Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Human eye so much better than digital sensors

Last response: in Digital Camera
Share
Anonymous
July 10, 2005 8:11:48 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

The other day I shot some graffiti under a bridge.
Half was in shadow, the other half in bright sunlight.
There were 6 stops difference in exposure between them.
Once I saw the images, I knew it would be very difficult
to produce an acceptable or even marginally exceptable final
image. But what I did notice was that my eyes had no trouble
seeing both sides of the graffiti whereas the digital camera
just did not have the dynamic range to accommodate it properly.
I'm wondering what they'll come up with to finally (if possible)
deal with this problem. I'm beginning to really love overcast days.
Anonymous
July 10, 2005 8:11:49 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

In article <s003d1dh6bmf3qua5oipdl37m1c04rvt5e@4ax.com>, RichA
<none@none.com> wrote:

> The other day I shot some graffiti under a bridge.
> Half was in shadow, the other half in bright sunlight.
> There were 6 stops difference in exposure between them.
> Once I saw the images, I knew it would be very difficult
> to produce an acceptable or even marginally exceptable final
> image. But what I did notice was that my eyes had no trouble
> seeing both sides of the graffiti whereas the digital camera
> just did not have the dynamic range to accommodate it properly.
> I'm wondering what they'll come up with to finally (if possible)
> deal with this problem. I'm beginning to really love overcast days.
>

Welcome to the world of photography. It was no difference in the days
of film.
Anonymous
July 11, 2005 12:02:25 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

> now your brain is filling in the missing pieces
>...
>Your camera can't do that.

Exactly. And in terms of not only exposure, but also resolution. Your
eye/brain has got a *lot* less in common with a camera than most folk
think. Go back to that graffiti site, and stare fixedly at one part of
the scene. While you remain staring fixedly at that point, can you
actually read something, or truly see *new* detail, in the other
brighter/darker areas outside those couple of degrees that are in sharp
focus and correctly 'exposed'? Try it right now, focus on this little
dot:


..


Can you genuinely read anything 3 lines above or below? Can you
*really* see detail in bright or dark areas in the rest of your field
of view? The rest of your view is of much lower resolution, and while
your eye is adjusted for an area of one brightness it cannot adjust for
other areas. So the *brain* takes over and fills in memorised or
'fake' detail, or increases/reduces your perceived 'exposure' of the
other areas outside that narrow tunnel. It is only when your eye
moves, and then the pupil dilates/shrinks, that it can cope with the
dynamic range of the scene. In other words... it cheats!

The camera, of course, has to try to capture everything in the scene
all at once (so that your eye can wander over the final image and cheat
again!). So IMO, the eye isn't so much 'better', it's just
*completely* different..
Related resources
Anonymous
July 11, 2005 12:44:30 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

RichA <none@none.com> wrote:

> The other day I shot some graffiti under a bridge.
> Half was in shadow, the other half in bright sunlight.
> There were 6 stops difference in exposure between them.
> Once I saw the images, I knew it would be very difficult
> to produce an acceptable or even marginally exceptable final
> image. But what I did notice was that my eyes had no trouble
> seeing both sides of the graffiti whereas the digital camera
> just did not have the dynamic range to accommodate it properly.
> I'm wondering what they'll come up with to finally (if possible)
> deal with this problem. I'm beginning to really love overcast days.
>
>

Take two or three shots 2 stops apart and composite them with the new 32
bit compositing feature of PS CS2. Works great.
Anonymous
July 11, 2005 12:44:31 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

On Sun, 10 Jul 2005 20:44:30 -0000, Bubbabob
<rnorton@_remove_this_thuntek.net> wrote:

>RichA <none@none.com> wrote:
>
>> The other day I shot some graffiti under a bridge.
>> Half was in shadow, the other half in bright sunlight.
>> There were 6 stops difference in exposure between them.
>> Once I saw the images, I knew it would be very difficult
>> to produce an acceptable or even marginally exceptable final
>> image. But what I did notice was that my eyes had no trouble
>> seeing both sides of the graffiti whereas the digital camera
>> just did not have the dynamic range to accommodate it properly.
>> I'm wondering what they'll come up with to finally (if possible)
>> deal with this problem. I'm beginning to really love overcast days.
>>
>>
>
>Take two or three shots 2 stops apart and composite them with the new 32
>bit compositing feature of PS CS2. Works great.

