One Reason for Improved Pics

Alfred Molon wrote:

>But... if you shoot RAW, why does the colour temperature setting of the
>camera matter?


If I had access to PhotoShop it wouldn't.

My screen reader is incapable of reading even the basic menu
system in PhotoShop, Canon's Digital Photo Professional, or
other graphic utils. It does provide minimal functionality
with IrfanView, but about all I can do there is crop, rotate
and resize, as well as minor sharpening and brightness
adjustments.

I don't ask sighted people to colour match for me, since there
are ways of getting the colour right in the camera, and that
is the method I choose to use. It gives me a better claim to
the images being mine, as opposed to my images as reworked by
somebody else.

Take Care,
Dudley
 >> Stay informed about: One Reason for Improved Pics 

On Sun, 13 Mar 2011 14:27:44 -0500, Dudley Hanks
wrote:
: As noted in an earlier post, I've been happy with improvements in
: my work, after the addition of the high-end wireless flash
: system.
:
: I think one reason is the communication of light temperature info
: between the camera and the flash units.
:
: Just prior to picking up the new flash units, I picked up a
: Wallace Expodisk and noticed a similar improvement in existing
: light shots, with the colours coming out richer and
: deeper.
:
: Without knowing a lot about the internals of these systems, or
: even of setting colour temps with the custom settings, it appears
: that a minor variation in the temp can significantly impact a
: shot. Hence, when set to the auto colour setting, or even one of
: the single modes like shade, daylight or flourescent, a pic might
: not look its best due to the minor difference in what the camera
: might consider "cloudy" and what the actual temp
: is.
:
: When shooting film, I never noticed that much of a difference.
: Different "daylight" films were available, but once you found one
: that produced results you liked, it seemed to compensate for
: those limited shifts fairly well. I know I spent more time using
: colour filters in the dark room to match variations in lens
: coatings than matching colour temps.
:
: Even when shooting concerts, whatever tungsten film was my
: current choice seemed to work well for any number of lights a
: given band might be using.
:
: Is this because sensors are more sensitive to light temperature
: differences than film? Or is it in the processing?
:
: Appreciate hearing the ideas of others on this
: subject...

I suspect that it's mostly that we've learned to be a lot more critical of
minor variations than we could afford to be in the film days.

Bob
 >> Stay informed about: One Reason for Improved Pics 

Robert Coe wrote:
>On Sun, 13 Mar 2011 14:27:44 -0500, Dudley Hanks
>wrote:
>: As noted in an earlier post, I've been happy with improvements in
>: my work, after the addition of the high-end wireless flash
>: system.
>:
>: I think one reason is the communication of light temperature info
>: between the camera and the flash units.
>:
>: Just prior to picking up the new flash units, I picked up a
>: Wallace Expodisk and noticed a similar improvement in existing
>: light shots, with the colours coming out richer and
>: deeper.
>:
>: Without knowing a lot about the internals of these systems, or
>: even of setting colour temps with the custom settings, it appears
>: that a minor variation in the temp can significantly impact a
>: shot. Hence, when set to the auto colour setting, or even one of
>: the single modes like shade, daylight or flourescent, a pic might
>: not look its best due to the minor difference in what the camera
>: might consider "cloudy" and what the actual temp
>: is.
>:
>: When shooting film, I never noticed that much of a difference.
>: Different "daylight" films were available, but once you found one
>: that produced results you liked, it seemed to compensate for
>: those limited shifts fairly well. I know I spent more time using
>: colour filters in the dark room to match variations in lens
>: coatings than matching colour temps.
>:
>: Even when shooting concerts, whatever tungsten film was my
>: current choice seemed to work well for any number of lights a
>: given band might be using.
>:
>: Is this because sensors are more sensitive to light temperature
>: differences than film? Or is it in the processing?
>:
>: Appreciate hearing the ideas of others on this
>: subject...
>
>I suspect that it's mostly that we've learned to be a lot more critical of
>minor variations than we could afford to be in the film days.


