Off-Topic - advice, experiences and examples, for images that will be processed in PhotoLab

I did this long ago, back when I wanted to calibrate the iMac. I gave up.

The iMac is operating in whatever OS it came with when new. If I update the OS on the iMac, I can’t use it as a remote display as I’m doing.

I connect a video signal from my Mac Mini to the HDMI connector on the back of the iMac, then forget about it. When I simultaneously press “F2” and “Command” on the keyboard permanently connected to the iMac, both of my screens switch off, and then return with the iMac showing an output from my Mac mini, meaning I have two screens from the Mini, on which to do whatever I want. …but doing this disconnects me from being able to control anything on the iMac. Oh, and I have to manually adjust the brightness on the iMac to whatever I want before they are connected. The iMac does nothing from then on, other than act like an external display from my Mac mini. Sometimes like when I reboot the Mac mini, I forget to adjust the screen brightness on the iMac before connecting them.

I’m not even close to being an expert at any of this - I just know if I do what I just described, I have my two displays. I don’t know if anything is changing the brightness of the iMac, automatically or otherwise.

Next time I do this, I will see if I can do what you suggested. Sometimes my iMac looks much too bright, and other times it looks much too dark. It’s annoying, but lots of things in life are annoying. :-). Thank you - next time I’m connecting them, I’ll try your idea.

I think this is totally off-topic for now, but it may make a huge change in “photography”, along with other aspects of AI:

I hope they don’t call it “photography”, not that anyone cares what I think…

1 Like

Here is an official description of what I tried to describe, and a lot more. Some of you may find it useful, if you have an old iMac sitting around unused:

Target Display Mode

The dead evergreen in your photo was finally removed sometime between 2013 and 2020:

Lovely view, of a beautiful scene - and thank you for the update. I’m likely to be back there again in December or January - will have my D780, and I’ll probably be with my friends John and Susie VanSickle. Susie and I have had an arrangement for decades - I teach her photography, and she teaches me “cooking”.

I’ll have to dig out my old image, and compare with your updated image. I forgot all about the old, dead, evergreen. Again, thank you!

I thought I might get an interesting photo at today’s Air Show on Miami Beach. Lots of weapons on display, boats, and planes. I thought the planes were fascinating to watch, and extremely loud, but of all the photos I took, only one appealed to me. It’s a jet fighter going very slow, and a prop-driven plane from World War II I think. I photographed them at a distance, and as they came around where I was standing. I had a high shutter speed because I thought I would need it, and because I was hand-holding my 300mm lens, but I didn’t count on that freezing the propeller. The only “story” it tells, is old vs. new. There were fluffy white clouds all around, but not above me. Not sure if it is in any way “creative or artistic”, and the only “story” it shows is the comparison of propeller vs. jet engines. With a control point I lightened the bottom of the jet, so the details stand out better.

I also have photos of the jets, showing the pilot, but I thought the above image had more "human interest,

780_1140 | 2023-05-28.nef (28.3 MB)
780_1140 | 2023-05-28.nef.dop (14.5 KB)


I found the explanation. Gamma Multipliers and Gamma Lookup Tables (photography).
See the first table.
When spotmetering that subject will be placed in the middle of the histogram when gamma=1 is used,128. Using a gamma of 2.2 then it will be placed at about 135.


Depending on what a person is photographing, there are times when losing detail in highlights, gamma multipliers, histograms, and perfect exposure are impossible. I guessed at my exposure for the shots of the two planes, metering off a building that was facing me, and with the 300 mm lens zoomed out all the way, and the shutter set to 1/2000th to prevent camera movement, and the aperture at f/13 so I’d have at least some depth of field, I spent all my time and effort keeping the two planes captured with some space around them, and my eyes were caught by reflections from the propeller plane - no longer sure what, but they were flickeing on an off - without thinking much, I assumed they had to do with the propeller.

What I’m trying to suggest, there are times, and subjects where everything can be perfectly thought out and adjusted. I’ve also got to admit that I’m not that fast and I don’t think that fast, so I put the D780 in “high speed burst” mode, so I could make my selection later. …and all my photos but for this one fly-by were nothing more than “photojournalism” images, with no “feeling”.

I also took two scenes yesterday with goal being to post one of the images here, but I failed. They came out OK, but they’re “boring”.

I love it the way some of you find something special, and find the perfect way to capture it, even if it means returning another day. For most of my life, I’ve been photographing scenes that don’t repeat - get it right the first time, or forget about it. Maybe that’s why I enjoy photographing Biscayne Bay, as the things that change (such as the sky) give me time to get just the right image.

My understanding of all this is to spot meter the brightest part of an image, then over-expose by two stops. Why? Because I trust @Joanna’s vast experience at this, and it’s all very “alien” to my way of thinking - meter the scene, and shoot.

While I have no interest in buying one of them, I wonder if the cameras that measure light directly off the sensor have an advantage over the rest? This includes the Nikon Z Series top cameras, and the Leica M11, which are capable of measuring from the sensor… but even if so, it is not enough of a reason to give up on my DSLR…

I also took my “bicycles photo” again yesterday, from a new location, correcting the thins I did incorrectly last time. Maybe I’ll post it later, but to me, it’s “boring”. That’s not to say it is or isn’t bad, but it doesn’t excite me the way the airplanes did.