I may have been overstating the case. I'll try your suggestion as
well. But, after fooling with the histogram function, I managed to
get the image to a point that approximated how my eye saw it.

http://usera.imagecave.com/rander3127/graffiti.jpg
Anonymous
July 11, 2005 12:44:31 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

"Bubbabob" <rnorton@_remove_this_thuntek.net> wrote in message
news:Xns968F95FD28858dilfjelfoiwepofujsdk@216.168.3.30...
> RichA <none@none.com> wrote:
>
>> The other day I shot some graffiti under a bridge.
>> Half was in shadow, the other half in bright sunlight.
>> There were 6 stops difference in exposure between them.
>> Once I saw the images, I knew it would be very difficult
>> to produce an acceptable or even marginally exceptable final
>> image. But what I did notice was that my eyes had no trouble
>> seeing both sides of the graffiti whereas the digital camera
>> just did not have the dynamic range to accommodate it properly.
>> I'm wondering what they'll come up with to finally (if possible)
>> deal with this problem. I'm beginning to really love overcast days.
>>
>>
>
> Take two or three shots 2 stops apart and composite them with the new 32
> bit compositing feature of PS CS2. Works great.

"32-bit High Dynamic Range (HDR)—Step into the future, with the creation and
editing of 32-bit color, High Dynamic Range (HDR) images, ideal for 3D
rendering, advanced compositing and professional photography. With advanced
technology that adapts to the full spectrum and range of visible light in
the same way as the human eye, HDR ensures your final images will display
your creative vision to the last detail, with the most richly detailed
shadows and highlights at your command. Let the new Merge to HDR take you
beyond the state-of-the-art, by automatically combining bracketed digital
exposures into a single 32-bit HDR image, creating breathtaking images that
are otherwise impossible to capture with traditional cameras."
Anonymous
July 11, 2005 12:44:32 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

"Rudy Benner" <newsgroups@rudybenner.com> wrote in message
news:11d34lp8sg9pvc8@corp.supernews.com...
>
> "Bubbabob" <rnorton@_remove_this_thuntek.net> wrote in message
> news:Xns968F95FD28858dilfjelfoiwepofujsdk@216.168.3.30...
>> RichA <none@none.com> wrote:
>>
>>> The other day I shot some graffiti under a bridge.
>>> Half was in shadow, the other half in bright sunlight.
>>> There were 6 stops difference in exposure between them.
>>> Once I saw the images, I knew it would be very difficult
>>> to produce an acceptable or even marginally exceptable final
>>> image. But what I did notice was that my eyes had no trouble
>>> seeing both sides of the graffiti whereas the digital camera
>>> just did not have the dynamic range to accommodate it properly.
>>> I'm wondering what they'll come up with to finally (if possible)
>>> deal with this problem. I'm beginning to really love overcast days.
>>>
>>>
>>
>> Take two or three shots 2 stops apart and composite them with the new 32
>> bit compositing feature of PS CS2. Works great.
>
> "32-bit High Dynamic Range (HDR)—Step into the future, with the creation
> and editing of 32-bit color, High Dynamic Range (HDR) images, ideal for 3D
> rendering, advanced compositing and professional photography. With
> advanced technology that adapts to the full spectrum and range of visible
> light in the same way as the human eye, HDR ensures your final images will
> display your creative vision to the last detail, with the most richly
> detailed shadows and highlights at your command. Let the new Merge to HDR
> take you beyond the state-of-the-art, by automatically combining bracketed
> digital exposures into a single 32-bit HDR image, creating breathtaking
> images that are otherwise impossible to capture with traditional cameras."
>

Look for it in Bridge. I could not find the function in Photoshop. Seems to
work. This could be fun.
Anonymous
July 11, 2005 5:03:59 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

RichA <none@none.com> wrote:

> But what I did notice was that my eyes had no trouble
> seeing both sides of the graffiti whereas the digital camera
> just did not have the dynamic range to accommodate it properly.

Your eyes don't take a picture; they piece the scene together from multiple
"samples", plus memory, and present it to you that way. You can, of course,
do the same thing in Photoshop. :)  (Well, minus the memory part.)

Have you ever had this happen to you: you're on a dark street at night,
with some street lights and lights from houses around. Way down the street
you see something, but you're not sure what it is. You think it might be a
person. Or an animal? Or... something in the road? You look at it, move
your head, look again, maybe walk to get a slightly different angle and
look again; finally, you suddenly identify it as a car parked on the side
of the road. Your brain finally got enough visual information to piece
together into that.

