Yeah, but there are a couple of problems here.
First, contrary to the suggestion above, you can't have a histogram that "seems wrong". It's a visual representation of the data in the image. Either it's saturated, and you will see a spike/hump/peak/collection pegged at the right edge of the histogram, or it's not, and you won't see that. If the histogram is "wrong", then the machine (computer, software, camera, whatever) you're using to compute & show the histogram is wrong, and I'm pretty sure lightroom isn't broken. Is the implication that the histogram is being shown incorrectly in Nikon cameras?
Second, you can't use an image processing program to take an 8-bit jpg image that is "saturated" in and "unsaturate" it. The attached picture above, reduced in "exposure", isn't a helpful illustration.
An exercise to "reduce the exposure" on an 8-bit jpg that has areas of saturation (i.e. pixels in which one or more of the color channels has the value of 255), no matter the software you're using, will have no effect on the saturated areas. True, some of the pixels "near" the saturated pixels may not be totally saturated (i.e. slightly below 255), and when you "reduce the exposure" of the image those pixels will darken and you may think this means you're eliminating the saturation. But the saturated pixels, which will invariably be areas (collections of pixels), will all hold exactly the same value.
In other words, if you have an area of red saturation, that means you have an area with a group of pixels that have a value of 255 (in an 8-bit image) in the red channel, meaning you've lost all "detail" in that areas since no difference exists between one pixel and another. If you reduce the brightness/exposure of that image in 8-bit space, then that group of pixels will still have exactly the same value in the red channel, even though it may no longer be 255. Even though the saturated area of pixels may no longer be bright red, you'll still have a splotch with no detail (but with some other color).
By the way, the above applies no matter if you process the image is 16-bit space or 8-bit space, presuming you started with a jpg (8-bit by defnition). In other rods, you can't just load up an 8-bit jpg in photoshop, switch to 16-big mode, and expect to overcome this issue. You CAN start with a high-bit image (like RAW, which is generally 12-bit, or a 16-bit image) that appears saturated in 8-bit space, but which has not fully saturated in 12/16-bit space, and lower the exposure to eliminate the saturation at 8-bits. I'm at a loss to explain, but I hope the concept is clear.
The histogram included above clearly shows that the TS's issue is NOT saturation. He must be getting thrown off by either depth of field, proper focusing, camera shake, or something else. But it's clearly not saturated in the red channel, else the histogram would show the red channel shoved all the way to the right.
TS, try it yourself - increase the brightness/exposure until you SEE the histogram shove up to the right side. That's what saturation looks like. If that doesn't look like what you're worried about, then consider other factors.
Thanks,
Eric
First, contrary to the suggestion above, you can't have a histogram that "seems wrong". It's a visual representation of the data in the image. Either it's saturated, and you will see a spike/hump/peak/collection pegged at the right edge of the histogram, or it's not, and you won't see that. If the histogram is "wrong", then the machine (computer, software, camera, whatever) you're using to compute & show the histogram is wrong, and I'm pretty sure lightroom isn't broken. Is the implication that the histogram is being shown incorrectly in Nikon cameras?
Second, you can't use an image processing program to take an 8-bit jpg image that is "saturated" in and "unsaturate" it. The attached picture above, reduced in "exposure", isn't a helpful illustration.
An exercise to "reduce the exposure" on an 8-bit jpg that has areas of saturation (i.e. pixels in which one or more of the color channels has the value of 255), no matter the software you're using, will have no effect on the saturated areas. True, some of the pixels "near" the saturated pixels may not be totally saturated (i.e. slightly below 255), and when you "reduce the exposure" of the image those pixels will darken and you may think this means you're eliminating the saturation. But the saturated pixels, which will invariably be areas (collections of pixels), will all hold exactly the same value.
In other words, if you have an area of red saturation, that means you have an area with a group of pixels that have a value of 255 (in an 8-bit image) in the red channel, meaning you've lost all "detail" in that areas since no difference exists between one pixel and another. If you reduce the brightness/exposure of that image in 8-bit space, then that group of pixels will still have exactly the same value in the red channel, even though it may no longer be 255. Even though the saturated area of pixels may no longer be bright red, you'll still have a splotch with no detail (but with some other color).
By the way, the above applies no matter if you process the image is 16-bit space or 8-bit space, presuming you started with a jpg (8-bit by defnition). In other rods, you can't just load up an 8-bit jpg in photoshop, switch to 16-big mode, and expect to overcome this issue. You CAN start with a high-bit image (like RAW, which is generally 12-bit, or a 16-bit image) that appears saturated in 8-bit space, but which has not fully saturated in 12/16-bit space, and lower the exposure to eliminate the saturation at 8-bits. I'm at a loss to explain, but I hope the concept is clear.
The histogram included above clearly shows that the TS's issue is NOT saturation. He must be getting thrown off by either depth of field, proper focusing, camera shake, or something else. But it's clearly not saturated in the red channel, else the histogram would show the red channel shoved all the way to the right.
TS, try it yourself - increase the brightness/exposure until you SEE the histogram shove up to the right side. That's what saturation looks like. If that doesn't look like what you're worried about, then consider other factors.
Thanks,
Eric
