Digital Photo Blog

August 3, 2007

Why are my photos colored magenta (& other mysteries)?

Filed under: Techniques — admin @ 2:53 pm

Here’s an introduction to how to do color matching; what it is; how to set it up; and why it works. If you’re new to digital photo printing, or just confused as to why your prints don’t look like what you saw on screen, this simple “no geek speak” intro is for you. I wrote it years ago, but it’s just as valid today as it was 4 years go.

It’s so long however, that I’ve put it on a separate web page, which you can find here. (www.tracyvalleau.com/colorprofiles.html, just in case the link gets broken…)

hth

August 2, 2007

Longer banners on the 2200 and changing ink…

Filed under: Techniques — admin @ 7:38 pm

Epson 2200 banners longer than 44 inches can be made by using GIMP print.
(Originally posted 2/5/05.)

In fact, longer than the roll paper you can buy (which is 32 feet.)

Here’s a couple of things to be aware of:
1) there are no profiles for GIMP. (I’ve made my own using PrintFIX, but the license won’t let me share them. Sorry.)
2) The default GIMP settings over-saturate the image.
3) The rotation direction is 180 degrees opposite from that used by the Epson drivers: instead of left-edge first, it’s the right edge.

And one last tip: if you run out of ink (OK: before you run out of ink, and when you see the blinking lites indicating low, and you decide you don’t want to risk it) do NOT use the software to pause the printer for reloading!! (You’ll have to start over again.)

Simply hit the ink button on the front of the printer, and replace the cartridge. It will continue printing seamlessly.

roll paper banners on the Epson 2200

Filed under: Techniques — admin @ 7:37 pm

How to avoid tearing your hair out when trying to print roll-paper banners on the Epson 2200 using the Epson drivers. (originally posted 10/28/04)

I lost a huge chunk of hair, and about 24 hours trying to figure these hints out:

If you’re not using the GIMP print driver, (see other blog entry) then here’s how to print out a banner on the Epson 2200 using the Epso-supplied printer drivers.

Seems that all this has to happen:
1) paper cannot be 13×44″, I set a custom paper size to 12.5×43.75 (web reports seem to be true: if 44 or larger, the driver doesn’t orientate the photo properly)
2) turned off centering (after centering the image)
3) had to set it for 2880, as 1440 caused the job to refuse to print (stopped it without running it).

Also note that the image will load with the wrong paper size in print setup dialog. Before moving to print w/ preview, go to page setup and set proper paper size, and then save the file. (Yes, the save seems to be necessary)

In print/preview, verify that the proper page size (see above) is, in fact the one showing.

use a 2880 profile (Mine was SP2200 prem.luster 2880.icc)

In print dialog, select “roll” printer (not borderless; not ‘borderless banner’)

Select paper as paper-saving cut; cut sheet (but I did it without the cutter installed…)

Fear of things digital… it’s just ignorance.

Filed under: Corrections — admin @ 7:36 pm

The “Shutterbug” editor, and apparently a number of readers, don’t understand the nature of digital. (originally posted 2/13/05.)

I’m in a unique position vis-a-vis digital photography, as I’ve been a photographer (with darkroom experience) for 46+ years, and have some nearly 30 years of detailed computer experience (I was a programmer) as well. I jumped on the digital photography bandwagon with the very first digital camera, and have long since abandoned film.

It is from this perspective that I’m making the following comments, and taking to task George Schaub, editiorial director of “Shutterbug” magazine.

George has been on a rant for the past two issues, complaining about the unknown longevity of digital media. “What ever will happen to our precious photos with this media?” he wonders. He seeks “… a viable medium the will not be lost to us later in our own lives, and to generations ahead.”

“…one of the main detriments folks see to digital is just that – that we have yet to be convinced that it’s a reliable keeper of memories. Digital memories, stored as bits and bytes are not, like a well-stored print or properly processed piece of film, hard -wired; they are virtual and sit on a medium that more often than not seems transitory.”

To his credit, George goes on to point out that, in fact, film and prints are -known- to fade over time, and to shift colors. “It took years for the photographic industry to first own up to, and then do something about creating more stable color images.”

