Vectorscope, etc, for photo processing?

[Chaotic Beds]

Ok, so I'm a Media Arts student, and I'm learning color correction and contrast optimization for video. I know of the histogram in photography, but in video editing there is also the vectorscope (for color), waveform monitor (for luminosity), and RGB parade (individual luminosity for RGB channels). They are incredibly useful tools, and now I'm wondering if they are available to use in some way for photo processing. I searched around in Photoshop CS5, and have so far come up empty handed...

What gives? It seems to me a crime that the photo peeps are denied these tools, and instead must rely on our often inaccurate eyes looking at monitors with also questionable accuracy... The histogram is very helpful, but now I feel lost without the other 3 monitors....

[zona5101]

What are they useful tools for? Are they used to limit or constraing video so that it can be broadcast or reproduced on certain equipment? It seems there are more parameters such as signal strength, frequency and stuff to deal with in video...

[sk66]

there are individual histograms by channel(parade?)...and overall (waveform?)...no clue what vectorscope is...

[Chaotic Beds]

Originally Posted by zona5101

What are they useful tools for? Are they used to limit or constraing video so that it can be broadcast or reproduced on certain equipment? It seems there are more parameters such as signal strength, frequency and stuff to deal with in video...

Part of the purpose of the waveform monitor is to stay within legal luminance values - for broadcast, it's illegal to have images brighter than an established level... but it also functions kinda like a more detailed histogram. Maybe not a huge difference, but I find the waveform monitor more intuitive.

Originally Posted by sk66

there are individual histograms by channel(parade?)...and overall (waveform?)...no clue what vectorscope is...

Nope, waveform monitor and histogram are different... Similar info, but displayed differently. After using the waveform monitor and RGB parade, relying on only a histogram (and individual channel histograms) seems rather imprecise to me... Although that is probably partially due to how my brain processes information. The format of a histogram causes me to over generalize things. Instead of closely analyzing it, I merely think "oh, this image has a lot of blacks" or whatever.

A vectorscope graphs the hue and saturation of all the colors in an image. This is what I'd like in photo editing more than the other monitors. It's used for color correction. It's especially useful for obtaining ideal flesh tones, as there is a line that indicates these tones on the graph.

After learning to use the vectorscope, it feels very uncomfortable adjusting colors without one. Kinda like how once you learn the histogram, you know to use it instead of just eye-balling your exposure adjustments... Same thing with a vectorscope and color adjustments.

[Chaotic Beds]

Also, part of the purpose of the waveform monitor is to keep luminance values within a "safe" zone... Since most people don't have their televisions adjusted properly, one should adjust the image so the blacks don't get crushed or the highlights blown out on poorly-adjusted tv's.

I think this would be just as useful with digital photography. The only people that calibrate their monitors are typically photographers, etc. You can't expect the average Joe to calibrate their monitors, so you might want to adjust your photo so everyone sees a good exposure.

[sk66]

Originally Posted by Chaotic Beds

Kinda like how once you learn the histogram, you know to use it instead of just eye-balling your exposure adjustments... Same thing with a vectorscope and color adjustments.

Actually, IMO a lot of this is "over analyzation".... I seldom use even the histogram.....I just don't care that much. If a highlight blows out but it fits the image, then fine. "Ideal flesh tones"? I suppose if you have an "ideal model".

I think the difference may be that w/ video you are looking for an "acceptable balance" for all scenes in the video for all displays (TV's)...What is critical is not the individual image(s) but the overall presentation.

With photography I just care about conveying a feeling/idea or showing a rare glimpse of time. If I optimized my image for "average display" I would end up with a remarkably "average" image as often as not...What I care about is print and calibrated monitor..the rest is out of my control.

[Chaotic Beds]

Originally Posted by sk66

Actually, IMO a lot of this is "over analyzation".... I seldom use even the histogram.....I just don't care that much. If a highlight blows out but it fits the image, then fine. "Ideal flesh tones"? I suppose if you have an "ideal model".

Has nothing to do with the ideal model... Everyone's skin of any race has a hue that falls in a surprisingly narrow range... Most of the difference is in saturation and luminance. But even more importantly, unless you're purposefully trying to achieve some effect with the appearance of someone's skin, there's a narrow range of hues in which skin looks "healthy"... Go too much beyond that, and they start to look sick or generally unnatural... Either like a Smurf, or like they have jaundice, or overly pale, etc.

I don't mind blown out highlights either, the problem comes more when you have highs that are close to blown out... On a poorly calibrated screen, all the subtle detail in those highs could look blown out and disappear. Same for lows close to absolute black.

Originally Posted by sk66

I think the difference may be that w/ video you are looking for an "acceptable balance" for all scenes in the video for all displays (TV's)...What is critical is not the individual image(s) but the overall presentation.

VERY good point, I overlooked that. That's half the point of using these monitors, indeed.

Originally Posted by sk66

With photography I just care about conveying a feeling/idea or showing a rare glimpse of time. If I optimized my image for "average display" I would end up with a remarkably "average" image as often as not...What I care about is print and calibrated monitor..the rest is out of my control.

