Category Archives: first learn the rules

Lesson 2.1: Histogram

The instant feedback of digital photography has made the process of learning to take great pictures infinitely easier. Did I get everybody in the frame?  Check the LCD.  Did anybody blink?  Check the LCD.

Is my picture too bright/dark?  This is where checking the back of the camera can get beginners into trouble.

It’s important to understand how to read a histogram. Looking at the LCD screen on the back of the camera might not render an accurate picture (your camera’s LCD screen might be set to maximum brightness, for example, which can give you the impression that your pictures are washed out or overexposed) and the LCD screen is also a very small representation of the big picture (pardon all puns.)

A histogram is a graph that displays brightness values. It’s divided into five equal sections moving from left to right: very dark | dark | 30 percent gray | light | very light. The center of the histogram, 30 percent gray, is the value most camera manufacturers use as the default tone for metering and calculating exposure.

Let’s say the building blocks of a histogram begin with a rectangle drawn on a piece of paper. Only instead of looking at it straight-on, you’re going to view it eye-level to the table so that the graph becomes a vertical axis (and shows nothing at this point.) Then you’re going to use a box of tiny little square tiles from Home Depot. Each individual tile represents one value of brightness in your image. You start placing tiles representing pixels into the graph, stacking them according to lightness or darkness. As you get more than one of the same value, you begin stacking them.  You will find that images have a LOT of one value, less of others, so some of those little tile stacks will rise pretty high, maybe even to the top of your graph, others will be short. After all the tiles are stacked from the image, you’re looking at a histogram (vertical axis graphic representation of light and dark values.)

Generally speaking, the goal in a properly exposed image is to find most of your tiles stacked heavily in the middle and tapering off into very dark (left) or very light (right) edges. (Of course, this rule was made to be broken; first learn the rules, then learn to break them.)

Take for example this image of David and Shelley’s thank-you cards.  I’ll consider this image “properly exposed” because it’s a straightforward exposure using the exact settings my camera’s light meter told me to use (I had it set to use center-weighted metering; more on that later.):

Nikon D700, 135mm lens, f4 @ 1/250 second, ISO 200

Nikon D700, 135mm lens, f4 @ 1/250 second, ISO 200

Here’s how all of the individual tiles stack up to represent this image in my histogram:

Notice that there’s a good representation of tiles stacked across the histogram, heaviest in the center and stretching out to either side? This particular image is slightly heavier toward the right as there are a lot of lighter tones in it. (I also blew out the front of the cream colored table the cards were resting on. I did this intentionally, I was metering for the cards, my main subject, not so much the table or wall behind them.)

Here’s an example of this same scene, image intentionally underexposed:

Nikon D700, 135mm lens, f4 @ 1/3200 second, ISO 200

Nikon D700, 135mm lens, f4 @ 1/3200 second, ISO 200

Look at the histogram now and how all my little tiles are stacked heavily to the left; there’s no mistaking that no matter how the image appears on my LCD, it’s in fact very dark; also look at the cream table, which is closer to properly exposed then it was above (the !!! warning sign is still there, just disregard it for now. If you are working in Photoshop and come across it, it’s warning you that the histogram you’re seeing is cached from memory and you’ve since made adjustments to the image that might change its appearance. Just click it and Photoshop will generate a new histogram and the warning will go away.):

histogram of underexposed image

And the same scene intentionally overexposed:

Nikon D700, 135mm lens, f4 @ 1/30 second, ISO 200

Nikon D700, 135mm lens, f4 @ 1/30 second, ISO 200

And its resulting histogram:

overexposed histogram

overexposed histogram

Something interesting that I didn’t intend to find when shooting this example: I avoided most of these exposure issues in post processing by shooting in RAW. As I imported the underexposed and overexposed images into Lightroom, they appeared pretty similar to the correctly exposed image. I had to go back and manually un-do all of my regular workflow develop settings to get them to look like they did on my LCD as I was shooting.:)

[return to the PHOTO 101 Table of Contents]

SOOC Nikon 28-70mm AF vs. Zeiss 35mm manual focus lens

crop-0093-3

Wasn’t it brilliant of Christopher to show up in his favorite T-shirt? Total surprise, he had no idea I went to college at Oregon. I seized the opportunity to use the bright colors of a fun shirt to do a side-by-side comparison.

The test shots surprised me.

Nikon D700, 35mm Zeiss lens, f4 @ 1/250, ISO 200

Nikon D700, 35mm Zeiss lens, f4 @ 1/250, ISO 200


Nikon D700, 28-70mm lens at 35mm, f4 @ 1/250, ISO 200

Nikon D700, 28-70mm lens at 35mm, f4 @ 1/250, ISO 200

Both images straight-out-of-the-camera (SOOC), no color correction or sharpening or enhancements. (The first image of Christopher holding up his running shoes was color corrected and run through my general filters.) Both acceptable, workable images, pulled back. The surprise? I totally expected the Zeiss prime to yield sharper results than the Nikon zoom, but a close-up crop of the eyes (where I was aiming my focus) clearly points to Nikon.

side-by-side

It’s harder to see side-by-side when the images get smaller on screen, so look again at Christopher’s eyebrows, the reflection of me in his sunglasses, and the line where his sunglasses meets the bright studio strobe, first in the Zeiss (where you can see my left hand turning the focus ring) and then in the Nikon (where my left hand is mostly needed to support the behemoth 28-70mm):

Zeiss 35mm

Zeiss 35mm


Nikon 28-70mm at 35mm

Nikon 28-70mm at 35mm

Aside from the chromatic aberrations, which Zeiss wins hands-down, I’m pretty sure hopeful? pointing out the possibility that what we’re seeing is operator error. For the last four years, the auto-focus Nikon has been my go-to lens, especially since I work so much with small children. When I picked up the Nikon to test on Christopher, I shot it using auto-focus. Perhaps I should have switched it over to manual focus for a more fair comparison; but then, I still think there’s something to say about results getting skewed based on the total number of hours I’ve spent working with each lens.

And there’s one more point that bothers me: 20+ years ago when I was shooting with manual focus lenses on film SLRs, the camera body had a split focusing screen. Remember those? My D700 has only a plain screen. I’m interested in a 35mm f/2 manual focus Zeiss precisely for those times when a D700 starts tripping all over itself to autofocus in low light.

Hmmm. A split focusing screen test might be next up in this summer Zeiss experiment.

P.S. I didn’t have the heart to tell him that sunglasses are counterproductive in Eugene!:)

kids, summer, pool, photos and golf

my tags these days

defocusing

defocus
verb ( -focused , -focusing or -focussed, -focussing) [ trans. ]
cause (an image, lens, or beam) to go out of focus : the filter lets you defocus all or part of an image.

•••

At the beach, for example, on vacation: why focus? Watching my husband toss a football to our son requires (of me) very little focus, yet captivates me completely. Dreamy recollections of a beach vacation don’t necessarily rely on the crisp details I demand of a lens.

Find it in the “first learn the rules, then learn to break them” chapter.