Flat contrast is probably best described as a general lack of tonal separation. If you look at the histogram of a flat image, the tones will be all huddled in the middle of the range. Thus, they are too close to each other in terms of their relative brightness and lack of the same. You might still have a dark shadow or a bright highlight or two in a flat image, but it's the close huddling of the middle tones that makes it flat. That can be nice in some cases. Or it can be dreadful. The difference is aesthetic and hard to pinpoint. Paul
> On Thu, 7 Jul 2005, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > > My 1953 'Cron delivers subtle tonality and relatively low contrast. I like > that kind of rendering. I find the results of the K55/1.8, at least as > interpreted by the Canon sensor, to be quite unattractive. The colors are > muddy > rather than subtle. The contrast is flat rather than moderate. But we are of > course looking at a web image that was taken as a medium qualtiy jpeg. Not > much > of a test. > > Paul (and all), can you elaborate on the flat contrast? I struggle to > understand what you mean. Any (counter)examples? > > TIA, > Kostas >
