Contrast with digital cameras

SG
Posted By
Scottie_G.
Feb 12, 2004
Views
2968
Replies
96
Status
Closed
I’ve been shooting digitally a year or so , and it’s great and all, but I notice that with hard light,
skin tones can look lot more severe that with film. I’m wondering what folks tend to do about this. I assume all possible solutions are better done in photoshop and in camera.

MacBook Pro 16” Mockups 🔥

– in 4 materials (clay versions included)

– 12 scenes

– 48 MacBook Pro 16″ mockups

– 6000 x 4500 px

PF
Peter_Figen
Feb 12, 2004
Can you elaborate a bit on your specific shooting situation, including camera, settings, raw processing software, etc.
P
povimage
Feb 12, 2004
If you expect the exposure latitude of color or B&W negative film, it ain’t gonna happen.

You have an exposure latitude with digital more like that of slide film, if not narrower. You need to expose for the highlights not the shadows..

Keith
R
Ram
Feb 12, 2004
Knowing what your camera is, what your settings are and how you are saving the images, it’s hard to tell you.

Keith is right, though. Digital capture is very unforgiving of improper exposure. Your latitude is minuscule. Underexpose and the noise gets overwhelming; overexpose and your highlights are totally blown.
PH
Paul_Hokanson
Feb 12, 2004
Scottie,

I assume all possible solutions are better done in photoshop and in camera.

Whether you’re shooting film or digital, getting it perfect in camera is *always* the best goal to strive for. As mentioned already, digital capture is less forgiving than neg film, so analyze the scene and decide what detail is important and go about setting the exposure to protect that detail. You’ll find the detail that needs protexting is usually the highligths.

Where Photoshop comes in is the point where you want to open up midtone and shadow details of your image, while holding the detail levels in the highlights that you so carefully protected during capture. Levels and Curves (and adjustment layers) are valuable assets with this chore.

Good luck.
TL
Tim_Lookingbill
Feb 12, 2004
Is this the kind of blowouts your talking about:

< http://www.dpreview.com/gallery/?gallery=sonydscs85_samples1 />

Click on the 5th photo of the portrait of the oriental woman. I couldn’t get the link to download that image.

I don’t know if you’ve been to this site but they are the most detailed I’ve come across including exposure settings for a ton of cameras.
PC
Philo_Calhoun
Feb 12, 2004
Overly dark shadows are not uncommon with digital cameras, and the shadow/highlight adjuster does a great job in improving these. I’d recommend you try this in PS CS and see if it helps your images.
SG
Scottie_G.
Feb 12, 2004
Tim:
Link did not work well — black page, timer kept spinning. Please provide direct url if you can…

I’m shooting mostly jpeg fine so far.

I’m used to shooting slide film metered perfectly– Kodak 100SW– and even with tight beauty, face shots with very hard direct strobe light, getting beautiful nice skin tones. nice shadows…

In my limited experience so far with digital, with hard light, skin — tight face shots — come out so unforgiving — and yes, too hot… ok on part of face ok on others. all in all hideous looking.

I seen that analogy before about digital is like slide film. Maybe that does not wash. Maybe slide film is a lot more forgiving…
TL
Tim_Lookingbill
Feb 12, 2004
Sorry about that Scotty, I have IE 5.16 and that link brings me to the Sony DSC s85 gallery site with a split top window. The top showing the series of samples and the bottom pane showing the first of the samples.

Here’s the link for just the listing of the Sony’s gallery, if you want to fool with it. Scroll down to the Sony DSC s85 link in the list:

<http://www.dpreview.com/gallery/>
AW
Allen_Wicks
Feb 12, 2004
Again: what camera, lens(es) etc. please? Without that info our comments are a waste of our time. E.g., solutions for a first generation Elph and for a 1Ds are very different.
PF
Peter_Figen
Feb 12, 2004
Scottie,

Still without knowing what camera/processing technique you are using, it’s hard to be specific. What I can tell you is that I have been using a 1Ds for about six months now and have not had the problems you refer to. Exposing digital files is not the same as film. In fact, most digital camera makers have their metering systems underexpose a bit just so the highlights don’t hlow out, so going by a handheld meter might have a tendency to overexpose. Shooting raw files will give you more options in terms of image tonality than jpegs, including exposure, sharpening, color balance and white point. I ALWAYS shoot a frame and if not outright processing the raw file, at least look at it in PhaseOne DSLR to check for exposure, focus etc. before embarking on the rest of the shoot. If I’m still not sure, I will process a bracket of images and bring them up on the Artisan to see what is the optimum setting for that shoot.
SG
Scottie_G.
Feb 12, 2004
Tom:
page c85 goes to another black page that keeps spinning and spinning around….

I’m on Nikon D-100 with older AF 85mm lens. Is there a processing techinique? I put card into FW card reader.

Peter: issue I’m bringing up is specific to hard, direct light with no diffusion. With diffusion, umbrellas etc, everything is more or less fine. Have you seen results with digital with direct strobe light compared to same with slide film? It’s scary, and thats why I’m wondering what people do in this specific situation to get those faces looking nice again.
TL
Tim_Lookingbill
Feb 12, 2004
Sorry, Scottie. I guess not all of the internet can be reached due to browser settings or versions. It downloads fine on my OS 9.2.2 Mac using IE 5.16. I have Enable Active X turned off, Show Frames, Enable Scripting, Show Style Sheets and Enable Plug-Ins turned on.

Here’s the home page:

<http://www.dpreview.com/>
R
Ram
Feb 12, 2004
Scottie,

If the highlights on those faces are blown out, the detail just isn’t there at all. There’s nothing one can do to "to get those faces looking nice again".

If there is at least a bit of information in those areas, you can try duplicating the layer, setting the blending mode to Multiply, and adjusting the Opacity as needed. Then you can mask the other areas accordingly. Occasionally, a third layer set to multiply helps, but only if you absolutely must save the image at all costs.
P
PShock
Feb 12, 2004
You sure this isn’t just an oily skin or makeup problem? "Digital" doesn’t know soft light from hard.

Light doesnt get much harder than a focusable spot! <http://shock.spymac.net/hard.jpg>

(Well, there’s a touch of fill in there.)

-phil
AW
Allen_Wicks
Feb 13, 2004
Scottie-

What you describe is almost certainly due to poor lighting. Use the histogram and highlights review screens to review/reshoot to correct your lighting/exposure. Also, verify the White Balance setting.