That thought did cross my mind. I was thinking back to
comments I've heard as my wife and kids have watched TV shows,
looked through an old set of encyclopedias we have or perused
old family albums. In most cases there were comments about
things looking like they came from such and such time period.


Being the curious type, every now and then I've asked why
things look like they're from the '60s, '70s or '80s,
depending of course on what was being viewed.


Often, the answer was that the subject had that "technicolor
look," "Kodak look" or something similar.

At the time, using the latest technology of the day, things
seemed to look so "natural." Perhaps they didn't, and perhaps
in another 20 or 30 years, our bright digital pics won't be as
crisp and clear as we now think they appear.

Something to ponder...

Take Care,
Dudley
 >> Stay informed about: One Reason for Improved Pics 

Dudley Hanks wrote:
> As noted in an earlier post, I've been happy with improvements in
> my work, after the addition of the high-end wireless flash
> system.
>
> I think one reason is the communication of light temperature info
> between the camera and the flash units.
>
> Just prior to picking up the new flash units, I picked up a
> Wallace Expodisk and noticed a similar improvement in existing
> light shots, with the colours coming out richer and
> deeper.
>
> Without knowing a lot about the internals of these systems, or
> even of setting colour temps with the custom settings, it appears
> that a minor variation in the temp can significantly impact a
> shot. Hence, when set to the auto colour setting, or even one of
> the single modes like shade, daylight or flourescent, a pic might
> not look its best due to the minor difference in what the camera
> might consider "cloudy" and what the actual temp
> is.
>
> When shooting film, I never noticed that much of a difference.
> Different "daylight" films were available, but once you found one
> that produced results you liked, it seemed to compensate for
> those limited shifts fairly well. I know I spent more time using
> colour filters in the dark room to match variations in lens
> coatings than matching colour temps.
>
> Even when shooting concerts, whatever tungsten film was my
> current choice seemed to work well for any number of lights a
> given band might be using.
>
> Is this because sensors are more sensitive to light temperature
> differences than film? Or is it in the processing?
>
> Appreciate hearing the ideas of others on this
> subject...
>
> Take Care,
> Dudley

I suspect the reason film prints were not so sensitive to incorrect
lighting is because the processor made the corrections for you before
printing.
Bob Williams
 >> Stay informed about: One Reason for Improved Pics 

Dudley Hanks wrote:
> As noted in an earlier post, I've been happy with improvements in
> my work, after the addition of the high-end wireless flash
> system.
>
> I think one reason is the communication of light temperature info
> between the camera and the flash units.
>
> Just prior to picking up the new flash units, I picked up a
> Wallace Expodisk and noticed a similar improvement in existing
> light shots, with the colours coming out richer and
> deeper.
>
> Without knowing a lot about the internals of these systems, or
> even of setting colour temps with the custom settings, it appears
> that a minor variation in the temp can significantly impact a
> shot. Hence, when set to the auto colour setting, or even one of
> the single modes like shade, daylight or flourescent, a pic might
> not look its best due to the minor difference in what the camera
> might consider "cloudy" and what the actual temp
> is.
>
> When shooting film, I never noticed that much of a difference.
> Different "daylight" films were available, but once you found one
> that produced results you liked, it seemed to compensate for
> those limited shifts fairly well. I know I spent more time using
> colour filters in the dark room to match variations in lens
> coatings than matching colour temps.
>
> Even when shooting concerts, whatever tungsten film was my
> current choice seemed to work well for any number of lights a
> given band might be using.
>
> Is this because sensors are more sensitive to light temperature
> differences than film? Or is it in the processing?
>
> Appreciate hearing the ideas of others on this
> subject...

Our eyes/brain compensate and also expect certain colours
so I think that has a lot to do with it.
Regarding concerts I don;t think it really matters regarding colour
balance
and it's constantly changing due to lighting effects .

