• site home
  • blog home
  • galleries
  • contact
  • underwater
  • the bleeding edge

the last word

Photography meets digital computer technology. Photography wins -- most of the time.

You are here: Home / The Last Word / Histogram depopulation in image editing, part 6

Histogram depopulation in image editing, part 6

May 22, 2012 JimK Leave a Comment

Back in post 1 of this histogram depopulation screed, I promised you a look at why Photoshop sometimes makes it look like there’s histogram depopulation even when there’s not.

The Adobe folks want to make Photoshop perform snappily. Therefore, they take some shortcuts with some calculations, thinking that you’ll probably prefer a quick look at an approximation of what you’ve asked for than wait a while for an accurate representation. Most of the time that’s great.

If you have print-resolution 16-bit images, the Photoshop histogram window calculates an accurate histogram when you first open the image, but gives you an 8-bit approximation after you start adding adjustment layers. This means that you’ll see histogram depopulation as if you were editing an 8-bit image, even though it’s not really there. Photoshop lets you know that you’re looking at an approximation very subtly, so much so that some people don’t notice.

When the histogram is approximate, there’s a little exclamation point inside a triangle at the upper left of the window. If you hover over it, it will tell you what’s going on. If you click on it, it will recalculate the histogram.

Here’s Photoshop CS5 with a sixteen-bit image with a curve applied to it before the exclamation point is clicked, showing histogram depopulation that isn’t really there:

Here’s the correct histogram that you see after you click on the exclamation point:

Here’s the same thing in CS6, first before recalculating the histogram:

And after recalculating:

If you don’t understand how the histogram recalculation works, you’ll think you have depopulation when you don’t.

By the way, for small images, Photoshop doesn’t wait for you to hit the recalculate button. It just goes ahead and gives you an accurate histogram.

 

The Last Word

← Headroom in ETTR exposures ETTR in perspective →

Leave a Reply Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

May 2025
S M T W T F S
 123
45678910
11121314151617
18192021222324
25262728293031
« Apr    

Articles

  • About
    • Patents and papers about color
    • Who am I?
  • How to…
    • Backing up photographic images
    • How to change email providers
    • How to shoot slanted edge images for me
  • Lens screening testing
    • Equipment and Software
    • Examples
      • Bad and OK 200-600 at 600
      • Excellent 180-400 zoom
      • Fair 14-30mm zoom
      • Good 100-200 mm MF zoom
      • Good 100-400 zoom
      • Good 100mm lens on P1 P45+
      • Good 120mm MF lens
      • Good 18mm FF lens
      • Good 24-105 mm FF lens
      • Good 24-70 FF zoom
      • Good 35 mm FF lens
      • Good 35-70 MF lens
      • Good 60 mm lens on IQ3-100
      • Good 63 mm MF lens
      • Good 65 mm FF lens
      • Good 85 mm FF lens
      • Good and bad 25mm FF lenses
      • Good zoom at 24 mm
      • Marginal 18mm lens
      • Marginal 35mm FF lens
      • Mildly problematic 55 mm FF lens
      • OK 16-35mm zoom
      • OK 60mm lens on P1 P45+
      • OK Sony 600mm f/4
      • Pretty good 16-35 FF zoom
      • Pretty good 90mm FF lens
      • Problematic 400 mm FF lens
      • Tilted 20 mm f/1.8 FF lens
      • Tilted 30 mm MF lens
      • Tilted 50 mm FF lens
      • Two 15mm FF lenses
    • Found a problem – now what?
    • Goals for this test
    • Minimum target distances
      • MFT
      • APS-C
      • Full frame
      • Small medium format
    • Printable Siemens Star targets
    • Target size on sensor
      • MFT
      • APS-C
      • Full frame
      • Small medium format
    • Test instructions — postproduction
    • Test instructions — reading the images
    • Test instructions – capture
    • Theory of the test
    • What’s wrong with conventional lens screening?
  • Previsualization heresy
  • Privacy Policy
  • Recommended photographic web sites
  • Using in-camera histograms for ETTR
    • Acknowledgments
    • Why ETTR?
    • Normal in-camera histograms
    • Image processing for in-camera histograms
    • Making the in-camera histogram closely represent the raw histogram
    • Shortcuts to UniWB
    • Preparing for monitor-based UniWB
    • A one-step UniWB procedure
    • The math behind the one-step method
    • Iteration using Newton’s Method

Category List

Recent Comments

  • JimK on Calculating reach for wildlife photography
  • Geofrey on Calculating reach for wildlife photography
  • JimK on Calculating reach for wildlife photography
  • Geofrey on Calculating reach for wildlife photography
  • Javier Sanchez on The 16-Bit Fallacy: Why More Isn’t Always Better in Medium Format Cameras
  • Mike MacDonald on Your photograph looks like a painting?
  • Mike MacDonald on Your photograph looks like a painting?
  • bob lozano on The 16-Bit Fallacy: Why More Isn’t Always Better in Medium Format Cameras
  • JimK on Goldilocks and the three flashes
  • DC Wedding Photographer on Goldilocks and the three flashes

Archives

Copyright © 2025 · Daily Dish Pro On Genesis Framework · WordPress · Log in

Unless otherwise noted, all images copyright Jim Kasson.