RAW is a D100 luxury that I don’t have time for; I too shoot JPEG Fine, no problem there. Instantly reviewing pix to verify lighting/exposure helps a lot to minimize post processing. The histogram and blowout screens are right next to each other sequentially, so it literally only takes one second to review.

All that said, pix shot with hard, direct light look… hard and direct. Digital SLR images are much less filtered/lossy (or whatever adjective is correct) than most 35 mm film scans, so what you are describing actually may be the digicam medium itself being less forgiving of harsh lighting; I don’t know.

Compare digicam images to scans, not to slides themselves. The one-up fully analog film medium truly is a different beast.
SG
Scottie_G.
Feb 13, 2004
Thanks for tip Ramon and others. I’m gonna takes notes for future reference. Phil, I assume that was a digital shot and it did look nice (of course, I’m not seeing it on my monitor close up and before any spotting.) I think though that tight face/beauty shots with hard and somtimes shadowy light may be the most difficut thing for digital compared to traditional film.
P
PShock
Feb 13, 2004
Scottie –

Yes, that was captured with a getting-lowlier-by-the-minute Canon D60. I processed the RAW image literally seconds before posting it here. Save for a tiny Levels adjustment, It hasn’t been tweaked in the least as I just used the "As Shot" settings in ACR. But at capture time, I was using a custom white balance and exposure was verified with a Powerbook. If a laptop isn’t possible, the camera’s LCD is the way to go as Allen suggests.

I just posted it to show I wasn’t experiencing your problem. (At least, I assume your results are different.) Can you link an example?

-phil
TL
Tim_Lookingbill
Feb 13, 2004
PShock, nice shot, nice subject.

Hope you don’t take this wrong and think I’m disparaging your work. It’s quite professional. I’m just making an observation. But is it the nature of digital to show skintones under that kind of light to show up flat and chalky or is it like that in film as well or maybe it’s the makeup base?

I’ve noticed this as well on high quality TV broadcasts, in particular cable and local news station talking heads, and in print.

I have a feeling it’s the makeup because it doesn’t show up all the time. I think the makeup reflects light differently or reacts with artificial studio light.
P
PShock
Feb 13, 2004
You can disparage my work, I’ve got thick skin. ; )
(Besides, I agree with you – it is chalky and I don’t much care for it. But I didn’t post it as a portfolio piece – I just thought it germain to the discussion.)

To answer your question though, yes – the makeup is really flat. Combine that with really flat light and well… It’d look pretty much the same with film. Again, I haven’t found any real world "problems inherent in digital" vs film. High-key, low-key, middle-of-the-road key, it’s all good. Just like with film, it’s a matter of controlling contrast.

As far a dynamic range, I’d disagree that digital has less range than slide film. If anything it’s greater. It’s true that highlights are slightly more susceptible to blow-out, but in my experience, digital reaches much deeper into shadows. The range is larger – but shifted a bit. Since I’ve always been primarily an E-6 shooter, the transistion to digital really hasn’t been a big deal for me because being cautious of highlights is second nature. I certainly haven’t changed how I light anything. (Post-production workflow is another story.)

-phil
WZ
Wade_Zimmerman
Feb 13, 2004
From an outside observer of digital photography it seems to me that digital is either terribly flat or it is attempt at contrast simply fails to make the grade.

It is it’s Achilles heal. They’ll have to come up with something better.

Phil that is a bit flat, no? Even if the client liked it!
PC
Philo_Calhoun
Feb 13, 2004
I don’t think digital is flat relative to film. The major difference I see is occasional colour artifacts in blown out highlights, but proper lighting and exposure effectively prevent that. It seems that contrast may be increased in digital compared with film, but recovery of shadow detail is better than with film, so accurate post processing should fix that. With studio lighting, both should work fine. With difficult out of studio lighting, I find digital easier to fix. If one wants 8×10 film, tilting and shifting view cameras etc, film still has no peer.
SG
Scottie_G.
Feb 13, 2004
Phil:
Don’t have energy right now to post link, but I re-examined those hard light shots I did and in fact, perhaps it was a combination of the subject and make up. (not sure yet) The subject, woman 39, is pretty, but no longer a 20 year old spring chicken with flawless skin.

also see greasy hotspots on forehead, nose and under parts of one eye. Rest of face is better. So either there was not enough powder in first place, or make up would have been ok with umbrella flat light but could not handle hard snoot light. That’s the thing, though, I did umbrella soft light too, and they look much better as far as hotspots go, so I was thinking digital was not handling the hotspots that occur with harder light (as well as print or slide film), but maybe it’s this one model/make-up combination. have to keep testing……..
TL
Tim_Lookingbill
Feb 13, 2004
Since, I don’t have a digital camera, yet, I was curious to find out the bit variances seen on a zoomed in area of this flatness as well as the transition point into the blowouts on a high quality digital capture. Bit variances meaning how many individual pixels have different chromatic variations of color to give the illusion of depth much like what multicolored film grain gives.

I dont’ know if I’m discribing it right, but usually compression algorithms of digital captures destroy this affect leading to the flat look or choppy transitions into blowouts.
AW
Allen_Wicks
Feb 13, 2004
The *really* cool thing with digital is that you can show the stylist/makeup folks what it looks like, real time. Then lighting, makeup, etc. can be adjusted very quickly.

Loading images to the TiBook from the D100 card is a bit slow. I am looking forward to my next Nikon digicam SLR that will easily support real time computer images review. The D2h does it now, but I await a few more pixels…
TL
Tim_Lookingbill
Feb 13, 2004
Then it is the makeup that gives that look. I’m noticing this also in restored classic color movies like Jimmy Stewart in Hitchcock’s Vertigo. I’ve never seen so much makeup on a man.
P
PShock
Feb 13, 2004
Scottie –

You can keep testing if you like, but I can tell you right now that your problem is not due to "digital" or even the age of the woman but the combination of makeup/facial oils and hard light/overexposure. Of course the problem won’t be as pronounced with soft light because it’s much more forgiving. That’s the point. I could post a shot of 70 year-old woman with the same type of light as my previous example and you’d not see a trace of blown highlights. Oily skin = specular surface — specular surface lit with hard light = specular (blown) highlights. If you had no control over makeup, you still could have dealt with it at time of capture by NOT overexposing the highlights and then later dealing with the underexposure in Photoshop. Just like with E-6, once highlights are gone, they’re gone forever. It’s completely possible to "fix" makeup and even lighting problems afterwards, but the detail has to be there to begin with. If you need to error – error on the side of underexposure.