“Perhaps it will take just as much time for the digital industry to own up to and do something about the reliability of the bits and bytes on which many of the memories we create today reside.”

This strikes me as not only silly, but a bit misinformed.

Current film and print technology (non-digital) is not permanent; in fact, it begins to change color and chemistry the instant it is removed from the bath… although it may take 20 years for the effect to be noticed by the human eye.

Yet he takes to task the digital industry because he “feels” insecure and things “seem” unreliable. He calls “bits and bytes” (they are the same thing: a byte is just 8 bits) “virtual” while lauding a print as “hard-wired.”

Well, I’m not sure what that means, if anything at all. Prints and film are molecules and grains of silver – molecues and grains are not photos. They change constantly and deteriorate. What is any more “virtual” about a bit? Once burned to a CD, that area of difference is just as “real” as a burned grain on a photo.

I suspect that it’s just ignorance at work here. It’s fear of the new. Photographers are not generally computer gurus and what they don’t understand, they fear. They may think it’s “virtual” because they can’t see it, but I assure you it’s as real as any negative.

And in terms of longevity, the irony of his recent editorial is underscored by an advertisement in the back of the same magazine for a CD with an expected life of 300 years! That’s 15 generations; twice as long as the current history of photography as a medium!

Let’s look at longevity of digital media. Unlike analog media (film) digital is simple: it’s either on or off. No gray areas: the bit is either there, or it isn’t. The CD is either burned or it’s not. This simplicity leads to reliability, as opposed to the infinite shades of gray in the analog world.

It further leads to 100% -perfect- duplication. Once you shoot on film, you cannot duplicate that negative or slide with 100% fidelity… but a digital photo you can, a thousand times over… and each one IS the original! Worried about storage? Why, with the ability to make an infinite number of perfect originals? Further, after storing that original for 20 years, if you’re worried about the medium itself beginning to deteriorate, just make a 100% perfect copy on a new CD, and you’re good to go for another 20 (or 300) years.

Try that with film.

The recording media industry doesn’t need to “own up” to anything. The details of what is known and what is not known are discussed ad-infinitum within the computer world. Maybe not the photo world, but the discussion is there, to be read by anyone who is interested.

The National Bureau of Standards has run longevity tests on CDs and is running them on DVDs now. That data is public knowledge: your tax-dollars at work.

Manufacturers are working diligently to make ever more durable and long-lasting media, just as they did with the quality of film and paper, evolving over the years.

There is no “dirty little secret” in the closet; nothing “the industry needs to acknowledge” nor anything it is hiding.

Media as it is now, properly stored, is perfectly stable: bits don’t change by themselves, like magic. They are not “virtual” (whatever that means) nor subject to alteration on a mysterious whim.

Can a digital media file be destroyed? Sure. So can a negative or a print… it’s just different things that destroy them.

Look: digital is not a panacea – it is just another medium. And as another medium, it is subject to the constraints of that medium, which are different from the constraints of film and chemicals.

So, if what George is complaining about is permanence, all I can say is “What? 300 years isn’t enough? What do you want? Isn’t that at least 250 years better than what you have now?”

Outside of the fact that you cannot hold them up to the light to see an image, I cannot think of a single way in which digital storage of files isn’t superior to film.

What is at work here is not media problems, but ignorance. It’s a case of “the devil you know, versus the devil you don’t.”

Ignorance isn’t bad: it’s simply the state before becoming informed. I’m immensly ignorant of thousands of subjects.

Here it is in a nutshell: take a photo in the analog world, and you are 100% guaranteed that it will eventually deteriorate and fade from human history. Store it as a digital file, and with a bit of human help copying it every 20-300 years, there’s no reason that original image, exactly as it came out of the camera, won’t be here at the time the universe ends.

You decide which one is “virtual.”

Shutterbug magazine -almost- gets it right…

Filed under: Corrections — admin @ 7:35 pm

Once again, it’s necessary to correct photographers about computers. Here’s why digital photos are NOT “codes.”

