Beauty Portraits: SiSi @ Reflection Rooms (Sexiness From Within!)
- Thread starter Zeckson Chow
- Start date
- Status
Zeckson Chow
Senior Member
Thank you all for your comments. Contaxable bro, don't think too far off ah... Nothing happened ah.
Zeckson Chow
Senior Member
Zeckson Chow
Senior Member
Thank you all for the comments.
Zeckson Chow
Senior Member
Zeckson Chow
Senior Member
To answer my own question, gentlemen, it is the posterization I am very pissed about. These images were shot in JPEG under sRGB color space. Because of the theme and concept I had in mind, I used a dark background with bright contrasty lightings on SiSi, thus bringing out her sexiness within her.
Because of this concept, the majority of pixels in these images are of a dark tone, meaning majority of the pixels resides in the lower end of the color gamut. When I further apply my post processing techniques, these pixels get further manipulated either by darkening or by brightening. Because of this manipulation and pixels residing at the lower end of the color gamut, there is not much "space" left to allow such a manipulation.
The requested color shade from my input, JPEG algorithms are not able to display so what happens is that it force-apply a shade that is closest to whatever I requested based on "whatever is available". Due to this forced application, instead of displaying my requested shade, other gradation shades got applied instead, which causes posterization.
Posterization can be avoided if the images are shot in a higher bit-depth algorithms like RAW. RAW is technically far more advanced than JPEG, having 4096 shades in each color channel instead of 256 as compared to JPEG. When manipulating pixels at the lower end of the gamut, RAW still has enough shade gradations to match whatever I requested and still be able to display that correct shade. In RAW images, color gradations and transitions are very smooth. People who shoot RAW images are usually graphic art photographers where the highest possible color gradation is needed. With advance technology now, there is a 14-bit RAW, which means each color channel has 16,384 shades in each color channel! Now that is deep!
I am not saying or encouraging all to shoot images in RAW. RAW files are very big. Depending on your composition and framing, the more elements visible within your image frame, the bigger the file size. An average 12-bit RAW file can chalk up to 15 MB in size! RAW processing is also a time consuming process apart from your normal post processing workflow. So if not really necessary, I will not shoot in RAW and usually with JPEG.
Don't be mistaken, shooting in RAW does not mean you getting sharper images or getting better focused images or getting a super low noise image. Those are just taboos on the web. The only practical advantage of shooting RAW is that you get a very smooth color tone gradation and transition between pixels. Other than that, I do not see any practical reason why I should not shoot in JPEG (well, in this case, I should have shot in RAW... A mistake I have made.).
Most of my images you see here in ClubSNAP and on other web boards were all shot in JPEG using the smallest resolution the camera offers. Megapixels do not contribute to image quality nor will it be sharper than images done in lower resolution under the naked eye. Believe me, you do not see a difference unless you start doing post processing on them.
Because of this concept, the majority of pixels in these images are of a dark tone, meaning majority of the pixels resides in the lower end of the color gamut. When I further apply my post processing techniques, these pixels get further manipulated either by darkening or by brightening. Because of this manipulation and pixels residing at the lower end of the color gamut, there is not much "space" left to allow such a manipulation.
The requested color shade from my input, JPEG algorithms are not able to display so what happens is that it force-apply a shade that is closest to whatever I requested based on "whatever is available". Due to this forced application, instead of displaying my requested shade, other gradation shades got applied instead, which causes posterization.
Posterization can be avoided if the images are shot in a higher bit-depth algorithms like RAW. RAW is technically far more advanced than JPEG, having 4096 shades in each color channel instead of 256 as compared to JPEG. When manipulating pixels at the lower end of the gamut, RAW still has enough shade gradations to match whatever I requested and still be able to display that correct shade. In RAW images, color gradations and transitions are very smooth. People who shoot RAW images are usually graphic art photographers where the highest possible color gradation is needed. With advance technology now, there is a 14-bit RAW, which means each color channel has 16,384 shades in each color channel! Now that is deep!