Wade –

Oh, boy … here we go again. ;–)

"Flat" as in levels contrast or as in flat light/makeup? I’ve already commented on the light and makeup so I assume you’re talking about levels. Doesn’t look flat on my monitor. But keep in mind that my screen is calibrated at a gamma of 2.2. If yours is 1.8, it’s going to look washed out and flat. And anyway, as i said earlier I really didn’t spend time on the image. Didn’t realize there was going to be a test.

But really – statements like, "digital is flat", or "digital is muddy" are false.

Tell you what, how about you and I play a little game? (anyone can play if they like) Since you seem to have the unique ability to judge the weakness of digital from looking at small jpeg images on the web, you should have no trouble in picking out which of the images posted below are film and which are digital. If you can accurately tell me which are which, I’m here to state publicly that I will never again question your opinions. (I realize asking you to reciprocate if you fail is pointless so I won’t even bother.) ;- )

13 unrelated images – some film, some digital. Answers provided at the conclusion. Have fun!

<http://shock.spymac.net/fvd-1.jpg>
<http://shock.spymac.net/fvd-2.jpg>

-phil
TL
Tim_Lookingbill
Feb 13, 2004
Were you addressing this to Wade or me? If me, I’m not offering opinions, just observations hopefully leading to an understanding.
P
PShock
Feb 13, 2004
No Tim, I was talking to Wade. But go ahead and try to guess which is which. Seriously. There’s no hard feelings here.

For whatever reason, people try to make digital out to be an inferior tool when it’s simply not true. There are differences sure, but many of the "digital issues" are unfounded. In the past, I’ve heard all kinds of problems blamed on digital when clearly the problem was elsewhere. This thread was started because Scottie had/has the idea that "digital can’t handle hard light". Others have said, "digital is flat" and digital is muddy. I’m just trying to lay those misconceptions to rest. If either of those were true, it should be a piece of cake to pick out film or digital. Give it a shot. Actually, I think the more that participate will better help your understanding.

-phil
AW
Allen_Wicks
Feb 13, 2004
Well said, Phil.
TL
Tim_Lookingbill
Feb 13, 2004
I’m already sold on digital. Long time ago. I looked at your links and I couldn’t tell the difference. Fantastic work, BTW.

But my observation has mainly been based on broadcast TV and bad Epson inkjet samples from pro photographers from the manufacturer and what I”ve noticed in gravure printed periodicals in the Sunday paper. I couldn’t tell if it was the makeup, the type of capture or the medium in which it was presented.

It’s been the makeup work all along.

Digital sees everything. Better than film. Catch some digitaly restored "Night Gallery" episodes on a digital broadcast. You can see every pore, hair and the tons of makeup they used. When they originally aired back in the ’70’s you couldn’t see this.
DK
Doug_Katz
Feb 13, 2004
For a strictly scientific comparison, I would simply have to be in extremely close proximity to the subjects in #1, #4, and #10. Short of that, the analysis is simply frustrating.
R
Ram
Feb 13, 2004
… like Jimmy Stewart in Hitchcock’s Vertigo. I’ve never seen so much makeup on a man.

James Stewart was in Vertigo? I was too busy watching Kim Novak to notice.
TL
Tim_Lookingbill
Feb 13, 2004
Kim had the pancake, too.
PF
Peter_Figen
Feb 14, 2004
Wade,

Sometimes digital pics and SEEM flatter because you’re seeing more detail in the shadows than you’re used to seeing from film scans, but more often the reason is probably because whoever corrected the image did a lousy job of it. Having shot thousands of digital captures and scanned thousands more pieces of film, I can say that in the final analysis, that there is no inherent flatness to digital.

In addition to shooting my own images, I often get paid to make other people’s image look their best, and even digital pics shot on consumer grade, with good color and tonal correction, can look much better than one would ever expect.
WZ
Wade_Zimmerman
Feb 14, 2004
Hard to tell from the jpegs but I’ll guess 1 4 6 8 11 are film although they all actually look digital to me but if you say some are film then those would be my choice.

But in any chase they all look rather on the dull side and awfully flat.

That is my observation!
TL
Tim_Lookingbill
Feb 14, 2004
Wade,

I think a lot of what you call flat is more of his aesthetic choice of using diffused lighting, not the limitations of the capture medium if there are any. This IS my opinion and not an observation.

His work is so over-the-top high quality from my layman prosumer point of reference that I can’t distinguish what you are seeing.

I saw an ad in PEI mag of the Phase One, shows a shot of the grayhaired hippy dude with head resting on his hand, and the realism was so freakish considering the low gamut of web offset. I compared this shot to the film based photography in predigital issues of CA and Print-high end ad business sheet fed pubs, and it doesn’t compare in quality to the Phase One in my opinion. That shot captured very realistic translucent fleshtones.
P
PShock
Feb 14, 2004
Interesting observation Wade — wrong, but interesting.

Curious though, what was your criteria in coming to your conclusion? Were your choices based on technical issues, (say, artifacting , tonal range, etc), or were you simply trying to guess which of the subjects I would have shot digitally?

… and awfully flat.

Hmm … again, not on my screen. There’s probably a couple that could benefit from a bit of a boost but certainly not as you describe. Is your monitor calibrated? What gamma? (images on your "home page" look dark to me, leading me to believe you’re using 1.8 – I’m at 2.2) How old is your monitor? CRTs DO lose contrast over time. Still, maybe you’re right and I should thank you for pointing this out. Maybe I’m one of those that’s in desperate need of Peter’s services and don’t realize it. Would anyone else describe these as "awfully flat"? (honest, I’m not interested in polite compliments.)

Regardless, your comments – "it’s hard to tell from jpegs" and "they all look digital to me", EXACTLY proves my point. Of course it’s hard to tell! The mere fact that you think they all look one way or another should be enough for you to realize that trying to base judgement from web based images is pointless. On a monitor screen, a film image can look just as good – or bad as a digital image. Thanks for proving this fact publically. (And yes, there are film images in those pages – actually, more of them than digital.) But naturally, you’ll continue to bash digital without any facts or experience to back it up. You just wouldn’t be you otherwise. (And gosh darn it – I guess I wouldn’t want you any other way – you’re entertaining, if nothing else.)

