure white, and the middle is everything in between.  It doesn't matter how many peaks you have or how high; what you're concerned with is where your mountain range starts and stops inside the box. 

Ideally, it starts at or right next to the left and ends just before or at the right wall.  That means you have the full tonal range in your image.

If it's all lumped up over to the left and you have empty space to the right, you're underexposed.  

If it's "climbing up" the right wall, you're overexposed.  You've "clipped" your highlights, meaning that you have some details that are all going to show up as pure white.  This will happen if you have spectral highlights, like chrome or water, or a light source and that's ok.  Or you may want to expose for your subject and let the background overexpose if your subject is backlit.  But you don't want your skin tones clipping.  If the red channel clips in your skin tones, that means that where there would be very light red, there's just white, and it's not pretty.  If you shoot in RAW, you might be able to bring back those highlights, but the goal is not to need to.

If it's "climbing up" the left wall, you've "clipped" your shadows.  Instead of detail, you're going to have pure black.  Incidentally, when you "increase the blacks," you're moving that left wall closer in to your mountain range.  If you move it just to the edge, you're giving yourself a full tonal range -- now your image goes all the way to black instead of stopping somewhere short. If you move it under a peak, you're starting to lose shadow detail.  Again, you may decide in certain circumstances that you want that, and that's ok. 

When I check the histogram, I'm looking to see how close my mountain range is to that white wall, especially the red channel because that's the skin.   I want it to be pretty darn close, but I also like to leave just a little bit of wiggle room so I don't accidentally overexpose.

A lot of times if I meter at 0, there's a lot of room to the right.  It may be technically right, but I like my images brighter than that, and brightening them in post can introduce noise, so it's best to get them as bright as possible without clipping my highlights in camera.

Does that help?





Thanks to Candice McRae for the siggy pics! ;)  
04-19-2010 at 7:33 PM
MicheleLou...
Not Ranked
Joined on 07-29-2002
Bethlehem, PA
1,522 Points
MicheleLouise is not online. Last active: 05-16-2012, 5:10 PMSilver

You could start with my blog post here:

http://michelelouise.blogspot.com/2009/04/photography-tips-3-histogram.html

and all the links I have at the end of the post.  That might get you started.  

04-19-2010 at 7:34 PM
punkfictio...
Not Ranked
Joined on 10-31-2009
dallas. duh.
12,198 Points
punkfiction_v.3 is not online. Last active: 05-16-2012, 4:44 PMGold
jbrooke:

The great MTOW wrote this for me when i asked about histograms a while back...she is so awesome! It really helped me :)

 

This would be easier with pictures, but I'll give it a shot without.

So the histogram looks like a mountain range in a box, right?  Really, it's a map of the number of pixels across your tonal range.  The far left is pure black, and the far right is pure white, and the middle is everything in between.  It doesn't matter how many peaks you have or how high; what you're concerned with is where your mountain range starts and stops inside the box. 

Ideally, it starts at or right next to the left and ends just before or at the right wall.  That means you have the full tonal range in your image.

If it's all lumped up over to the left and you have empty space to the right, you're underexposed.  

If it's "climbing up" the right wall, you're overexposed.  You've "clipped" your highlights, meaning that you have some details that are all going to show up as pure white.  This will happen if you have spectral highlights, like chrome or water, or a light source and that's ok.  Or you may want to expose for your subject and let the background overexpose if your subject is backlit.  But you don't want your skin tones clipping.  If the red channel clips in your skin tones, that means that where there would be very light red, there's just white, and it's not pretty.  If you shoot in RAW, you might be able to bring back those highlights, but the goal is not to need to.

If it's "climbing up" the left wall, you've "clipped" your shadows.  Instead of detail, you're going to have pure black.  Incidentally, when you "increase the blacks," you're moving that left wall closer in to your mountain range.  If you move it just to the edge, you're giving yourself a full tonal range -- now your image goes all the way to black instead of stopping somewhere short. If you move it under a peak, you're starting to lose shadow detail.  Again, you may decide in certain circumstances that you want that, and that's ok. 

When I check the histogram, I'm looking to see how close my mountain range is to that white wall, especially the red channel because that's the skin.   I want it to be pretty darn close, but I also like to leave just a little bit of wiggle room so I don't accidentally overexpose.