>
> Take Care,
> Dudley
 >> Stay informed about: One Reason for Improved Pics 

bobwilliams wrote:
>Dudley Hanks wrote:
>> As noted in an earlier post, I've been happy with improvements in
>> my work, after the addition of the high-end wireless flash
>> system.
>>
>> I think one reason is the communication of light temperature info
>> between the camera and the flash units.
>>
>> Just prior to picking up the new flash units, I picked up a
>> Wallace Expodisk and noticed a similar improvement in existing
>> light shots, with the colours coming out richer and
>> deeper.
>>
>> Without knowing a lot about the internals of these systems, or
>> even of setting colour temps with the custom settings, it appears
>> that a minor variation in the temp can significantly impact a
>> shot. Hence, when set to the auto colour setting, or even one of
>> the single modes like shade, daylight or flourescent, a pic might
>> not look its best due to the minor difference in what the camera
>> might consider "cloudy" and what the actual temp
>> is.
>>
>> When shooting film, I never noticed that much of a difference.
>> Different "daylight" films were available, but once you found one
>> that produced results you liked, it seemed to compensate for
>> those limited shifts fairly well. I know I spent more time using
>> colour filters in the dark room to match variations in lens
>> coatings than matching colour temps.
>>
>> Even when shooting concerts, whatever tungsten film was my
>> current choice seemed to work well for any number of lights a
>> given band might be using.
>>
>> Is this because sensors are more sensitive to light temperature
>> differences than film? Or is it in the processing?
>>
>> Appreciate hearing the ideas of others on this
>> subject...
>>
>> Take Care,
>> Dudley
>
>I suspect the reason film prints were not so sensitive to incorrect
>lighting is because the processor made the corrections for you before
>printing.
>Bob Williams
>


Actually, not in my case. I had my own colour darkroom and
did my own processing.

I still have the enlarger (complete with colour head) and
processor mothballed in the basement.

Take Care,
Dudley
 >> Stay informed about: One Reason for Improved Pics 

Dudley Hanks wrote in


> Robert Coe wrote:



>>I suspect that it's mostly that we've learned to be a lot more critical
>>of minor variations than we could afford to be in the film days.

>
> That thought did cross my mind. I was thinking back to
> comments I've heard as my wife and kids have watched TV shows,
> looked through an old set of encyclopedias we have or perused
> old family albums. In most cases there were comments about
> things looking like they came from such and such time period.
>
>
> Being the curious type, every now and then I've asked why
> things look like they're from the '60s, '70s or '80s,
> depending of course on what was being viewed.
>
>
> Often, the answer was that the subject had that "technicolor
> look," "Kodak look" or something similar.

The theory of what formulation of chemical compositions made the desired
pictures of the time, I guess. Each had their 'secret' formula and
trademarked their characteristics so that they became marketable and
discernible to those who looked at each kind. Few formulations were
offered so that it would have been like a Baskin Robbins with only a couple
of flavors offered. Everybody could see the subtle differences without
exactly describing what they were.

There's also the time factor of chemical based pictures changing their
appearance with age. More on that later.


>
> At the time, using the latest technology of the day, things
> seemed to look so "natural." Perhaps they didn't, and perhaps
> in another 20 or 30 years, our bright digital pics won't be as
> crisp and clear as we now think they appear.

Glad that digital, is at least based upon a discretely non-changing
definition, so that in theory at least it will never change with age.
Meanwhile, those aging chemically-based photos will change over time. I'm
thinking about those museum artworks that curators forbid flash-
photography, because of the light itself infitessimally destroying the
pigmentation for each flash taken.

I expect the latest improvements will come from better sensory technology
and signal processing combined with information storage technology. The
improvements will come with faster speeds for all, I'd expect.

The next best thing will be when photoelectric sensors can emulate the
human perception of viewing. Maybe it'll be a curved surface instead of a
flat one. i.e. there'll be much less lens distortions and viginetting
caused by making a focused image on a curvilinear plane. Monitors will
become curvilinear instead of flat. Lenses and sensors will become smaller
sized, and subsequently more versatile to viewing things 'as they appear'
rather than 'as the equipment sees it' (depth of field becoming closer to
human perception and changing the way light is 'counted' at the sensory
level). Perhaps there will be some kind of chemical based technological
advance, such as what more closely happens in RL picture viewing - adding
the equivalent of cones to the rods in the sensor.