That’s my observation! :p

-phil

(Tim – thanks) 🙂
PF
Peter_Figen
Feb 14, 2004
Phil,

You don’t me at all. Your images are fine. It might be better for people to download them and then view them in Photoshop where they can take advantage of CM and view them properly. These days the only place where monitor gamma does make a difference is in non CM applications, like most web browsers. If your images are in sRGB for the web, then they should actually look more contrasty on a 1.8 system. There are so many variables to the monitor thing including the black point luminance, and ambient light, the age and brand and even the size of the monitor, etc. that all affect calibration and performance, not to mention the eyes that are looking at it.
TL
Tim_Lookingbill
Feb 14, 2004
They only look contrasty and saturated on my 1.8 system if I turn Colorsync on in IE prefs. I never know if the saturated look was what was intended.

When viewing digicam samples on dpreview.com, some shots, such as close up of flowers, are too saturated so I turn it off. I also turn it off to see how the cam captures shadow detail in hair or bounced light in shaded outdoor scenes. Of course, some saturation is sacrificed.

My 1.8 might be set a little to dark, maybe at 1.9.
WZ
Wade_Zimmerman
Feb 14, 2004
How could I put this so you would understand, you don’t know what contrast is and you don’t seem to understand the nature of light an shadow. You seem so frightened of it that you eliminated any real natural contrast in you images going to extraordinary efforts not reveal the source of light. So it is hard to say what you are shooting with as well as what you have to say about the subject except that you seem to think everything has no spirit or inspiration and so even when you try to use tried and true techniques for establishing drama, albeit unnatural drama, it still lacks any statement of expression.

Does that get the point across, art is contrast, life is contrast, light is contrast, for every action there is a reaction, it is all relative except for your work.

It doesn’t matter where you use film, digital or even expose paper in a pinhole camera it would all come out flat. Because that is the way you see things even though that is not the way things are.

Here is an image that my audience and just about everyone else I have shown it to likes a great deal. It is very quiet photograph and there is some orange construction barrier netting that retouched out and the sky had been fogged by the Parisian Airport Security, aren’t they sweet, in the center portion of the image so that had to be restored and they Venetians were partying the night before so the canal had to be dredge of litter.

Quite and natural doesn’t mean dull and I know this is not the exciting high pace world of fashion but it makes my point.

Giudecca <http://mysite.verizon.net/wzphoto/JudeccaB.jpg>
TL
Tim_Lookingbill
Feb 15, 2004
Wade,

Have you scene the drama in this guy’s work:

<http://www.josephholmes.com/>

The Ansel Adams of color photography.
P
PShock
Feb 15, 2004
Thanks for the link, Tim. Awesome photo! < http://www.josephholmes.com/images/014%20California%20Hills% 20F5.jpg>

-phil
L
Lundberg02
Feb 15, 2004
That is indeed a splendid picture. I wonder where it was taken. That area looks like a certain part of central California near Modesto on Hiighway 46. Maybe it’s not even in the US. There aren’t enough live oaks.
WZ
Wade_Zimmerman
Feb 15, 2004
You know it is very nice indeed, now don’t get up set, but it is not my kind of thing.

It is just not something I would want hanging in my home but I can see where others would find this kind of thing of great value to themselves.

Different strokes for different folks.

Of course we all know that Ansel Adams did color work as well and I kind of find his color work more interesting than his black and white. Now that is how I see it.

Now as far as contrast in Digital photography it has problems in this area and you are being a little dishonest if you say it doesn’t.

I spoke with people from Kodak, Mamiya, Contax, Sinar Bron and they all fess up you are going to have a problem with contrast with digital capture.

I think that this may have to rethinked before it is as viable as everyone wants it to be.

Oh, yes the thing I dislike about the images posted is that they shout so loud that it almost hurts to look at them.
P
PShock
Feb 15, 2004
Close Lundberg. The index page says San Benito County, Ca which is slightly north and west of Fresno. So somewhere in the Salinas / Hollister area. (Think you meant Highway 41 though. Hwy 46 is over 100 mi south of Modesto and only runs W/SE from Paso Robles to Bakersfield. I put enough miles on that boring road.)

-phil
TL
Tim_Lookingbill
Feb 15, 2004
Yeah, Pshock, that one is one of my favorites and jumped out at me. Thought of making it my desktop if only I didn’t keep a gray motif.

Wade, I don’t know what you are calling contrast. I always thought film’s contrast had to be achieved at the expense of loss of data in the shadow regions.

Have you ever used a perceptual gamma curve rather than rely on default math based gamma curve profiles?

I view Joe’s work in 1.8 gamma. It gives a more natural desaturated look and opens up shadow detail. Of course I don’t know if that’s what he intended it to be viewed in but I like it.
WZ
Wade_Zimmerman
Feb 15, 2004
Film contrast is achieved in may ways the most difficult thing for professional and amateur to understand is density for instance from your approach you say it is a question of data loss. Well a think negative or under exposed would less information inherent in the latent image in the emulsion and would also lack contrast because of the lack of density.

You are following me on this, correct?

Ok and over exposed film would have a denser latent image in the emulsion and far more information and much more contrast as well.

Now one can use the technique of over exposing a piece of film and under developing it to obtain a large latitude of information and even more contrast then one would get with either an over or under exposed sheet of film. this is the approach that of course Ansel Adams took. It was not a technique he invented but one that he formalized.

You can expose your film at the correct optimal exposure and you would lose contrast compared to that method and perhaps some detail or information but you would have perhaps a more natural look depending on how it was printed.

You can then use other methods of printing from that will yield increased detail and sharpness through maskings and improve both more contrast and a larger amount of detail or data. such a technique is the Dye Transfer.

There are other techniques of deliberately printing a dark print and bleaching back the print either overall or by a spot method.

Are you still following my train of thought? That’s correct what I am saying is that things don’t always appear to be what they are and the simplistic most comfortable easy to accept concept is not always the true.
TL
Tim_Lookingbill
Feb 15, 2004
Can you post a linked image showing a side by side comparison of what you’re talking about? I’m not a professional photographer, but I think I have a good eye for judging images as well as an open mind.

If not an interesting discussion none the less.
P
PShock
Feb 15, 2004
Tim –

Don’t let Wade’s agenda to bash me and my work confuse you about any of this stuff. For whatever reason, my work has always seemed to threaten him and from day one, he’s felt the need to play volunteer art critic and point out what’s "wrong" with it. His comments about my "lack of understanding contrast" are nothing more than personal attacks and have absolutely nothing to do with the discussion.

