Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2015/02/11
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]On Feb 11, 2015, at 2:31 AM, Peter Klein wrote: > I found a way to do better. > < > https://www.flickr.com/photos/24844563 at > N04/15876024034/in/photostream/lightbox/ >> > > I had bracketed my exposures. The original image I posted indeed had the > core of the red tail lights blown. So was part of the moon. BUT... I had > another image taken a couple of minutes later at about 2.5 stops less > exposure. Here, a typical tail light ranged from about RBG = 255,160,80, to > 192,79,61. But even so, the red tail lights still came up as white when I > "developed" the image to a JPG with a width of 1200 pixels in Capture One. > > But when I exported that same image to a 16-bit TIF, and then downsized it > in Picture Window Pro, things got much better. Sidways-viewed tail lights > on the freeway were red. Tail lights pointing at the camera on the entrance > ramp were orangy-pinkish, so they looked OK. And the moon is better in this > picture. > > This is more like it, it looks like what I remember seeing. > > The RAW development algorithm and the resizing algorithm are both "black > boxes." By using a different program to resize the image, I found a better > black box for this situation. What does a program actually do when it has > to mash four pixels down to one? Capture One (algorithm unknown) seems to > emphasize the brightest pixel in the bunch. Picture Window Pro defaults to > a Bicubic algorithm, which seems to weigh the darker pixels more, and I end > up with something that looks like a bright tail light instead of a white > pinpoint. Me happy. so it was a matter of "proper exposure" of and for those tail lights Regards, George Lottermoser http://www.imagist.com http://www.imagist.com/blog http://www.linkedin.com/in/imagist