Oh good grief: words have MEANING!

In a recent (July 2006) Editor’s Notes in Shutterbug, George Schaud says “… digital images are composed of codes, either/or binary ‘addresses’ that can be swapped for others without much regard for the original codes set when the image is recorded and processed.”

Leaving out the adjectives, that becomes “codes are address” and thus, “digital images are composed of addresses.”

Well… no; they are not. Digital image files are composed of numbers, from zero to something, intended to be grouped in threes, one each for red, green, and blue.

(Yes, a number is represented by “bits” – binary switches that are either on or off, but I have not twiddled with bits since the early days of assembly language programming, and trying to get a photographer to make the mental jump from binary numbers to, er… “codes” borders on intentional obfuscation, if not the self-agrandizement of “jargon speak.”)

There is nothing mysterious about this, and calling them ‘codes’ is merely confusing. They are just numbers representing the intensity of light hitting that particular sensor.

And they are not even remotely ‘addresses.’

Look: an address is an address. Think of your mailbox. That’s an address. There is nothing in it… it’s just a container. You can put a magazine in it, or you can put a letter in it.

The magazine in the mail box can be swapped out for a letter… but the address on your mailbox does not change, as George seems to think (…”addresses” that can be swapped…”)

When one of those numbers, representing a level of light is loaded into a computer’s memory, it has to reside somewhere… and -where- it resides is it’s address. Each time you load that particular file, the address where a given pixel resides is free to change, just as you can put the same magazine into many different mailboxes, and each mailbox can hold various things.

The reason computers are useful at all, is that you can change the numbers inside the address, say from 200 to 220, making the computer interpret that pixel as brighter than recorded.

I think George has a vague idea of that, or perhaps even a firm grasp, but he does a terrible job of explaining it, using words that have a specific meaning in the wonderful world of computers, without properly understanding them.

“Code” is a programming instruction, telling the computer to do something, like “add 20 to the number that is in address 34567.” (“Code” does NOT mean “number.”)

“Address” is a memory location that can contain a number.

“Binary” is base-2 numbering; II = 3; IOI = 5; IIIIIIII = 255. Computers use binary numbering because computer memory is just a bunch of on/off switches. 255 is 8 switches in a row all turned on.

The rest of George’s note is pretty much accurate. But I do wish he’d either do a better job of explaining, or a better job of understanding.

In either case, his failure to do so results only in confusion, as when the reader later hears the words “code” “address” and so on, used properly, s/he will be forced to decide which version was the proper meaning.

I can’t imagine him calling developing fluid “water” and there is no excuse for using the wrong words in the digital domain either.

The next entry, called “A Bit of a Nibble…” actually explains, in simple and clear terms and analogies, how computers work, and is aimed at anyone interested in what’s really going on in digital photography.

Korrecting Kelby, et al (first in a series)

Filed under: Corrections — admin @ 7:34 pm

While Scott Kelby may be the world’s leading computer author, that doesn’t make him right… Correcting misinformation for digital photographers. (Originally posted 2/12/05.)
Scott Kelby is, according to Amazon.com, the world’s leading computer book author. His fame rests in his works about Photoshop, and I’d be the first to admit that he’s made great contributions in that realm. On the other hand, I started working with computers when he was about four years old; Photoshop at version 1 and digital cameras when they first came out.

So, I’ve assigned myself the task of correcting the misinformation in his books, and misinformation about digital photography and computers in general. I’ll not limit this to Kelby, but will begin with him.

In his book “The Photoshop CS Book for Digital Photographers” (New Riders, 2003) he states on page 149 that “…16-bit offers 65,536 possible levels in each channel.” This bit of misinformation is promulgated throughout third-party literature on Photoshop.

One can be slightly forgiven for assuming that 65K worth of levels are used, since 2^16 = 65,536, but then one would equally assume that 16-bit raw files have 65K levels too, and for the exact same reason, both are incorrect.

In fact, Photoshop allows 32,768 levels, because it uses only 15 of the 16 bits. This can be verified by simply putting the info palette into 16-bit mode, and clicking on “display 16-bit values.”