Whatever the improvement will be, it will come when speeds get even faster
and multiple exposures will become mergeable into a single picture of much
better, seamless quality. Think improved dynamic range.


Then again, maybe the perception of sight is just another optical illusion
created from our eyes and brain integrating continuous pictures together
seamlessly to form a coherent picture. Also of note, is that in terms of
picture printing, there'll be no curved paper to print it on.

<laughs>


--
__
SneakyP
To email me, you know what to do.

Supernews, if you get a complaint from a Jamie Baillie, please see:
http://www.canadianisp.ca/jamie_baillie.html
 >> Stay informed about: One Reason for Improved Pics 

SneakyP wrote:

>Dudley Hanks wrote in
>
>
>> Robert Coe wrote:
>
>
>
>>>I suspect that it's mostly that we've learned to be a lot more critical
>>>of minor variations than we could afford to be in the film days.
>
>>
>> That thought did cross my mind. I was thinking back to
>> comments I've heard as my wife and kids have watched TV shows,
>> looked through an old set of encyclopedias we have or perused
>> old family albums. In most cases there were comments about
>> things looking like they came from such and such time period.
>>
>>
>> Being the curious type, every now and then I've asked why
>> things look like they're from the '60s, '70s or '80s,
>> depending of course on what was being viewed.
>>
>>
>> Often, the answer was that the subject had that "technicolor
>> look," "Kodak look" or something similar.
>
>The theory of what formulation of chemical compositions made the desired
>pictures of the time, I guess. Each had their 'secret' formula and
>trademarked their characteristics so that they became marketable and
>discernible to those who looked at each kind. Few formulations were
>offered so that it would have been like a Baskin Robbins with only a couple
>of flavors offered. Everybody could see the subtle differences without
>exactly describing what they were.
>
>There's also the time factor of chemical based pictures changing their
>appearance with age. More on that later.
>
>
>>
>> At the time, using the latest technology of the day, things
>> seemed to look so "natural." Perhaps they didn't, and perhaps
>> in another 20 or 30 years, our bright digital pics won't be as
>> crisp and clear as we now think they appear.
>
>Glad that digital, is at least based upon a discretely non-changing
>definition, so that in theory at least it will never change with age.
>Meanwhile, those aging chemically-based photos will change over time. I'm
>thinking about those museum artworks that curators forbid flash-
>photography, because of the light itself infitessimally destroying the
>pigmentation for each flash taken.
>
>I expect the latest improvements will come from better sensory technology
>and signal processing combined with information storage technology. The
>improvements will come with faster speeds for all, I'd expect.
>
> The next best thing will be when photoelectric sensors can emulate the
>human perception of viewing. Maybe it'll be a curved surface instead of a
>flat one. i.e. there'll be much less lens distortions and viginetting
>caused by making a focused image on a curvilinear plane. Monitors will
>become curvilinear instead of flat. Lenses and sensors will become smaller
>sized, and subsequently more versatile to viewing things 'as they appear'
>rather than 'as the equipment sees it' (depth of field becoming closer to
>human perception and changing the way light is 'counted' at the sensory
>level). Perhaps there will be some kind of chemical based technological
>advance, such as what more closely happens in RL picture viewing - adding
>the equivalent of cones to the rods in the sensor.
>
>
>Whatever the improvement will be, it will come when speeds get even faster
>and multiple exposures will become mergeable into a single picture of much
>better, seamless quality. Think improved dynamic range.
>
>
>Then again, maybe the perception of sight is just another optical illusion
>created from our eyes and brain integrating continuous pictures together
>seamlessly to form a coherent picture. Also of note, is that in terms of
>picture printing, there'll be no curved paper to print it on.
>
><laughs>
>


Wireless transmission direct to the brain?

But, even then, end results would be subject to experience
and interpretation ...

Take Care,
Dudley
 >> Stay informed about: One Reason for Improved Pics