NikonGear'23
Gear Talk => Processing & Publication => Topic started by: Nikkor Shooter on December 05, 2018, 21:10:36
-
I rigorously control the WB at shooting time though the camera is
set on Auto WB. It is necessary when light temperature changes
almost by the minute — early or late in the day.
The first picture shows the Auto WB and the measured value as the
second reveals a different reference — one that does not consider
relative WB but the subject's true colours even under the warm set-
ting sunlight.
Which one do you prefer?
(http://www.kodiakmedia.at/TP18/12/A6238%205D.jpg)
(http://www.kodiakmedia.at/TP18/12/A6238%205D%201.jpg)
(http://www.kodiakmedia.at/TP18/12/A6238%205D%202.jpg)
-
The first one is gentler on the eye.
-
I like the last one best. A good compromise
-
#1
-
Considering that the sunlight of the early or late time of a day, #1 looks most natural and thus pleasing to me.
-
I like the last one best. A good compromise
Well seen Frank!
The sky, in the first (untouched version), was partially covered
with nice white clouds that were hit by the sunset colours re-
flected by the water the orange cast on the whole shot is not my
favourite version… just me.
In the second, the WB was tweaked so to reproduce the "real"
colours of the bird… but something ain't right: the low light has
to have a warmer colour but not everyone will notice.
The third is representing the bird with the warmer tones but the
colour of the water is like it would be if no "orange" clouds were
reflected, just the plain blue sky. I share with Frank the preferen-
ce for that later version because of the compromise (in this case
for sure!) but that could be absolutely normal and natural.
-
I guessed you layered one and two and then masked the bird from the first out, leaving the water from #2
I like the glow of the feathers
-
I guessed…
Correct, that was (gross modo) the employed strategy! :P
-
I prefer the first one.
The third one is good also---the annoying blue pollution in the shadows has been corrected, but the large surrounding field of intense blue on the water still distracts from the subject.
Funny thing about blue shadows: They really are there in the scene, but usually are annoying when reproduced faithfully.
-
I prefer the first one.
The third one is good also---the annoying blue pollution in the shadows has been corrected, but the large surrounding field of intense blue on the water still distracts from the subject.
Funny thing about blue shadows: They really are there in the scene, but usually are annoying when reproduced faithfully.
The white feathers on the underside of the wing show a marked blue reflection in #2. Maybe it was more evident after viewing #1, which is the one I liked best too.
-
Funny thing about blue shadows: They really are there in the scene, but usually are annoying when reproduced faithfully.
Camera's really do seem to emphasize those blue shadows, don't they.
-
Camera's really do seem to emphasize those blue shadows, don't they.
They don't, Charlie… I heard that before and it is wrong.
White things are way more reflective than darker ones, that is known.
Feathers — white in this case — are reflecting what they "see". When
no sundown colours touch them, they will reflect what ever they "see"
may it be a blue or grey sky… really nothing to do with the cameras!
-
Same with snow scenes, by the way. Shadows on sunlit snow landscapes are intensively blue.
-
Same with snow scenes, by the way. Shadows on sunlit snow landscapes are intensively blue.
Yep… people from the north know that well! :P
-
They don't, Charlie… I heard that before and it is wrong.
White things are way more reflective than darker ones, that is known.
Feathers — white in this case — are reflecting what they "see". When
no sundown colours touch them, they will reflect what ever they "see"
may it be a blue or grey sky… really nothing to do with the cameras!
I think my point was missed. I'm familiar with the technicalities and I was speaking to Keith's remarks, which seemed to be referring to the relationship of viewing a scene in person versus viewing a picture of it. Based on my own experiences the blue in daylight shadows often appear quite a bit more pronounced in images than in my mind. I could just as well have said my brain under emphasizes the blues in shadows.
As far as what is "wrong", it would appear everyone that has commented prefers the "wrong" rendition of your image which does not show the "subject's true colours", as you put it.
-
I think my point was missed.
Very sorry, Charlie, English is not my language and any
point missing was missed by me for sure. :(
which does not show the "subject's true colours", as you put it.
True colours are good but they don't reflect additional in-
formation like time of day, moods of the weather etc!
Cheers Charlie!
-
Same with snow scenes, by the way. Shadows on sunlit snow landscapes are intensively blue.
Birna, in the days of film, did you ever use the Skylight 1A filter to reduce the blue shadows in the vast Nordic world of snow scenes?
The few times I got to shoot sunlit snow scenes on film (typically Kodachrome 64, Ektachrome 64) the blue shadows were, of course, in evidence. I found that the once-ubiquitous Skylight 1A filter would substantially reduce the blueness of the shadows in those scenes...on film.
Much later I tried a 1A filter on digital, and it seemed to do nothing against the blueness of the shadows.
-
Never used a skylight filter. No fan of the Kodak films either -- their colours were poor and not to my taste.
-
I prefer the third option.
I shot Kodak colour negative film 98% of the time but always had the advantage of being able to process and print my own film which made it possible to correct the colours during the printing so I seldom needed to use filters over the camera's lens except for a reflection-cutting polarizer. (I somehow managed to talk the Separators for the British publications into working from my colour prints and they did manage to match my colours remarkably well — despite their preliminary misgivings!)
Now we can do selected masking and colour correction digitally which cuts down the need for lens-filtering even further.