If learning about B/W film and printing is what you’re truly interested in, investigate the Zone System. The non-self important explaination is – expose for shadows and develop for highlights. This method will indeed provide greater contrast that can be achieved with an "overall correct" exposure and normal development. However, it is possible to apply Zone System principals to digital imaging. A good book that gets into it is Photoshop CS Artistry by Haynes/Crumpler. (I’m assuming there’s a CS version since they’ve updated every version beginning with PS 4)

Lighting contrast and image contrast are two different things. The "art is contrast, life is contrast …", pretentious bull$hit aside, it’s quite possible to have good contrast in a scene which has relatively few shadows or highlights. Flat lighting doesn’t automatically equate to flat contrast and conversely, a scene with contrasty lighting can indeed end up with low contrast.

This scene is very flat in terms of light, yet has perfectly good contrast. < http://www.josephholmes.com/images/005%20Black%20Oaks%20Wint erF6.jpg>

-phil
WZ
Wade_Zimmerman
Feb 15, 2004
I am not attacking Phil I just think his work is very flat and I have made that same comment many times.

I simply disagree with him on a lot of things and especially his understanding of contrast and notions about lighting.

Now as I mentioned I also don’t like Joseph Holmes work as I think it is a vulgar interpretation of the landscape. Now I can see people saying well I don’t really care if he makes more of the photography than he does of the subject. I find it patented
and trite.

As far as posting examples as I pointed out you are familiar already with examples of the work as both Phil and I pointed out that Ansel Adams use this technique and formalized it by calling it the Zone System and created a kind scale for it. He tried to make a method out of this technique but no one seems to be able to follow his method though many professional still use the technique, keep in mind he did not invent the technique.

BTW The idea that I am threaten by Phil’s work tells you something about him. I enjoy helping people on the forum when I can and learning from both the professionals and user like yourself who are not professional although I suspect you are professional just not a professional photographer. You know what I mean, there is a lot to be learnt here, even about digital photography and even if digital photography doesn’t last.

Let’s see what happens in ten years?
RH
r_harvey
Feb 15, 2004
I’ve not used digital much yet. Scanning film is great, though–you can pick your way through nearly-black shadows, and pull detail from blown-out highlights.

As an outsider, it looks like you treat digital cameras as a very fast transparency film (alas, without the speed). There’s no latitude. If you try to push it, it’s all noise and blown-out highlights. If you pull it, it’s a little flatter and more manageable–but it’s still tonally compressed. I suppose this will change as 16-bits per channel takes over, so that there’s more range.
C
Cindy
Feb 15, 2004
I suppose this will change as 16-bits per channel takes over

There already is 16 bits per channel if you shoot in RAW
PH
Paul_Hokanson
Feb 15, 2004
You know what I mean, there is a lot to be learnt here

Yup.

I "learnt" there are (is) some (one?) closed mind(s) here… closed to thinking different… closed to utilizing new tools to exercise practiced concepts… closed to the notion that extending the perceived contrast range of film by over-exposing, then developing for highlights THEN scanning is NOT the only method of attaining the necessary dynamic range during capture… that film is NOT the only technology we have to make images these days.

I’ve never posted a comment during a Wade "film is dead long live film (sans punctuation)" thread. For some reason, I found this one to be especially tiring (and aimed at Phil in a very unprofessional way).

Elitism on BOTH sides of the digital argument is tiring. When it is spewed in an unprofessional rant ("rant" or "stream of too-lazy-to-proofread-or-even-use-punctuation consciousness"… take your pick… they’re both the same in my eye), I find it difficult to remain silent.

Phil, thanks for being a professional during these discussions… keep up the good work.
WZ
Wade_Zimmerman
Feb 15, 2004
But Paul I see my prejudices do you see yours! No one says you shouldn’t shoot digitally am embrace it and have all the success in the world with doing so, But the idea that someone has to embrace a technique or technology because you or someone else like you does embrace such a technology is closed minded.

In your case it is not even an attempt to see why the other person is rejecting the approach you just assume they are wrong because you know in your heart you are the way!

My opinion is that Phils work is quite flat, but that is my professional opinion and the reason I point it out is that using his work to judge the merits or faults of digital or
film would be very difficult for that reason. And he has posted his work often enough to prove points about the subject that his work simply is not showing.

He posted a whole bunch of images in this thread and some digital and some film quite frankly I didn’t see any difference in any of them as far tonal range contrast etc.

He didn’t make his point.

If my honesty about digital capture offense you I guess that is your problem after all we are only talking about cameras and photographs! No?
PH
Paul_Hokanson
Feb 15, 2004
after all we are only talking about cameras and photographs! No?

I’d like to think so. And I am not against the use of any method, using any technology, that is best for whatever image I am tasked with capturing. That I’ve chosen digital capture more often than film in the past two years to achieve this does not make me prejudiced toward it.

I do think, however, that since your line of professional work requires and benefits from larger film formats, tilts and shifts, and ground glass focusing, you’ve lost some perspective in the digital v. film discussion. Whether there is or is not a digital capture solution for your own needs can be debated by folks in your own industry (I am not a large format shooter and will never pretend to be). But there are many professional photographers in this world who are shooting for many clients with a wide range of output needs. Some shoot film. Some shoot digital. And if they are making intelligent choices, it all works.

Afterall, we’re talking about cameras and photographs here, right?

What continues to shine brightly, however, is your own professional application for film and its benefits argument applied to just about every discussion here that mentions digital capture. It’s fine to be passionate about something, just don’t let your passion illustrate ignorance or misunderstanding.
DK
Doug_Katz
Feb 15, 2004
Well, Paul, you guys may be talking only about cameras and photographs. I’m still talking about Phil’s #1, #4, and #10.

I mean, who are we kidding here? Our children will find this film/digital "controversy" quaint at best. They’ll regard film the way I regarded Vermeer’s mixing of paints from raw materials in "Girl with a Pearl Necklace" last night at the movie theater. (Of course, they’ll look at our current methods of digital capture the same way.) So, as you suggest, it really doesn’t matter if Wade clings to quaint and cumbersome film – "for all the right aesthetic reasons" – and I choose flat digital – "for all the right aesthetic reasons." The "raging debate" about film and digital will last about a nonosecond in the scheme of things anyway.

But #1, #4, and #10? Ahh. Now there’s timelessness. Phil, you dog you…..
PH
Paul_Hokanson
Feb 15, 2004
Doug,

Thanks and I agree.