A lot of times if I meter at 0, there's a lot of room to the right.  It may be technically right, but I like my images brighter than that, and brightening them in post can introduce noise, so it's best to get them as bright as possible without clipping my highlights in camera.

Does that help?

ok i thought it was a lot more between that i was missing lol


aidan kincaid (12.19.06) sawyer grace (7.30.08)

reese madeline (5.11.10) miller paige (2.6.12)



stalk my photos. stalk my words. photog questions? 
04-19-2010 at 7:36 PM
MTOW
Not Ranked
Joined on 07-17-2008
East Texas
68,934 Points
MTOW is not online. Last active: 09-07-2011, 6:20 PMSilver

I've posted this before, but here it is again.  Hope it helps!

***

This would be easier with pictures, but I'll give it a shot without.

So the histogram looks like a mountain range in a box, right?  Really, it's a map of the number of pixels across your tonal range.  The far left is pure black, and the far right is pure white, and the middle is everything in between.  It doesn't matter how many peaks you have or how high; what you're concerned with is where your mountain range starts and stops inside the box. 

Ideally, it starts at or right next to the left and ends just before or at the right wall.  That means you have the full tonal range in your image.

If it's all lumped up over to the left and you have empty space to the right, you're underexposed.  

If it's "climbing up" the right wall, you're overexposed.  You've "clipped" your highlights, meaning that you have some details that are all going to show up as pure white.  This will happen if you have spectral highlights, like chrome or water, or a light source and that's ok.  Or you may want to expose for your subject and let the background overexpose if your subject is backlit.  But you don't want your skin tones clipping.  If the red channel clips in your skin tones, that means that where there would be very light red, there's just white, and it's not pretty.  If you shoot in RAW, you might be able to bring back those highlights, but the goal is not to need to.

If it's "climbing up" the left wall, you've "clipped" your shadows.  Instead of detail, you're going to have pure black.  Incidentally, when you "increase the blacks," you're moving that left wall closer in to your mountain range.  If you move it just to the edge, you're giving yourself a full tonal range -- now your image goes all the way to black instead of stopping somewhere short. If you move it under a peak, you're starting to lose shadow detail.  Again, you may decide in certain circumstances that you want that, and that's ok. 

When I check the histogram, I'm looking to see how close my mountain range is to that white wall, especially the red channel because that's the skin.   I want it to be pretty darn close, but I also like to leave just a little bit of wiggle room so I don't accidentally overexpose.

A lot of times if I meter at 0, there's a lot of room to the right.  It may be technically right, but I like my images brighter than that, and brightening them in post can introduce ["exaggerate" is a better word] noise, so it's best to get them as bright as possible without clipping my highlights in camera.


 

 
04-19-2010 at 7:37 PM
MTOW
Not Ranked
Joined on 07-17-2008
East Texas
68,934 Points
MTOW is not online. Last active: 09-07-2011, 6:20 PMSilver
Ha!  You beat me to it! :)
 
04-19-2010 at 7:48 PM
jbrooke
Not Ranked
Joined on 05-09-2004
1,333 Points
jbrooke is not online. Last active: 05-14-2012, 9:07 PMBronze

MTOW:
Ha!  You beat me to it! :)

Ha ha! Yep! I told you I bookmarked (and printed) that info! So helpful :)





Thanks to Candice McRae for the siggy pics! ;)  
04-19-2010 at 7:55 PM
Mr&MrsS
Not Ranked
Joined on 11-07-2009
Central PA
17,336 Points
Mr&MrsS is not online. Last active: 02-11-2012, 2:05 PMSilver
Thanks ladies!  Turns out I did know all that, I just thought there was a lot more to it than that. hmm...It will take some getting used to in order to make a habit of it, but I will try to do it this way from now on. :-)

No worries, Bump Gods, I'm not a professional!


Anniversary

Photography Blog
Flickr

In my camera bag:
Canon Digital Rebel XTi
Canon 50mm f/1.8
Canon 35mm f/2.0
Tamron 28-75mm f/2.8
Speedlite 430 EX II
Extension Tubes 
hot topics

"Dealing with weddings post divorce..."
R&B3-26-05 on Starting Over

"How often do you typically have sex a week?"
sweetsunset08 on Sex & Romance

"Are you friends with 'that couple'?"
OrangePixyStix on BNTOB

search boards

choose another board