On the same page, he states “To get the benefits of editing in 16-bit, you need to shoot Raw (sic) 16-bit photos…” Well, sort of. Most raw files are in fact 12 bits of data, with 4 bits padded with zeros (bringing the total bits to 16.) In short, the camera is recording 4096 levels of information (0-4095), so that even loading in a raw image does not result in a 16-bit range of data, nor even a 15-bit range (neither 65,536 levels or 32,768) but in fact 4096 levels per channel.

While this is truly counting the angels on the head of a pin, as 4096 levels per channel is still a stunning amount of information, I merely hope to set the record straight. 256 levels per channel yield 16.7 million possible colors (although not all would be distinguishable to the human eye) 4096 yields a staggering 68 billion color possibilities.

And just FYI, the difference between a million and a billion is about the same as the difference between two weeks and 32 years.

Next, another oft-repeated bit of misinformation about Photoshop is recycled on page 145 of the same book: “…press option-delete to … fill with black…”

In fact, option-delete fills with the foreground color, whatever it may be. (Command-delete likewise fills with the background color – again, whatever color that happens to be.)

(To use the keyboard to fill with black, one has to first press d to reset the default colors of black in the foreground and white in the background. Only then can one be assured that option-delete will fill with black.)

Next up: one photography magazine editor and his failure to understand digital technology…

… stay tuned.

Babes in PhotoLand

Filed under: Tales from the trenches — admin @ 7:33 pm

You can’t trust what the advertisers, or at least some of them, say. Here are their names. (originally posted 5/4/05.)

I decided I wanted to upgrade from my Fuji FinePix S2 to the new S3 Pro. Checked out the ads in Shutterbug and Pop Photo and a few other recent magazines. There they were! Several dealers selling this list-price $2499 for as low as $1129. Several at $1295 and a few at $1499.

You’re way ahead of me, aren’t you? Yep: I still have my S2.(added later: I’ve got an S3 now.)

Worst offender was InfinitiPhoto. I called. Did they have it in stock? Yes. Was the price $1295? Yes. If I order for overnight shipping would I have it tomorrow? Yes.
Then he said: “Will you be installing the firmware upgrade yourself, or do you want us to do it? There’s version 1.5 and version 1.7.”

Er… firmware upgrade? As you know, I’m an ex-programmer, so while this is nothing new to me, AFAIK, Fuji doesn’t have firmware upgrades for the Pro series. (added later: the S3 does; the S2 did not.)

“I’ll do it myself” I said.

“Do you have a PX9350?” he replied.

“What?” I asked.

“That’s a $50,000 machine that it takes to upgrade the firmware.”

(Bullshit. If they did offer firmware upgrades, you’d install them thru the Firewire or USB interface, using a regular PC.)

“Well, no, actually, I don’t have one of those.”

“OK – we will upgrade your camera to version 1.5 of the firmware for $500 and to 2.2 (2.2? What happened to 1.7?) for $700.”

I hung up.

Next I tried DigitalLiquidators. Did they have the camera? Yes. Was the price $1249? Yes… but wait… let me check. OH… so sorry, but that one is sold out. We have the one with the package: lens cleaning tissue, cleaner, and a filter – for only $1899!

Cool! A mere $650 for $20-worth of accessories…

Sigh…

On to A&M Camera. Did they have the camera? Yes… but what price did you see that at? $1129, in the June issue of Shutterbug. OH… sorry, but “we don’t have that one anymore,” indicating that had I suggested a higher price, they might have found one in stock…

Needless to say, each of these firms not only lost my business, but because of their tactics lost it forever (& as a pro, that would have easily amounted to hundreds of thousands of dollars over the next, say, ten years.)

The world is full of quick-buck artists… don’t be a sucker.

How to really center a print on an Epson printer

Filed under: Techniques — admin @ 7:28 pm

We’ve all seen the dreaded off-center print from our Epson printers, and scratched our collective heads as to why it appears. After all, the print preview shows a perfectly centered print.

What’s going on?