My comments were posted in response to Wade’s, and not in an effort to continue the "raging debate" about film and digital.
RH
r_harvey
Feb 15, 2004
Isn’t the thread about quantifying the characteristics of the medium, and how to best use it? Calling it good or bad is not the point–it’s like complaining that Tri-X is grainy; either work within its capabilities, or don’t use it.
DK
Doug_Katz
Feb 15, 2004
I knew exactly why you posted, Paul. As important, I know exactly why you often don’t in situations like these.
TL
Tim_Lookingbill
Feb 16, 2004
I like that Zone system mentioned here. Shoot for the shadows, underexpose for highlights and edit later in PS.

I guess that’s what I was sort of doing when I discovered the use of a 1.0 gamma profile that came with my scanner. I couldn’t understand its use since it washed out the high contrast film prints I was restoring.

It did pick up quite a bit of detail not seen under normal light. Got it into PS, used curves and was amazed at what I could pull out of the washed out shot. It allowed me to apply my own perceptual curve as apposed to the math based one applied with a simple profile conversion.

My question about digital is, if this technique is applied in exposure at capture, would you be able to pick up these levels in the highlights? Can digital be that sensitive? I mean, if shooting a golf ball under hard light and underexposing this area, would I be able pull a smooth transition to a top 253 level for example or would there be jumps or dropouts?
WZ
Wade_Zimmerman
Feb 16, 2004
I will say that I like the way the threads on digital capture and equipment are going these days much more so then they had been in the past and know one is now suggesting that even amateurs need to by an $8,000 camera if they want to do any kind of meaningful digital capture.

And the fact that you guys bring the problems of digital capture to front as real issues rather than brushing them aside as if they don’t exist.

I think nature will take it course when it comes to those issues, time will tell.
L
Lundberg02
Feb 16, 2004
I believe that I did mean Highway 41. I haven’t been up that way for ten years or so. At certain times of the year, it is obvious why California is called the "Golden State", it’s not because of the gold rush of 49, it’s because the golden color of these central California hills is overwhelming. By the way, San Francisco is stil central California, there’s a heckuva lot of state left north of the bay area.

Second subject: The film makers took great care to have the "Girl" film look like a Vermeer. The cinematography should win an Oscar. If you haven’t seen Jon Jost’s "All The Vermeers In New York". see if you can rent it.

Third subject: I don’t think it’s contradictory to have flat light and excellent contrast. That’s how you instantly recognize movies made by the old Hollywood studio sysytem.
PF
Peter_Figen
Feb 16, 2004
Is Wade reading the same thread everyone else is? What I’ve been saying is that even relatively inexpensive 3-5 megapixel consumer cameras are capable of some pretty amazing images. I don’t shoot with them personally, but have used those images in several brochures/posters, ets.After being color and tonally corrected, they are not flat in the least. They reproduce as well as any scanned image and sometimes better, as long as they stay within the limits of their resolution, but that would hold true for scanned film anyway. It all comes down to technique, true for film or digital. The technique, for a lot of people, needs some refinement, but that’s not "digital’s" fault. Wade seems to want to put the blame in the wrong court. When I work with digital images, it’s all pixel to me. I really don’t care whether it comes from a scan or a digital camera, and these days, more and more often, it’s the latter.
DK
Doug_Katz
Feb 16, 2004
Lundberg: "The film makers took great care to have the "Girl" film look like a Vermeer. The cinematography should win an Oscar."

Beautiful, soft shafts of light through musty 17th Century windows of glass and wrought iron muting the colors and casting the most gentle, paintable shadows. You just know days and days were dedicated to composing every single last scene with the master painter’s works in mind. And how ’bout the hues and saturation of those raw materials in the attic used for making paints? Breathtaking.

Must have been shot digitally 🙂
WZ
Wade_Zimmerman
Feb 16, 2004
Peter you the fellow that photographs the music personalities? Excellent work!

But you also have a pretty big mouth! 🙂

But you are correct and incorrect at the same time when you say pixels are just pixels when working with an image especially in high resolution and large document files pixels become a subtle range of integrates information not as simple as one would like it to be. And the point that was being made is that the origin of the information has an impact on the structure albeit similar.

Every professional I speak with that works with digital capture and scanned film files tell me that there is a definite loss of contrast with the digital capture and that no matter what they do and many of them are truly on the top level of imagine manipulation, they simply find that the contrast that you get from scanned film cannot be compared to by digital capture.

As I point out that your work is excellent and you understand all about contrast and your approach to photography is very different say than that of Phil. Do you really think there is no difference between film capture and digital capture once they are on a hard drive?

My opinion about digital capture as opposed to film is that they are simply a bit different and that each offers opportunities that the other does not.
P
PShock
Feb 16, 2004
In all seriousness, Wade – you’re starting to piss me off. I’ve done my best to stay out of the personal digs but you can’t seem to shut your mouth.

Yes, it’s absolutely obvious that my work threatens you and my guess is that it’s because I actually know how to light and you don’t. Every single one of your interior shots I’ve seen that doesn’t rely 100% on natural light is sub-standard and wouldn’t even warrant a B grade as a first year photo student. The only thing you have going for you as a "professional" architect photographer is that you posses a view camera and have apparently mastered swings and tilts – the very same qualifications photo students can brag about within two months of study. That grab shot you posted, while fine in a mundane sense, is just that – a grab shot that any tourist with a digital camera could have snapped while passing by. You certainly didn’t raise credibility by posting it.

That you don’t care for my particular style or subject matter is one thing, but to continually suggest I don’t know what I’m doing or "don’t understand" is not only insulting, but it spotlights just how much of an idiot you really are. And yes, idiot is the word that comes to mind every time I read one of your indecipherable, 2nd grade-level-grammar posts – and I make allowances for the grammar.

I’m outta’ here folks. I leave the burden of dealing with morons to you as I no longer have the time or desire. Apologies for sinking to this level – my threshold only goes so far.

-phil
WZ
Wade_Zimmerman
Feb 16, 2004
I guess you are entitled to your opinion for what it i worth, I have no problem with you expressing yourself.

I still think the examples you posted are flat and I have seen work by Mr. Figen and I selected his work as an example that is not flat. The issue here was contrast not your portfolio.

If you read posts in the past in which Mr. Figen has responded you would know we seldom find ourselves on the same side of the coin and he has never accused me of attacking him.