This is my re-do of my older bicycle picture. The sun was where I wanted it, there were lots of bikes in the racks, and I could mostly compare the composition. It doesn’t “excite” me like it did before, and perhaps it would be better in B&W… but I do enjoy seeing most of the colors. Obviously, not all. :slight_smile:

780_0935 | 2023-05-28.nef (31.5 MB)
780_0935 | 2023-05-28.nef.dop (18.6 KB)

It’s a day later, and there are far too many things I don’t like about the bicycle shot. I guess I need to find a different bike rack, and shoot from a different angle. I started out playing with this image, reimagining it, and came up with this VC, but I really need to re-do this from the beginning.

780_0935 | 2023-05-28.nef.dop (36.0 KB)

you don’t read, except your own posts. And you don’t think.
I’m trying to get an explanation of these statements.

From the link I gave the first column of the first table is incorrect in my opinion. One count divide the numeric value by 2 and say that’s one stop. But it shows the change of the values from gamma 1, the raw data, to gamma 2.2 which is the end result.


Unfortunately, you are losing, even me.

The key to perfect exposure is to test the camera you are going to be using, to determine how many stops the sensor can accommodate before losing highlight detail. This cannot be determined from a generic lookup table as it varies from camera manufacturer to camera manufacturer.

I have determined, for my Nikon D850, that I can just about get up to +3EV but, at that point, I am starting to lose detail. So I limit myself to using +2EV to ensure I can recover detail easily, if I want to record the brightest detail as white. If I want to record it as cream or off-white, I meter for +1EV. Nonetheless, for certain subjects, I can just about meter for +3EV, as long as I don’t mind working harder in post-processing and it would be something I would only ever rarely do.

As for gamma and histograms, they are totally irrelevant when taking the shot and just plain confusing to a lot of folks.

1 Like

That are well common values. I’m trying to get an explanation.

When I remember well this was also the case for my D80, according to DxO a DR of 11.2.
When I open an old D80 picture with nearly no lights on the right hand of the histogram I can use the full exposure correction of +4EV without getting clipping highlights.

An addition. People and I think also you, are mentioning the differences in exposure room between raw data and jpg data. I think there isn’t.


Wonder what you are so fond of … taking “bicycles to explore town”.

VC1 → 780_0935 2023-05-28.nef.dop (91,7 KB)

That’s it. Use as much dynamic range as possible from sensors.

Some are using flat profile in camera to get a more near to raw datas histogram when shooting.
I didn’t check this.

I’m not fond of these photos, and I’m beginning to hate them. I was frustrated that I couldn’t get a photo of them that I liked. I knew what I had in mind, but it hasn’t yet worked - had there been a “delete” key, I would have removed both of those previous attempts. I’m not exploring the town to find bicycle images, but they have racks like this all over Miami Beach…

What I was fond of, and an image I am extremely happy with, is the two planes. I’ve gotten a lot of wonderful feedback from other people. I like the original image, and I like what PhotoLab allowed me to accomplish. It’s not “photojournalism”, and I accept it’s not “art”, but it’s the best I was able to do, and perhaps the positive comments were due to the subject matter, not to my creating and manipulating the image. I spent several hours photographing, and got maybe 100 images, and only this image (and not the dozen or so others, captured in burst mode) shows how I felt.

With slitghly slower shutter speed you could still get sharp planes, but blurred propeller.
Just personal tatse.

1 Like

When you published your pic, you even noted "It doesn’t ‘excite’ me like it did before … ",
… well, then listen to your gut feeling and don’t publish.

The pic, how you took it, looks very much like from a tourist office place “We do rent bicyles.” – To maybe show it better, I lifted the dark shadows in your subject and reduced the attention for the background.

see VC1 → 780_0935 2023-05-28.nef.dop (91,7 KB)

You must not waste time on uninteresting looking stuff … or invest ‘more excitement’.

Those planes from the airshow are catching – and you cropped nicely!

I took the liberty to correct your Control Point to then not to brighten the surrounding sky,
while enhancing the fighter jet’s appearance (ClearviewPlus instead of Contrast).

see VC2 → 780_1140 2023-05-28.nef.dop (34,1 KB)

1 Like

Thanks! Should this happen again, I’ll remember. I never expected the two planes to get this close, but that’s irrelevant. I goofed. My mistake. I had everything set up, but didn’t realize “hey, this plane has a propeller, dummy!” and adjust. That happens to me quite often. If only…

Agreed. My mistake.

I took three photos that I thought about publishing here. Two were too …boring, and the bike photo… also boring. At the time, through the viewfinder, I thought. all three had potential, but I was wrong.

I downloaded your .dop file, and will check it out after dinner. I’ve read so much negativity about ClearviewPlus that it now sounds as exciting to me as “poison ivy” - the consequences are bad.

As I see things, I can’t take much credit for that photo - I just happened to be at the right place, at the right time, with the right camera, and the right lens, and their flight path over me was perfect, as I heard my camera grind away with high speed burst mode… and I realized the split second when things were best as they approached me.

To be honest, I didn’t really see them at all - all I saw was my viewfinder, and my job was to keep the planes centered in the viewfinder - thinking that with all the planning, it would/should work out fine.

Joanna (and others) spend hours to take a photo, and I spent seconds - but thanks to what I learned in this forum, I think the camera settings were perfect, and the auto-focus did the job I hoped for. The camera was all set up ahead of time, with me simultaneously watching the planes and listening to the Indianapolis 500 car race from my TV.

Like I wrote, I had no idea where the planes were going to go, I just kept following them with my lens.

With 300mm and planes you should start with shutter speed around 1/500 s and decrease it if you can’t get sharp planes till you find the finest shutter speed for you the day you are shooting.
(It depends of several parameters, planes distance, direction, air stability, your ability to keep a moving target stable in the frame, etc …), but 1/500s is a good starting point.