Actually the cause, and the solution are both extremely simple.

The cause: hidden borders in the default papers: 3 sides at .25 inches, and one at .51 inches. (Guess which one is the problem…)

Here’s the most simple solution: and it’s a one-time-only fix.

Create your own default paper sizes, which allows you to set the margins to 0,0,0,0.

Go to the page setup dialog. You can do this in -any- application, not just Photoshop.
Select your printer next to “Format for:”
Now visit the “Paper size:” popup menu, and repeat this for each size of paper you use. (On a PC, depending on your OS, you may need to select “Properties” in the Page Setup dialog to get to the custom paper sizes…)
Select a paper.
Note the size of your chosen paper. (For example, SuperB is listed as 12.95 x 19.01).
Visit the bottom of that menu, and select “custom paper”
Click on the “+” button to add a new paper.
Immediately double click on the new “untitled” paper in the list, and change its name (in this case to something like “mySuperB”.)
Set the paper size with the same dimensions as you noted down earlier (ie SuperB’s 12.95 x 19.01)
Select Custom margins.
Set them all to zero.

Repeat for other paper sizes, and when done, close the window.

That’s it; you’re done.

From now on, when printing, select your new “My…” paper from the bottom of the pop up paper size list, and you ‘ll find that all your prints are perfectly centered.

Here’s a couple of other tips.

Remember to size your print in photoshop to the exact size you’ll want it on the paper you’ve chosen. Do not rely on any kind of “automatic” resizing, since that will likely create full-bleed photos, and you’ll need special drivers for that (not to mention the patience of Job to deal with the smeary edges…)

and

Now, with your nice new “custom” papers available, take an extra moment when selecting paper sizes in page setup, to also specifically select your printer as well. Many drivers are likely to go weird on you if you leave this set to “Any printer.”

There you have it. Hope this saves you a bit of hair…

Bit of a Nibble… How digital photography & computers work.

Filed under: Techniques — admin @ 7:26 pm

Here’s a simple (OK, as simple as possible) explanation of how light entering your digital camera lens turns into a photo in Photoshop, which you can manipulate. If computers and/or digital photography are a mystery to you, then give this explanation a try. I’ve done my best to keep all the “geek-speak” out of it.

A Bit of a Nibble of a Byte: the Word on RAM.
(or how electronic memory works: a guide to digital photography)

Ever wonder how the light that enters your camera lens is translated into an image? Well, here we go.. and along the way you’ll learn a lot about how computers work.

Don’t worry: there will be as little Geek-Speak as possible.

A computer is just a box of stuff that does amazing things; how do it do it?

Well, you’ll soon see that it’s very simple; what’s amazing is how fast it does very simple things.

A computer is basically a box full of switches. Simple On/Off switches, just like the light switch on your wall. Either the switch is on, or the switch is off. There’s no inbetween.

What’s different is -how- the switch is flipped. Your light switch takes a human being to actually flip it up or down.

An electronic switch does away with the need for a mechanical flipping of the switch: it uses a second bit of electricity. Think of it like this: suppose there was a motor connected to your light switch: turn the motor on, and it holds the switch in one position; turn the motor off, and the switch falls back to it’s previous position.

Well, that’s what a transistor is, but without the physical motor. If you apply a bit of electricity to the third “leg” of a transistor, and it allows current to flow along the other two legs. Take away that electricity on the third leg, and the circuit on the other two legs is opened, and it electricity stops flowing.

Yep: this means there are two different sources of electricity: the one that is attached to the third leg, and the other that is being controlled.

The cool thing about this is that the third leg needs only the very tiniest amount of electricity to close the circuit (flip the switch) between the other two legs, and the electricity there can be (and usually is) -much- larger.

OK: so there we have the basic: a transistor is just a switch that is turned on or off by a tiny amount of electricity. If the current is there, the switch is turned on (closed); if the current is removed, the switch is open: turned off.

Hardly rocket science, eh?

Let’s go back to the light switches, for a little more analogy.

Suppose you’re a spy, and you want to communicate a message to someone.