Hey, you just made a whole much of judgments about my work and have in the past many times I have never defended them against your opinions because they are your opinions and in this country at least you are free to express those opinions.

And feel free to in the future.

Try to have a good day!
L
Lundberg02
Feb 16, 2004
Great comment Doug!!!!

Vermeer and Velasquez("Pope Innocent X") are my fave old masters
PF
Peter_Figen
Feb 16, 2004
"Every professional I speak with that works with digital capture and scanned film files tell me that there is a definite loss of contrast with the digital capture and that no matter what they do and many of them are truly on the top level of imagine manipulation, they simply find that the contrast that you get from scanned film cannot be compared to by digital capture."

Wade,

Regardless of what some people have told you, I stand by my previous statement. Pixels is pixels when it comes to contrast and it’s up to the "expert" in question to dial in as much or little contrast as they want. While digital captures *may* be a bit flatter at the initial capture and processing stage, they’re not finished then either. The exact state of a given image depends on a lot of things, including a myriad of setting in raw processing software that can have a profound effect on the image. Most of us who regularly work digitally, expose and process our images a bit on the conservative side, with some room to spare in the shadows and highlights and then fine tune the image for optimum tonality, contrast and color in Photoshop. I’ll repeat again. Any flat images you see only reflect the skill of the person working on those images. There is no intrinsic reason that digital is flatter than film. I"ve got hundreds and hundreds of images to prove it.

Now, just to be fair to film, I have also found that in certain instances, and it seems to be primarily in saturated yellows and oranges, the grain structure in scanned film seems to help the images hold together better when giving the image a substantial boost in saturation. I haven’t tried adding a similar amount of grain to the image and re-compared, but I think that might change the outcome a bit.

BTW, any images you may have seen of mine of musicians were almost certainly done on film, which makes comparing to Phil’s digital images not really a valid comparison in regards to digital contrast.
AW
Allen_Wicks
Feb 16, 2004
Lundberg-

Regarding your statement "By the way, San Francisco is stil central California…" you are incorrect. Folks in the SF Bay Area consider themselves to be in "Northern California," never in Central California. Generally the geographic designations derive from mindset mixed with geography type (Central Valley vs. coastal vs mountains vs. desert; liberals vs. rednecks; etc.). One could write an interesting PhD thesis regarding the CA geographic designations!

Orange County, for instance, is generally considered to be part of Texas…
PF
Peter_Figen
Feb 16, 2004
Ok, then where do the folks in Crescent City, Weaverville and Mt.Shasta live? I grew up in Monterey, two hours south of S.F, and we always called in Central California. Maybe there are imaginary latitudinal lines around Santa Cruz and Santa Ynez that create the "central" California that separates the north from the south.

How off topic can we get?
B
Buko
Feb 17, 2004
We could aways discuss fuzzy bunny slippers.
PH
Paul_Hokanson
Feb 17, 2004
I’ve captured digital images with the highest levels of contrast while wearing fuzzy bunny slippers.

…. funny, I never correlated the two till now.
AW
Allen_Wicks
Feb 17, 2004
Wade-

Regarding "Every professional I speak with that works with digital capture and scanned film files tell me that there is a definite loss of contrast with the digital capture and that no matter what they do and many of them are truly on the top level of imagine manipulation, they simply find that the contrast that you get from scanned film cannot be compared to by digital capture."

Are you sure these individuals are discussing 35 mm scans against SLR digicam capture, like we are here? Because of course quality scans of large format film and often scans of medium format film as well are generally superior to SLR digicam capture of the 8 megapixel and below SLRs.

I suspect the folks you describe were referencing scans of medium and larger format film, in which case your comments are true. However the observation is NOT true as regards 35 mm scans of positives using a Nikon 8000ED. I lack experience regarding drum scans of 35 mm negative film, so I cannot comment on that workflow. Scans of positives using desktop scanners of the 8000ED quality or less are common enough in commercial work that I think my observation above is relevant.

Also note that medium and larger format shooting is by definition limiting – by the very nature of the hardware used as composed to 35 mm type SLRs. So, those kinds of shots generally involve more extensive setup, are on average much more carefully lighted, more static/less dynamic, etc. Much, much more time and expense per shot. Then add in the huge time and expense involved in scanning, and you can see that the final medium format or larger image that an editor sees after scanning comprises a very large investment. It better have more/better image data than an often quickly shot, much less time/money invested, SLR digicam pic!

[A] SLR digicam pix fare very well when compared visually to scans of 35 mm positives shot under identical conditions. [B] Well shot SLR digicam pix generally can be uprezzed substantially more than can scans of 35 mm positives shot under identical conditions.
B
Buko
Feb 17, 2004
It just goes to show that everything is connected somehow.

So were you wearing the fuzzy bunny slippers in central or northen California.
AW
Allen_Wicks
Feb 17, 2004
OT

Two of the retail stores I work for had their retail clerks (all female) wearing such slippers with (expensive!) pajamas on Valentine’s Day. North Lake Tahoe East Central Sierra Nevada; "Northern California."

Their feet hurt.
DK
Doug_Katz
Feb 17, 2004
Lundberg: "Vermeer and Velasquez("Pope Innocent X") are my fave old masters."

Excellent, excellent taste, my friend. And don’t you think Vermeer would have been hot to trot with a digicam? 🙂
WZ
Wade_Zimmerman
Feb 17, 2004
Peter I was not comparing your work to anyone else’s just your approach to the concept of contrast.

However shooting with film or shooting digital should in this context and effecting a big difference would perhaps give credibility to the professionals I speak of and what their experience has proven.

BTW as I understand it Vermeer was essentially a photographer and since emulsions and fixing methods were not available not ones that had any lasting meaning he had no choice but to use paint to capture his images. I understand the Dutch were using the camera obscura. Is that how you spell it?

Also the professionals I work with are not necessarily photographers themselves but retouchers and scanning experts as well as photographers. It is a mix.

But they all produce exceptional work and I respect the knowledge, skills, experience and talents. They definitely know their business.

As far as the format they work with all formats and they all agree that of all the avenues currently available scanning from large format originals is still the best way and that the quality of the original scan will have a profound effect on the final output.
AS
Ann_Shelbourne
Feb 17, 2004
Could be.

