Author Topic: Lloyd Chambers: Important Post  (Read 5368 times)

Michael Erlewine

  • Close-Up Photographer
  • NG Supporter
  • **
  • Posts: 2067
  • Close-Up with APO
    • Spirit Grooves
Lloyd Chambers: Important Post
« on: October 28, 2015, 13:06:06 »
http://diglloyd.com/

Lloyd Chambers has an important observation, that many cameras, including the Nikon D810, have a filter that cuts of the color violet at around 420mm, which results in all our images being slightly yellowish because the violet has been removed.

My question is: how do we compensate or remedy this in post?
MichaelErlewine.smugmug.com, Daily Blog at https://www.facebook.com/MichaelErlewine. main site: SpiritGrooves.net, https://www.youtube.com/user/merlewine, Founder: MacroStop.com, All-Music Guide, All-Movie Guide, Classic Posters.com, Matrix Software, DharmaGrooves.com

Bjørn Rørslett

  • Fierce Bear of the North
  • Administrator
  • ***
  • Posts: 8252
  • Oslo, Norway
Re: Lloyd Chambers: Important Post
« Reply #1 on: October 28, 2015, 14:19:33 »
We had the similar filtration "built-in" with colour films - nobody complained then, so why now? Although we typically consider sunlight "white" it is really pretty biased towards blue-green and blue, so a slight warming of the colour balance usually is what we strive for anyway. Also, in order to cut away unwanted UV without having too strong dependence on incoming light angles, starting in the violet region is a necessity.

Just shoot a reference of a Color Checker Passport or similar at the onset of the shoot if perfect colours matter. Photoninja for example makes constructing a session profile a breeze. Just takes a few clicks with the mouse if you have done the appropriate steps in the field.

Michael Erlewine

  • Close-Up Photographer
  • NG Supporter
  • **
  • Posts: 2067
  • Close-Up with APO
    • Spirit Grooves
Re: Lloyd Chambers: Important Post
« Reply #2 on: October 28, 2015, 14:41:36 »
Photoninja for example makes constructing a session profile a breeze. Just takes a few clicks with the mouse if you have done the appropriate steps in the field.

I don't know PhotoNinja. It is an editor? Non destructive? How does this editor help with color correction?
MichaelErlewine.smugmug.com, Daily Blog at https://www.facebook.com/MichaelErlewine. main site: SpiritGrooves.net, https://www.youtube.com/user/merlewine, Founder: MacroStop.com, All-Music Guide, All-Movie Guide, Classic Posters.com, Matrix Software, DharmaGrooves.com

Bjørn Rørslett

  • Fierce Bear of the North
  • Administrator
  • ***
  • Posts: 8252
  • Oslo, Norway
Re: Lloyd Chambers: Important Post
« Reply #3 on: October 28, 2015, 15:02:54 »
PhotoNinja (PN) is a very good RAW conversion programme that works in a non-destructive way and handles nearly all cameras. It is beset with quirks so need some time to gain proficiency with it. Among the useful features is the ability to build session colour profiles simply by shooting a Color Checker (Passport or similar) under the actual illumination. Works wonders.

I learned about PhotoNinja from NG member Anthony and became quickly a devoted user, despite its shortcomings. PN is the RAW workhorse for many of us these days.

Go over to www.picturecode.com and have a look.

RobOK

  • NG Supporter
  • **
  • Posts: 339
  • You ARE NikonGear
    • My gallery
Re: Lloyd Chambers: Important Post
« Reply #4 on: October 28, 2015, 15:30:27 »
PhotoNinja (PN) is a very good RAW conversion programme that works in a non-destructive way and handles nearly all cameras. It is beset with quirks so need some time to gain proficiency with it. Among the useful features is the ability to build session colour profiles simply by shooting a Color Checker (Passport or similar) under the actual illumination. Works wonders.

What would you or others say are the biggest strengths of PN that overcome the "quirks", compared to say a baseline of Adobe.

Thanks,
Rob.

HCS

  • NG Supporter
  • **
  • Posts: 1533
  • The Netherlands
Re: Lloyd Chambers: Important Post
« Reply #5 on: October 28, 2015, 15:38:17 »
What would you or others say are the biggest strengths of PN that overcome the "quirks", compared to say a baseline of Adobe.

Thanks,
Rob.

it made my Nikon D2h look like an 8 MP camera, even @ ISO 1600 !
Hans Cremers

Peter Forsell

  • NG Member
  • *
  • Posts: 425
  • A Cunning Linguist
Re: Lloyd Chambers: Important Post
« Reply #6 on: October 28, 2015, 16:22:06 »
My question is: how do we compensate or remedy this in post?

I think that in everyday shooting with digital cameras this is a non-issue, the camera white balance is based on the TWIMG (the world is middle gray) presumption and there is no yellow cast. Film is different, the cast has always been there and white balancing requires filters (on-camera or on-enlarger).

Bjorn Rorslett already gave the advice about custom profiles and he knows about this subject a lot more than me.

One thing to note is that if absolute color perfectness is required, filters and profiles cannot add colors that are either missing or that have been mapped to another color causing metameric error. For example the camera might represent the missing violet as blue, but that cannot be brought back to violet without messing the blues and converting some blues to violet that should have remained blue.

Then again, the reproduction chain as a whole has bigger problems (lens, processing software, monitor, paper, inks, ambient lighting when viewing the images etc. ad infinitum...). This narrow band of wavelengths is trivial. And we have to remember, wavelengths are not colors. There's no pink or brown for example in the rainbow. These colors are CREATED by metamerism in the BRAINS of the observer. And we all have unique eyes and unique brains.

In my humble opinion mr Rorslett's advice about profiles gives the best results, and that mr Chabers's blog post is just background noise.

Jakov Minić

  • Jakov Minic
  • Global Moderator
  • **
  • Posts: 5354
  • The Hague, The Netherlands
    • Jakov Minić
Re: Lloyd Chambers: Important Post
« Reply #7 on: October 28, 2015, 16:28:25 »
What would you or others say are the biggest strengths of PN that overcome the "quirks", compared to say a baseline of Adobe.

Thanks,
Rob.

Just a few minor things like:
Shadows, Highlights, Color Adjustment, Noise Reduction, and Details (Clarity).
Apart from the above mentioned Adobe is just fine ;)

Mind you PN has its weaknesses too or lacks some features :)
Browsing through files, saving files to desired size, no area selection (layers), removing dust are just a few...
Free your mind and your ass will follow. - George Clinton
Before I jump like monkey give me banana. - Fela Kuti
Confidence is what you have before you understand the problem. - Woody Allen

pluton

  • NG Supporter
  • **
  • Posts: 2687
  • You ARE NikonGear
Re: Lloyd Chambers: Important Post
« Reply #8 on: October 28, 2015, 18:03:41 »
I have noticed that when you drop the blue luminance to darken a clear blue sky, in Photo Ninja there is usually less of the telltale white mask line around adjacent objects in the shot than with Adobe(Lightroom in my case.)
Also, the effect of the Photo Ninja midtone contrast control, which PN calls "Detail", is very different than the Adobe "Clarity" control.  Both are good.  Some enterprising raw converter developer should add both effects to their toolset.
Finally, if you shoot Fujifilm X cameras, PN generates distinctly sharper fine detail from the X-files than Adobe.  It makes a a difference on larger prints, if finest detail is desired.
Keith B., Santa Monica, CA, USA