You’re on the 4th floor of a hotel, and there are 8 rooms along the corridor. It’s night. Your conspirator is in another hotel a few blocks away, but he can see the side of your hotel, and all 8 windows of the 4th floor.

You agree between you that turning on a light in one of the rooms means something.

You agree that you’re going to number the rooms LEFT to right, as
8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1.

If the light in room 1 is on, it means (you decide) “yes” and if the light in room #1 is off, it means “no.” And if you want to communicate a number, then if the light is on, it means “1″ and if it’s off, it means “0.”

So far so good, but that’s hardly much information. What if you wanted to communicate the alphabet? A bunch of numbers? You’ve only got 8 windows: how would you represent the letter “Q” then?

Hmmm…

You’re at a loss, but fortunately your friend has a thought. Since the lights can only be either on or off, that’s a grand total of two possible states. (“Bi” is the prefix meaning two, so since you can only have 1 or 0, on or off, you have a “binary” system here.)

All right then, what if window number 2 then means “2″ or “not 2″ then? Well, if the lights were off in room 2 and room 1 (which I’ll represent this way: 00) then there is no number two, and no number 1. The value 00 represents is Zero.

What about the lights on in both rooms? That would be 11. Yes: there’s a Two; yes – there’s a One. And 2 + 1 = 3. So the light both on would mean “3″ then.

And if only the one in room two were on? (10) – simple: 2-yes; 1-no. 2 + 0 = 2.

So, with only two rooms, we can represent four numbers: 0,1,2, and 3.

With 3 rooms then, we can end up lights on and off like this:
111 (all the light on)
011 (rooms two and one on; room three off)
001
000
101
110
100
001

So what does room Three represent? It’s the number 4.

Is there a 4? Yes/no.
Is there a 2? Yes/no
Is there a 1? Yes/no

if the answer is yes, yes, yes, that’s 111, which is 4 + 2 + 1 = 7.
011 is still 3
010 is still 2 (and so on)
101 is 4+0+1 = 5

Got it?

So we just carry on with this, making use of all 8 rooms.

Here’s what each room represents:

8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1
128 64 32 16 8 4 2 1

And if the lights are on or off like this:
00000011
that’s still “3″
and
10000001
is 128+0+0+0+0+0+0+1 = 129

Whee! Take a breather! Because that’s ALL THERE IS TO KNOW.

Really! That’s how computers represent numbers. They take 8 transistors; line them up in a row, and by applying electricity to some of them, and not to others, they can represent a number.

Yeah: it’s true that the largest number you can get into 8 switches is between zero and 255, but there’s nothing to stop you (OK: the computer) from ganging on another 8 more transistors, and reading all 16 at once.

32768 16384 8192 4096 2048 1024 512 256 128 64 32 16 8 4 2 1

and that way it can represent a number between 0 and 65535.

This gets to go on forever leading to larger and larger numbers.

“Yeah” you say, “but what about letters of the alphabet?”

OK, let’s pretend that the on/off switches are letters instead.

00000000 = space
00000001 = a
00000010 = b
00000011 = c

and so on.

The switches do not change: we just agree that they have a different meaning. Cute eh?
0000001 either mean the number ONE or the letter A.

The switches have not changed at all… just how we agree to interpret them. So, a spreadsheet looks at 00001010 and interprets it as TEN, while in a word processor 00001010 is interpreted as the 10th letter of the alphabet – J. *

Let’s do a quick review: computers work by turning on and off little electrical switches, and then checking the state of a group of switches to see which ones are on and off. By looking at only a fixed amount of them, it can pretend those switches are a number, or a letter, or whatever it wants.

Now, let me let you in on the title of this piece. Computer programmers call one of those little switches a “bit”; they call 4 of them a “nibble”; 8 of them are called a “byte” and 2 or more bytes is a “word” (the number dependant on the particular computer in use.)

A “byte” (8-bits; 8 little on/off switches) is the most common one used, and when you hear people talking about memory size, or disk capacity, they are talking about “bytes.”

