Thanks for your opinion on interpretation of where to adjust levels. Viewing on a “normal good quality 10 bit monitor” means little in regards to an image that is less than 8bit. The whole point of the post was to demonstrate the original image had a very low contrast range, was easy to adjust to a wider range, and completely irrelevant to the exposure range of a RAW image
But if you want to go into subjectivity of what white level to set with newsprint images, these are the first results that come up for "newspaper comics":
Those don't have gray blacks. I think it's a gamma issue with your monitor. Perhaps if you embedded a color space like Adobe RGB 1998, it might match. Of course all the examples there are comics created digitally with pure whites and blacks, not traditional stats and offset printed on newsprint paper like I was talking about. It doesn't matter though because image files aren't good analogies for sound files.
My point was that jpegs have a lot of latitude for color adjustment, which they do.
Those don't have gray blacks. I think it's a gamma issue with your monitor. Perhaps if you embedded a color space like Adobe RGB 1998, it might match. Of course all the examples there are comics created digitally with pure whites and blacks, not traditional stats and offset printed on newsprint paper like I was talking about. It doesn't matter though because image files aren't good analogies for sound files.
My point was that jpegs have a lot of latitude for color adjustment, which they do.
If you were to look at the histogram, the deepest blacks are getting near 0 (look at lower right panel). Web safe is sRGB space (and if you looked at the image header, you'd see it's sRGB IEC61966-2.1). And as I previously pointed out, newspaper black wasn't as pure black as screen black (they needed less ink saturation so it wouldn't bleed). Personally, when I was growing up with newspapers, the paper was much closer to white than dark yellow paper (newsprint was bleached paper by then). If people don't like my adjustments, that's personal opinion. I merely showed that it's very easy to change adjustments with an image with such low contrast range. And it's still irrelevant to what the topic was as far as jpeg being able to record all exposure situations as RAW. The analogy for sound is that RAW is an uncompressed format able to capture the full dynamic range of sensor: what can be necessary for professionals. Just as sound engineers do not use 320kb mp3 files when mixing.
The color correction you did a few weeks ago looks really washed out. If that looks good to you, either your monitor is calibrated differently, or you have very eccentric tastes in color correction. (A nice way of saying that) I’m giving you the benefit of the doubt and assuming it’s the former, not the latter.
Jpegs have plenty of latitude for color correction and compressed audio has plenty of latitude for EQing. People use both all the time without bumping into the edge of their range. In practice, the advantage of lossless is largely theoretical.
The color correction you did a few weeks ago looks really washed out. If that looks good to you, either your monitor is calibrated differently, or you have very eccentric tastes in color correction. (A nice way of saying that) I’m giving you the benefit of the doubt and assuming it’s the former, not the latter.
Alright, fine. A few weeks ago you said it took you several minutes to adjust the whites to a dark yellow. I showed a wider range going to pure white. If your arguement is to question my color choices, here's an adjustment I did to it within 5 seconds. Does this meet the approval of lord Bigshot's standards of what all newspaper comics should be? Even though in real life, newpaper black was not the same saturation as screen 0 black.
See how you’re just questioning my adjustment choices, when the original image was less than 4bit color, and completely irrelevant to the dynamic range of a photo?
I really don't know what you're talking about. Through this whole conversation, you've been talking about something completely different than I am, and you don't seem to be aware of that. You just continue having a conversation with yourself.
I really don't know what you're talking about. Through this whole conversation, you've been talking about something completely different than I am, and you don't seem to be aware of that. You just continue having a conversation with yourself.
This whole thread, you've contended that a newspaper comic is related to the arguments we had about photography (that somehow it's related to the type of exposure latitude you need with a camera format). You have accused me of not knowing digital photography, claiming professionals who use RAW are not knowledgable since it would only be needed for "fixing things", not knowing graphics, and that there's something wrong with my vision. You would think you'd understand your previous post about how the extremes shown for this comic are not an example of what adjustment latitude a JPEG is capable of, let alone RAW. Since it doesn't approach the limits of contrast range or colors of JPEG, it has absolutely no relevance to the processing of photos. It is you who have continued to want to get into a Goldilocks match of which bed is her favorite. When the original argument was that the daddy bear needs the adult bed to support him, and the toddler bed would collapse.
Whatever. I'm here to have conversations not arguments, and I like to know that I am being heard. Too many people aren't capable of that in this forum. I'll chat with the ones that can.
Maybe one day we can bust the myth that photography arguments are related to testing audiophile claims and myths.... you know... in the sound science forum.
Whatever. I'm here to have conversations not arguments, and I like to know that I am being heard. Too many people aren't capable of that in this forum. I'll chat with the ones that can.
Yet somehow you're Goldilocks: my first edit was too washed out, my second edit was too saturated (which was intentional BTW). Just keep on with the personal attacks.
Maybe one day we can bust the myth that photography arguments are related to testing audiophile claims and myths.... you know... in the sound science forum.
It just seems it can get inevitable, as current digital formats have "hi-res" for audio (really less to do for reproduction as audio post processing) vs "UHD" and "HDR" with visual formats (which are still relevant for reproduction, and more so post processing).
Just wondering as a poll: are these random topics more interesting than responding to the usual audiophile snake oil now? Cause it seems like we've all been responding to a select few about the same audiophile claims with DAC chips, lossy vs lossless audio formats, and ultra-sonic frequencies.
This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