It is almost certain that Vermeer used a Camera Obscura but the researcher failed to determine whether it was a digital model.
PF
Peter_Figen
Feb 17, 2004
Now that we seem to have two distinct threads in one, David Hockney’s book, Secret Knowledge is very interesting regarding devices artists including Vermeer used or might have used to assist them in their work.
AS
Ann_Shelbourne
Feb 17, 2004
We cross-posted Wade.

Interestingly, the leading lens-maker in Holland at the time was one of Vermeer’s close personal friends and neighbours.
DK
Doug_Katz
Feb 17, 2004
Peter, I see one, unified, indivisible thread here. It began with Lundberg’s observation and continues through to Ann’s. Has there been anything else?
B
Buko
Feb 17, 2004
It is almost certain that Vermeer used a Camera Obscura but the researcher failed to determine whether it was a digital model.

I believe it was the digital modle. I read somewhere that he used his digits to do the painting
RH
r_harvey
Feb 17, 2004
When I lived there, the San Francisco peninsula, all the way down past San Jose, was in Northern California. I haven’t lived in the Bay area for a long time, so it might have changed.

Well shot SLR digicam pix generally can be uprezzed substantially more than can scans of 35 mm positives shot under identical conditions.

I see how you can scale digital beyond film. With film, you enlarge artifacts and reveal a little hidden detail, but with (lower-res) digital, you’re enlarging smoother areas, without any suggestion of hidden detail or artifacts–existing edges will simply become larger.
PF
Peter_Figen
Feb 17, 2004
"I see how you can scale digital beyond film. With film, you enlarge artifacts and reveal a little hidden detail, but with (lower-res) digital, you’re enlarging smoother areas, without any suggestion of hidden detail or artifacts–existing edges will simply become larger."

High res unsharpened drum scans can be rezzed with effectiveness similar to uprezzing of digital files. The files, either from digital or scanner must only be sharpened after the interpolation. The lack of grain and noise in digital captures tends to make them more amenable to interpolation.

Last year I spent a few weeks comparing the Kodak 14n to film, and found that the 14 megapixel Kodak file when rezzed up to the same image size as a 35mm E100G transparency scanned with a 3 micron aperture (8000 ppi) had far more discernable detail than the scanned image.
WZ
Wade_Zimmerman
Feb 17, 2004
Ok Buko now you’ve got me riled up…he didn’t use the digital model because I know a guy who knew a guy that met another guy who talked to this guy who once went to a museum and saw Vermeer’s work, I think, and he assures me that that guy who talked to that guy who…why am I typing this over…he didn’t have any digits, I think he was talking about Vermeer…wait a second which one was Vermeer?

Well it proves my point now if I could only remember what that was…

8)

BTW it’s kind of funny with all this technology we still find it necessary after all these century to go back and edit what we capture through the photographic method of the day.

The more things change the more they are the same.
L
Lundberg02
Feb 17, 2004
Vermeer would have moonlighted for Penthouse if he were alive today. And it would be shown in museums.

Digital is already averaged in groups of four pixels, each pixel captured has amplitude components of all three colors. It’s no wonder it doesn’t have grain or noise. The Foveon hasn’t been cheap enough for much use, but I’ll bet it isn’t as smooth, even if the resolution is better for a given size.

SF is the biggest city in Central California, geography doesn’t care what weirdos who live there think. Northern California starts somewhere around the Truckee-Marysville -Ukiah -Ft Bragg line, I mean you got to have forests and rugged coastline to be N CA. Live oaks and golden hills and river deltas covering thousands of square miles are not N CA
L
Lundberg02
Feb 17, 2004
Speaking of taste, PFigen’s work is excellent and he’s a seriously funny guy too.

Anyone got change for a new 20?
L
Lundberg02
Feb 17, 2004
I couldnt get Pshocks web sites to work, "not found on this server" yeah, I’m a little late to the party.
AW
Allen_Wicks
Feb 17, 2004
Way OT:

Sorry Lundberg, regarding SF Bay Area geography the many million folks who live there disagree with you, as do most if not all competent textual references. I would agree that "Central" starts to occur as you move eastward from the Coastal Range into the "Delta."
R
Ram
Feb 17, 2004
Allen is right. Even when the federal courts rearranged the districts in California, San Jose and San Francisco ended up in the Northern District of California. It extends from the mountains to the coast, all the way up to the border with Oregon.

The Central District extends from the Tehachapi mountains to just south of Orange County. The Southern District is in San Diego. The Eastern District split from the Northern District and goes from Bakersfield all the way up to the Oregon border, and from the Carquinez Strait to the border with Nevada.

<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Northern_California>
L
Lundberg02
Feb 18, 2004
Like the feds would hold their district court sessions in Willits, of course they included San Francisco.
R
Ram
Feb 18, 2004
The Wikipedia link has nothing to do with the Feds.

No, not in Willits. On the other hand, the USDC for Northern District of California has courthouses in San Jose, Oakland and San Francisco, while the Eastern District (formerly the Eastern Division of the Northern District of California) has courtrooms in such places as Redding, Susanville, South lake Tahoe, Sacramento, Fresno and Bakersfield. 🙂

The feds are not all about glamour –at least not all the time.
AC
augustine_cawley
May 10, 2004
I have a new Nikon D100 and last weekend I took photographs of a community golf tournament. To my suprise every photograph was overexposed.
Question, is there any way for me to fix these picures. Thanks in advance for your help.
R
Ram
May 10, 2004
Augustine,

If the pictures are badly overblown, you can’t bring out detail that isn’t there to begin with.

Depending on what the images are like, you can try duplicating the background layer and setting the blending mode to Multiply, masking it as necessary. You could even duplicate the background more than once.

Judicious use of the Dodge and Clone tools on certain spots might help.

If you could post a sample image somewhere and provide a link to it here, folks might be able to see how badly overexposed it is and suggest something.
AW
Allen_Wicks
May 10, 2004
Post-processing the best you can do is as suggested in Post #95 above.

The biggest benefit of SLR digital is to see what is happening as you shoot. In the future look at your pix as you proceed. On the D100, scroll the LCD back and forth between the histogram and the blowouts views as you shoot, then immediately adjust using Exposure Compensation to make pix just bright enough that on following pix there are no blowouts. It is pretty easy; once you learn that routine there is no reason to ever get multiple over-exposed images using a D100.

Master Retouching Hair

Learn how to rescue details, remove flyaways, add volume, and enhance the definition of hair in any photo. We break down every tool and technique in Photoshop to get picture-perfect hair, every time.

Related Discussion Topics

Nice and short text about related topics in discussion sections