On 12/16/2012 8:07 AM, Brian Swale wrote:
> Here's a page of a lot of shots of two flowers with an E-1 and the Zuiko
> 50/3.5 .
>
> http://www.brianswale.com/zuikoholics/2012/macro.htm
>
> Illustrates the effect of WB settings
*"what is the real colour"?*
Is that a meaningful question? Leaving aside physio- and psycho- and philos-
questions about the nature of human vision
and perception -
You saw and photographed the roses under a particular light at a particular
time. That light and that moment will never
exactly happen again. The roses, as we can see already, not only may subtly
change color as they age, but soon will be
compost.
I know my color memory is not perfect. And those who see my color images of
flowers will also have imperfect memory, and
most will have never seen the originals in any case.
Does the 'real colour' matter? Or is close simply good enough.
In this test, either the light was changing, or exposure varied quite a bit. I
stacked them all on top of each other.
Yes, there is a difference in the WB settings, but to my eye, it is less
important than the exposure differences.
One could, of course, adjust the brightness in an editor. But then, one could
just as well adjust the WB in the
conversion process from Raw. That also allows in-between settings, is
non-destructive, and it can be exactly reproduced
over a set of images.
I can't imagine why one would work with such delicate colors andsubtle tonal
ranges in sRGB and 8 bit. That's just
asking to lose tonal detail.
NEXT -
If one wants to reproduce colours as accurately as possible, in-camera WB
settings are way too crude.
1. I know the E-1 has custom WB capability. With neutral card or translucent
neutral lens cap/cover, it should be easy
to get an accurate WB.
2. One may simply shoot a standard, neutral card in the same light, and use it
to adjust WB in post. I carry a WhiBal
card the size and thickness of a credit card in my wallet for just that
purpose. It gives me pure black, gray and white
references.
3. For more specialized use, where light is controlled, a full ICC colour
profile may be made for the camera and lens.
That's as close as we are going to get to the 'true color'
But, back to the start, what's the point? Looking at the images superimposed, I
can see the WB difference. Looking at
them on your page, it's harder, as the moment it takes to move on the page
already starts to mask the difference, to my eye.
I know that, given only one image, I couldn't hope to guess which WB it is, at
least not more than 50% of the time. :-)
> and of changing the f-stop setting in a
> manual Zuiko on a digital camera.
I agree with your later reply, that OOF elements may be an important part of
the image. In fact, I like the wider open
shots better than those that bring the rear flower into the no mans land of
approaching focus and bring up bright
features in the farther background. 'Twere me, of course, I might combine a
nice, soft background, an f8 rear flower,
and fully sharp front flower.
> Oh - and it demonstrates that I am obsessed with some rose flowers :-).
And that's a problem??? I don't understand. ;-)
Roseate Moose
--
What if the Hokey Pokey *IS* what it's all about?
--
_________________________________________________________________
Options: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/listinfo/olympus
Archives: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/private/olympus/
Themed Olympus Photo Exhibition: http://www.tope.nl/
|