—-

OK: thinking about how those transistors work: they need electricity flowing to the third leg to keep the switches set. That’s why you lose all your work if the power goes off unexpectedly. Or even expectedly: turn off the electricity, and all the switches fall back to “off.”

This is not a “good thing” so we need a way to keep a recording of how those switches are set, so that we can reset them to the exact same state when we power up the computer again.

Fortunately, back in WWII, someone invented the tape recorder… and a hard disk is nothing but a tape recorder in a circle instead of a long stream of tape. Switches are just on/off, so recording little “bumps” in the coating of tape.. er, disk.. is pretty simple.

Record the switches states; turn off the machine. Turn on the machine; read back in the states and set the switches. Problem solved.

Well, almost: recording the whole entire state of the computer is pretty silly. If all I’ve done is write a letter to a friend (which is, as we now know, a huge long string of bytes) then all I really need to save is the range of computer memory that is holding those particular bytes, and not everything else.

No problem, we’ll just have the computer select only those bytes that are the letter, and save just those out.

And that, my friends, is what a “file” is on your hard drive. It’s a snapshot of the computer memory that applies to just one thing: your letter; some music; a video; a spreadsheet; a photograph… whatever.

They are all just long sequences of 00101110010100010101000101 which are recognized by some program as a letter, a spreadsheet and so on.

———

“OK” you say. “But when I sing a song, I’m not spitting out on/off commands; it’s a beautiful, perfectly pitched, graduating and sliding and connected set of tones and music. Heck: I’m the new Pavoratti! So how does the computer get all that into the on/off switches it can use?

Well, we’re talking about converting something into numbers… into digits. And the process is (cleverly enough) called “digitizing.”

Let’s consider the brighness of light, for example. Suppose we were going to digitize it into one bit. One bit can only be on or off, and so could represent only NO LIGHT or FULL BRIGHT.

Not very handy. Suppose we want to represent night (black), sunrise(grey) and noon(white). We might be able to do night and noon with one bit, but what about sunrise? How do we represent “not black and not fully white, but right inbetween?” Obviously we need another number.

So we use two bits. Two bits can represent 0, 1, 2, and 3.

We’re getting there: 0 represent black; 3 represents white. We have 1 and 2 left to represent dark grey, and light grey. Aha! Black; dark grey; light grey; white.

Not a very good representation of the nice smooth transition from black to white; night to day; but certainly better than just either night or day by itself.

Since there are no rocket scientists here, I’ll bet you’ve already figured out that if we break the black to white into 8 sections instead of four, we’re better off because we can represent even finer, smaller steps of gray.

And so it goes.

In fact then, suppose we use 256 steps. Why it might start becoming hard to tell the difference between one step and the one next to it.

So, with 256 steps, 0 would still be pure black, and 255 would be pure white, and middle grey would be 128. And there would be 127 steps on either side of middle grey which would make for pretty darned fine distinctions.

And that’s what “digitizing” does. Exactly and only. It starts out with some range of numbers, say 0-255, or 0-65535, or whatever, and then looks at whatever it’s digitizing (sound, light, pressure and so on) and assigns the highest number to “most”; the lowest number (zero) to “none” and all the rest a nice even breakdown of what’s in between.

If you have enough range, from zero to whatever, the human being listening to the result cfannot tell the difference between a nice smooth “real” transition, and one that is broken into thousands of little steps.

That, my friends, is digitizing.

“All good and well,” you say, “but I can tell the difference between more than 256 colors in a photograph.”

Aha…. so you can… but our eyes work not only with brightness, but with color as well… but probably not how you think.

Your eyes can distinguish 4 things: brightness; red, green, and blue. That’s it. It’s our brains that combine the red and the green and the blue to make all the other colors. Yep: pick a color, and I’ll tell you how much red there is in it; how much green; and how much blue.

Needless to say, this make life pretty simple (at least in principle) for computers and digital cameras.

Digital cameras.

There’s a thing called a “photovoltaic cell” which is just a fancy term for a bit of chemistry that is spread on a plate with a couple of wires coming off it. When light hits it, it generates a tiny amount of electricity in the wires. Not much mind you (which is why you need so many of those solar cells to recharge a battery, or power a house) but a measurable amount.