I am not saying or encouraging all to shoot images in RAW. RAW files are very big. Depending on your composition and framing, the more elements visible within your image frame, the bigger the file size. An average 12-bit RAW file can chalk up to 15 MB in size! RAW processing is also a time consuming process apart from your normal post processing workflow. So if not really necessary, I will not shoot in RAW and usually with JPEG.
Don't be mistaken, shooting in RAW does not mean you getting sharper images or getting better focused images or getting a super low noise image. Those are just taboos on the web. The only practical advantage of shooting RAW is that you get a very smooth color tone gradation and transition between pixels. Other than that, I do not see any practical reason why I should not shoot in JPEG (well, in this case, I should have shot in RAW... A mistake I have made.).
Most of my images you see here in ClubSNAP and on other web boards were all shot in JPEG using the smallest resolution the camera offers. Megapixels do not contribute to image quality nor will it be sharper than images done in lower resolution under the naked eye. Believe me, you do not see a difference unless you start doing post processing on them.
Zeckson Chow
Senior Member
:thumbsup::thumbsup:Freakydots
Member
Can i ask where the location
To answer my own question, gentlemen, it is the posterization I am very pissed about. These images were shot in JPEG under sRGB color space. Because of the theme and concept I had in mind, I used a dark background with bright contrasty lightings on SiSi, thus bringing out her sexiness within her.
Because of this concept, the majority of pixels in these images are of a dark tone, meaning majority of the pixels resides in the lower end of the color gamut. When I further apply my post processing techniques, these pixels get further manipulated either by darkening or by brightening. Because of this manipulation and pixels residing at the lower end of the color gamut, there is not much "space" left to allow such a manipulation.
The requested color shade from my input, JPEG algorithms are not able to display so what happens is that it force-apply a shade that is closest to whatever I requested based on "whatever is available". Due to this forced application, instead of displaying my requested shade, other gradation shades got applied instead, which causes posterization.
Posterization can be avoided if the images are shot in a higher bit-depth algorithms like RAW. RAW is technically far more advanced than JPEG, having 4096 shades in each color channel instead of 256 as compared to JPEG. When manipulating pixels at the lower end of the gamut, RAW still has enough shade gradations to match whatever I requested and still be able to display that correct shade. In RAW images, color gradations and transitions are very smooth. People who shoot RAW images are usually graphic art photographers where the highest possible color gradation is needed. With advance technology now, there is a 14-bit RAW, which means each color channel has 16,384 shades in each color channel! Now that is deep!
I am not saying or encouraging all to shoot images in RAW. RAW files are very big. Depending on your composition and framing, the more elements visible within your image frame, the bigger the file size. An average 12-bit RAW file can chalk up to 15 MB in size! RAW processing is also a time consuming process apart from your normal post processing workflow. So if not really necessary, I will not shoot in RAW and usually with JPEG.
Don't be mistaken, shooting in RAW does not mean you getting sharper images or getting better focused images or getting a super low noise image. Those are just taboos on the web. The only practical advantage of shooting RAW is that you get a very smooth color tone gradation and transition between pixels. Other than that, I do not see any practical reason why I should not shoot in JPEG (well, in this case, I should have shot in RAW... A mistake I have made.).
Most of my images you see here in ClubSNAP and on other web boards were all shot in JPEG using the smallest resolution the camera offers. Megapixels do not contribute to image quality nor will it be sharper than images done in lower resolution under the naked eye. Believe me, you do not see a difference unless you start doing post processing on them.
So why didn't you shoot in RAW? Why didn't you shoot in AdobeRGB 1998 if you know that you are going to get this kind of results.
night86mare
Deregistered
...never mind about posterisation..
a lot of the faces here are bloated. why? shoot too close for the focal length you are using....
if that is your idea of sexy... well, whatever floats your boat.
a lot of the faces here are bloated. why? shoot too close for the focal length you are using....
if that is your idea of sexy... well, whatever floats your boat.
- Status
Similar threads
