High Gamma Image

[thenews24]

Hi, I thought I would share this image I took a few weeks ago.

I normally capture (dmk41) with pretty low gamma, around the 50's, high for me is 70 maybe 80. I get loads of detail and a natural limb darkening gradient, but no proms of course, so I usually just do separate capture for proms.

This day I tried cranking up the gamma to experiment. I think this was at 120 gamma. Didn't look great while capturing, but was able to coax some detail out in processing. I like how the proms come out, subtle but natural, and there's a pretty even gradient throughout with a glossy texture, I guess. Most days due to seeing cant afford to crank up the gamma that much, but this turned out alright.

[Merlin66]

Great result!

Normally I just increase the exposure for the proms.

Also, I find a slightly different tuning for the surface features (filaments etc) and the proms (doppler shift)

[Luke]

Beautiful, well done!

[michael.h.f.wilkinson]

Really nice!

[DrRobin]

Hi,

Nice shot. I tried a test sometime back by varying the gamma by 10 from around 70 - 140. General comment seemed to be 100% was best. I think Montana uses high than 100%.

Below 100% seems to favour the darker colours and above 100% favours the brighter colours and so when you look at it on the screen lower values give the impression of a better picture.

What you are actually going by varying the gamma is changing the quantisation from been linear to a sort of s-shaped curve, lower values of gamma must increase the steepness of the curve at the lower end giving more levels in the darker areas.

The pictures below demonstrate this, but were taken from a image software package.

Robin

From left to right; Gamma 50, Gamma 100, Gamma 150

[Montana]

That is an extremely beautiful image

I would never usually go lower than 70 personally as I think you start to loose a lot of data. You can always push later in Photoshop if you want more contrast. I never like to loose the proms so stick between 70-90 (depends on seeing), however a good shot at 160 can sometimes make you go wow after processing.

Alexandra

[thenews24]

Hi,

Nice shot. I tried a test sometime back by varying the gamma by 10 from around 70 - 140. General comment seemed to be 100% was best. I think Montana uses high than 100%.

Below 100% seems to favour the darker colours and above 100% favours the brighter colours and so when you look at it on the screen lower values give the impression of a better picture.

What you are actually going by varying the gamma is changing the quantisation from been linear to a sort of s-shaped curve, lower values of gamma must increase the steepness of the curve at the lower end giving more levels in the darker areas.

The pictures below demonstrate this, but were taken from a image software package.

Robin

From left to right; Gamma 50, Gamma 100, Gamma 150

I don't know all about that but I do know everything depends on the viewers seeing. And I can guarantee my lower gamma captures will always produce better detailed surface images. My seeing conditions, on average, are almost excellent being in a dry high pressure region. I'm sorry but you limey's can have your 100+ gain, in your water vapored atmosphere. I can show you dozens of superior seeing conditions that must use a lower gamma

[Merlin66]

Hmmmm

Sounds like an excellent location..

How do shorter exposures compare with your lower gamma images?