I think that's related to why I'd like these monitors so much... I don't have a proper editing setup. I calibrated my monitor through the computer's internal calibration, but that seemed very subjective itself. Even if I were to calibrate my monitor properly and exactly, I'm on a Macbook, and just changing your angle of view changes brightness, contrast, and color... Nevermind issues regarding changes in ambient light, and therefore having to change screen brightness to compensate. I don't have the means, nor the lifestyle/computing habits, to have one setup that I know is consistent. I edit at home and at school, in various places in each location. Consistency is nigh impossible, as is obtaining one set place to edit (for me at this point in my life, at least). For me, have these monitors would greatly help with my situation. Even if I were to go for something artistic that doesn't reflect reality, I would still need a "normal" reference point.

Also, it might not matter to you, since you only do processing on your calibrated screen and prints, but many photographers have online galleries. A person could gain a poor opinion of their work if their monitor calibration gives a poor representation of the work. That would be dependent on the actual picture, though... It would potentially hurt most for especially high or low key images.

I could see these monitors being especially useful for wedding photographers that give their customers any digital copies... All kinds of people hire wedding photographers, and most people don't know how to even eyeball a screen's calibration.... I may be condescending in saying that... but... it's pretty much true....

[sk66]

At some point you have to realize that no matter how carefully you manage your color, the second you put it on the web it's "wasted effort". Even you, who seems to care, haven't done "proper" (hardware) calibration of your screen (I also use a macbook, I've learned to set the viewing angle within tight limits for editing)....

The majority of "photographers" don't do proper calibration, many do none at all.....others who view your images almost certainly have done nothing....

I calibrate for myself...there is absolutely nothing I can do to control how "others" see my images on their computer (regardless of how delivered).

I suppose you could offer to calibrate their screens or include a calibrator in the sales price

[Chaotic Beds]

I'm fairly new to photography, and only consider myself a hobbyist at this point... I put up a handful of my shots on flickr, but otherwise keep my photography to myself. But anyways, after how much the importance of all of this for video was drilled into me by my professor, I find it rather frightening that this doesn't seem to matter to anyone in the photography field... In video and film, this attention to detail is what makes the difference between good and great. There are people with very healthy salaries whose sole job is to make these minor adjustments to footage. Again, half the point is to balance the color/contrast/etc between shots... But that's not the sole point. You also need a beginning aesthetic to start from and to balance towards....

I do see where you're coming from... My point is that there's not "absolutely nothing" you can do to control how others see your images.... With a small compromise in your "perfect" image, you can control the quality of what they see. Or at least, prevent some of the worst case scenarios... And after all, what's the point in getting perfect PP if only you get to see it? Of course, that doesn't matter if you mainly do prints....

I find it curious that such similar media with similar editing processes can have such varying views on this.

...But in the end, I guess this is just proof that I've been schooled in an entirely (well, kinda) different field.

Sorry if I've been semi-incoherent... I tend to be in the first place, but I've been posting during breaks from editing my final student film. So exhausting.

[ravncat]

Televisions have a set of standards to which the display is designed and adjusted. Computer display standards are different. Most display in an Srgb colorspace - and have a fairly standard range of brightness / contrast - but there is a larger range of "standard" than for televisions. Then there are the graphics cards and how all of the technologies interplay (when you get involved with color profiles and color management - and people running dual management or no management, or have things set incorrectly. With more possible colors to display (than older televisions) the point at which we see changes happens faster. Then The color display on lcds shifts over time, and can vary greatly with viewing angle. - It seems to me that the technology you speak of may not be as relevant for the computer display side of things.

A graph for color, sounds great - but we already have the datato work with if/when we need it - it`s displayed in a few ways - one is in RGB histograms and RGB histogram composites. Others are displayed via colorspace vector in 255/255/255 coordinates or HSL values. It`s quite possible to hover your mouse over skin tones - read the values and see if they fit in the proper hue range. I`ll often check my neutral tones by seeing if the values are within a few points of eachother with the 255/255/255 data.

Photographers - from an artistic viewpoint - tend to care more about how they want the image to look very specifically - and recognize that it`s impossible to make it look "the same" on all monitors. The best we can do is make it look correct to us, on our display, in our prints. The next best is to give it proper color profiling and let the math do it`s job - and if people have a properly calibrated screen - it will look close. It sounds to me that the TV jobs are much more concerned with being in a range of acceptance , and not one specific precise target.

From a professional standpoint - it depends alot more on the job, many journalists and sports photographers will shoot what they need in raw and send it off - other people do the post capture work. It`s much more important in fashion and product photography - but we have calibrated solutions for that - using color patches, camera / monitor / printer profiling, spectrophotometers and grey cards for white balance / exposure. If that`s all done - you don`t have to worry about where the skin tones are - they`ll be in the right place. What`s more important ends up being the final image - and how it is perceived subjectively.

Skin tones are notorious, especially in the black and white realm - notice that we tend to say skin tone and not hue - with black and white being older - hue wasn`t a concern. (It certainly is in color photography) It`s far less important for the image (the composition and content)- and more important for the photograph (substrate, paper, ink).

As I think about it again, I`m certainly not against the idea of a vectorscope, rgb parade and waveform monitor - Yet, I think those things apply to motion in general. We have luminance histograms, RGB luminance and color vectors. I would think that the waveform and vector scope - are a way of displaying that data across motion. This may be the single reason why we don`t have those tools.

I should rewrite this for clarity, and to remove what might not be needed, but I feel maybe there`s something worth conversing or in seeing the line of thought I have...