The more light, the more electricity. Less light; less electricity. No light; no electricity.

Now, suppose you put literally millions of those cells on a little tiny, one inch plate, and set it up so that you can read the electricity coming of each and every individual one of them. (Yeah: I know, not exactly easy, but that’s what really happens…!)

Throw a lens in front of it; focus the light on the little place, and lo and behold, you’ll get millions different voltages, each representing the brightness of the light that happened to hit each and every little cell.

Run those voltages through a digitizer, and get back out millions of numbers between 0 and 255.

And that, amigos, would be enough to represent a nice black and white photograph. Each cell would have its own level of brightness, from black to white, and 254 shades in between. (In the wonderful world of digital imaging, each of those “cells” is called a “picture element.” Thankfully, “picture element” has been shortened to “pixel.”)

“Um, OK. But where’s the color?”

Well, right you are: a pixel (cell) can only respond to brightness: the intensity of the light falling on it. So where does the color come from?

In another miracle of miniturization, those cell are each covered by a million little color filters, grouped together in threes. Yep: one red, one green and one blue. (OK, sticklers, there are two greens in each set, but let’s not confuse things here.)

By placing a colored filter over a cell, you filter out all but that color. What you end up with then is the intensity of the red; the intensity of the green, and the intensity of the blue; each one a number between 0 and 255.

And since the colors we see are combinations of red (R) green (G) and blue (B) [that's where "RGB" comes from] you have 256 x 256 x 256, for a total of over 16 Million (!) colors.

And I assure you that you cannot distinguish between 16 million different colors.

And -that- is why digital color photographs look just fine to human beings.

That is also how your digital camera works.

(There’s more to it, of course, including that since the pixels are side-by-side, how does one compensate for the other two ‘missing’ colors on each pixel? [Answer: it's done with fancy math.] But let’s keep it down to fundamental ideas here, and not get lost in the details…)

Once you take a photograph, all those millions of numbers are saved in a file (just like we noted above) in the memory of the digital camera. Plug it into your computer, and the file is transferred to your hard drive.

From there, Photoshop will load it in to your computer’s memory.

What?

OK, think of it this way: imagine your local post office, and the row upon row of post office boxes in the wall.

Each box is numbered. Let’s say the one on the upper left is number One and there are 100 of them, numbered one after the other: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6… on to 98, 99, 100.

Someone comes along and places a slip of paper inside each box. On each slip of paper is a random number.

You can say “Show me the number in box 77.” Let’s say it’s 216. “Show me the number in box 78.” 154.
“Add one to the number in box 77.” 217. “Subtract 10 from the number in box 78.” 144. “Replace the number in box 77 with 43.” Now box 77 contains 43 instead of 217.

That is the basic analogy of how computer memory works. The number of a given box is its “address.”

When you load a file into computer memory, the first number in the file goes in the first (available) address; the second number in the file goes in the next address; the third number goes in the following address and so on, one after the other, in consecutive memory addresses.

If those numbers are from a photographic image and zero is darkest, and it gets brighter as you go higher up in numbers, then you can say “Add 10 to all the numbers in all the boxes” and this will have the effect of making the whole picture brighter.

—–

OK: I’m going to stop now. That’s enough of an introduction. I’ve skipped over a lot of the nitty gritty, and not so nitty-gritty, details in the hopes of providing a basic overview of how things work.

I hope that it’s helped some of you (including some writers, who should, but don’t) understand how computers and digitizing and memory works.

Howdy!

Filed under: Welcome — admin @ 1:20 pm

I’ve been taking photos for 50 years. Been using digital cameras since the first 3 megger came out. Do fine art stuff, which you can see at photosByValleau.com. Used to teach photography. Am also an ex-Mac computer programmer (started programming in 1978) so I understand both the technology and the art-form. I’ll be posting things here I think will be helpful, especially if I feel some misinformation has been posted elsewhere.

This is all “FWIW.”

Powered by WordPress