Now, every time you look at it, whether you look away or not, all you can
see is a car parked on the side of the road. Whatever you initially may
have thought it could be is gone, and you can't even see how you ever
thought that, even if you return to your original vantage point. You're
still seeing the same thing you saw before, but now your brain is filling
in the missing pieces and you see a car.

Your camera can't do that.

--
Jeremy | jeremy@exit109.com
Anonymous
July 11, 2005 5:17:31 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

In article <100720051458000417%rag@nospam.techline.com>, Randall
Ainsworth <rag@nospam.techline.com> writes
>In article <s003d1dh6bmf3qua5oipdl37m1c04rvt5e@4ax.com>, RichA
><none@none.com> wrote:
>
>> The other day I shot some graffiti under a bridge.
>> Half was in shadow, the other half in bright sunlight.
>> There were 6 stops difference in exposure between them.
>> Once I saw the images, I knew it would be very difficult
>> to produce an acceptable or even marginally exceptable final
>> image. But what I did notice was that my eyes had no trouble
>> seeing both sides of the graffiti whereas the digital camera
>> just did not have the dynamic range to accommodate it properly.
>> I'm wondering what they'll come up with to finally (if possible)
>> deal with this problem. I'm beginning to really love overcast days.
>>
>
>Welcome to the world of photography. It was no difference in the days
>of film.

Well, slightly. You can to some extent control the contrast ratio of
film by controlling development time (or first dev time for colour
film). Works well for B&W film, works to a lesser extent for E6
(reversal) film, is barely possible with C41 (negative) film as the
process is usually so rigidly automated.

It would sometimes be nice to have sensors with variable contrast,
though to be fair they do start out with a higher range than most films,
and the techniques already mentioned serve instead.

David
--
David Littlewood
Anonymous
July 11, 2005 4:09:49 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

In article <11d3hbvphqs8c4@corp.supernews.com>, Jeremy Nixon
<jeremy@exit109.com> wrote:

> RichA <none@none.com> wrote:
>
> > But what I did notice was that my eyes had no trouble
> > seeing both sides of the graffiti whereas the digital camera
> > just did not have the dynamic range to accommodate it properly.
>
> Your eyes don't take a picture; they piece the scene together from multiple
> "samples", plus memory, and present it to you that way. You can, of course,
> do the same thing in Photoshop. :)  (Well, minus the memory part.)
>
> Have you ever had this happen to you: you're on a dark street at night,
> with some street lights and lights from houses around. Way down the street
> you see something, but you're not sure what it is. You think it might be a
> person. Or an animal? Or... something in the road? You look at it, move
> your head, look again, maybe walk to get a slightly different angle and
> look again; finally, you suddenly identify it as a car parked on the side
> of the road. Your brain finally got enough visual information to piece
> together into that.
>
> Now, every time you look at it, whether you look away or not, all you can
> see is a car parked on the side of the road. Whatever you initially may
> have thought it could be is gone, and you can't even see how you ever
> thought that, even if you return to your original vantage point. You're
> still seeing the same thing you saw before, but now your brain is filling
> in the missing pieces and you see a car.
>
> Your camera can't do that.

How do you know he shoots Nikon and not Canon?

<G>

Instead of compositing in Photoshop, you might be able to pull out the
shadow contrast with some simple Levels adjustment.
Anonymous
July 13, 2005 5:18:33 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

"RichA" <none@none.com> wrote in message
news:s003d1dh6bmf3qua5oipdl37m1c04rvt5e@4ax.com...

> But what I did notice was that my eyes had no trouble
> seeing both sides of the graffiti whereas the digital camera
> just did not have the dynamic range to accommodate it properly.
> I'm wondering what they'll come up with to finally (if possible)
> deal with this problem.

www.truview.com
Anonymous
July 13, 2005 7:51:29 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

On Wed, 13 Jul 2005 13:18:33 GMT, "Andrew Koenig" <ark@acm.org> wrote:

>"RichA" <none@none.com> wrote in message
>news:s003d1dh6bmf3qua5oipdl37m1c04rvt5e@4ax.com...
>
>> But what I did notice was that my eyes had no trouble
>> seeing both sides of the graffiti whereas the digital camera
>> just did not have the dynamic range to accommodate it properly.
>> I'm wondering what they'll come up with to finally (if possible)
>> deal with this problem.
>
>www.truview.com
>

Thanks! I see how it works.
-Rich
!